SpatiallyAware
Lifer
- Sep 7, 2009
- 12,960
- 3
- 0
MtnMan
Diamond Member
- Jul 27, 2004
- 9,437
- 8,843
- 136
The fact is there is a large segment of the population that has no desire to see people visibly carrying as a matter of habit. It's not going to suddenly change with more people trying to open carry, as the police chief says its only going to put up walls.
The best way to defend yourself is concealed carry & be alert of your surroundings. Open carrying in most of the country for the foreseeable future is just painting a big target on yourself for unwanted attention.
Ranting about pussies scared of guns or trying to go overboard in showing off your guns may feel satisfying but it sure as hell won't have any kind of positive effect. Eskimospy's survey showing % households owning a gun dropping from 50% (1970s) to 34% reinforces the fact that not as many people are going to be thrilled with open carrying.
The best way to defend yourself is concealed carry & be alert of your surroundings. Open carrying in most of the country for the foreseeable future is just painting a big target on yourself for unwanted attention.
Ranting about pussies scared of guns or trying to go overboard in showing off your guns may feel satisfying but it sure as hell won't have any kind of positive effect. Eskimospy's survey showing % households owning a gun dropping from 50% (1970s) to 34% reinforces the fact that not as many people are going to be thrilled with open carrying.
I will let you ponder on your comparison and the inherent differences between simply being a LGBT person and open carrying a gun. If you can't figure it out yourself I can follow up.
Please quote in the constitution where the right to be gay is guaranteed?
Right to keep and bear arms.
Not my fault that you want to prioritize one right over the other.
There was nothing in that amendment that specifically addressed being gay.
Eskimo, you're usually somewhat reasonable. Don't tell me you can't see my point. Nowhere in history has telling people not to be uppity about exercising their rights been appropriate. Not to the blacks, not to LBGTs, and not to gun owners.
Thebobo
Lifer
- Jun 19, 2006
- 18,574
- 7,672
- 136
If that's the analogy we are pursuing, should they need a license to be gay?
Please quote in the constitution where people's opinions should be controlled by the constitution?
People can hold judgements based on clothes, behavior, actions and just as easily hold opinions on inherent attributes - color/physical characteristics/sexual orientation etc. Society generally considers judging people on latent attributes to be more judgmental than judging people on actions they control.
You are comparing judging latent attributes with judging a person's action. As Eskimospy pointed out protesting funerals is constitutionally protected, but it will be judged. Open carrying a gun is legal in most of the country, yet it will be judged by the significant portion of the population that doesn't care to partake in that culture. Open carrying is not as offensive as screaming epithets at a funeral IMO, but it's just an example of a form of expression of constitutional rights being open to judgment.
I'm not promoting making a circus out of every open carry incident. I'm just stating that it's going to lend itself to unwanted attention in most of the country, and people making those judgments on a person's actions is not analogous to judging folks for latent characteristics such as homosexuality.
Yeah, a sure way to protect your rights is to...... not use them? Just because someone else has an irrational fear of something doesn't mean you should give up your constitutional rights.
The guy is well within his rights and should be able to do what he does without getting hassled.
Last edited:
Unless you are these guys, right??
We all know you're not the brightest bulb, but even a dim one such as yourself could see the difference between people who are actively trying to intimidate others (yelling obscenities, pointing at people, yelling at them etc) at a polling place where people are voting, versus someone who is not doing anything intimidating and is simply bearing arms in a perfectly legal way.
The idiots pictured were probably breaking all sorts of laws, while the guy in this story broke none.
You said gay people living together, which was freedom of association/assembly, not a right to be gay.
There are all sorts of cases where people are told not to 'exercise their rights in an uppity manner'. People have the freedom of speech and assembly but they are often required to obtain permits and registration in order to exercise that right in an ostentatious and/or disruptive way. In addition, there are all sorts of restrictions for how you can exercise those rights and TONS of people who will actively attempt to sanction you for that behavior. (like my original Fred Phelps thing)
I think this guy was perfectly in his rights to carry his gun around. I also think that people were perfectly within their rights to give him shit for acting like a jackass. Your right to do something does not immunize you from the consequences of exercising that right. It only protects you from government sanction, which was absent here. In this case, community sanction and other things of that sort are perfectly reasonable responses to deliberately antisocial behavior on this guy's part.
I frankly don't even see what the big deal is here:
- Asshole walks around town trying to provoke a reaction.
- Asshole gets his desired reaction.
- People complain about it despite this being totally obvious from the start.
I have no problem with people judging the actions of this guy. If you want to think he's an ass, I disagree with you, but that's not an issue. I have a problem with the idiots calling 911 and trying to get the guy arrested for doing absolutely nothing wrong, just because they have an irrational fear.
From what I saw in the video I don't consider the guy an ass. If he walked into a crowded grocery store like some have in the past then I'd be more inclined to call that a dick behavior.
I think people should look at the utility of carrying a gun. Large guns strapped to your back are great for going hunting, to the range, but they aren't going to be great for self defense. They are also generally going to draw attention in areas that large guns typically aren't used. All it takes is one dick to call the police and say you are threatening to kill people and a world of pain can descend on you.
The 2nd amendment isn't going to disappear if you don't carry shotguns to places they aren't traditionally used.
If I saw some guy walking down my street strapped with several guns I would call the cops too and I've been around more guns in my life than most. It is something out of the ordinary that has the potential to become harmful very quickly. I would want them to come by and see if everything is on the level. The idea that such a reaction is irrational is...well... irrational.
In some ways I agree that shaming assholes like this and highlighting their antisocial behavior is a better option, but I understand people's reluctance to go up and start verbally accosting someone who is heavily armed.
Artorias
Platinum Member
- Feb 8, 2014
- 2,281
- 1,598
- 136
Thank you, it is most certainly not an irrational reaction to call the cops.
I see a gun out, I let the authorities know, legal or not you don't take the chance its some nut looking to harm people. The world moved past the whole "wild west" days. Be civil about it and understand the world you live in.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter