Open carry: Too many guns on the street??

[blackangst1]

Are you in favor of allowing open carry to remain?

Yes. And although I own a few firearms and live in an open carry state, I never carry outside my house, unless Im going out into the desert or the range.

 

[ondma]

I'm a very strong 2A supporter for various reasons, but I'm pretty convinced that it'll be repealed before long, as Americans are no longer capable of handling that right without shooting ourselves to death. Apparently we're a big fucking pile of babies, completely incapable of rational action without everything being taken care of for us, so it's probably best for us to just be locked in our homes until the singularity comes.

There has to be a middle ground though. I just dont get the absolute sanctity of the Bill of Rights, that they are not open to interpretation. They were not handed down on stone tablets from God. They were written by human beings in the context of the time they were living. At the time they were written, weapons were single shot muzzle loaders. Is it so horrible to think that the second amendment needs to be interpreted in the light of 30 plus round magazine assault rifles that fire as fast as one can pull the trigger, or even modified for full auto?

 

[HomerJS]

Yes. And although I own a few firearms and live in an open carry state, I never carry outside my house, unless Im going out into the desert or the range.

Then I will ask you the question in the OP. You are a cop, what do you do?

 

[blackangst1]

Then I will ask you the question in the OP. You are a cop, what do you do?

No Im not a cop. Im a network security engineer.

 

[HomerJS]

No Im not a cop. Im a network security engineer.

Use your common sense and or intelligence. An educated guess. When arriving on the scene how do you distinguish good guys from bad guys?

 

[blackangst1]

Use your common sense and or intelligence. An educated guess. When arriving on the scene how do you distinguish good guys from bad guys?

Other than obvious physical behavior? You cant, really.

 

[HomerJS]

Other than obvious physical behavior? You cant, really.

I agree most of the time you can't. Then why would you want that kind of scenario to exist in the first place?

We have real world examples, the latest in Kenosha. Remember the story of the black security guard holding a shooter? Police showed up and killed the black security guard.

We do not need open carry. It worries me more because when the police show up black people are the first suspects.

 

[blackangst1]

I agree most of the time you can't. Then why would you want that kind of scenario to exist in the first place?

We have real world examples, the latest in Kenosha. Remember the story of the black security guard holding a shooter? Police showed up and killed the black security guard.

We do not need open carry. It worries me more because when the police show up black people are the first suspects.

My opinion is IF someone is carrying, I want to know. But Im especially paranoid. And yes, things can go wrong. But there are also anecdotal stories of legal gun owners stopping bad guys, too.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Use your common sense and or intelligence. An educated guess. When arriving on the scene how do you distinguish good guys from bad guys?

I can tell you how we did it in the Army, it was through extensive training on de-escalation and threat assessment. In the Balkans, there was no shortage of guns and no good guys...so we were taught how to approach volatile situations, how to leverage interpreters, how to engage the community, how to scan a crowd for ringleaders...odd that we can figure out how do this in combat zones and foreign countries but not our own cities.

 

[blackangst1]

I can tell you how we did it in the Army, it was through extensive training on de-escalation and threat assessment. In the Balkans, there was no shortage of guns and no good guys...so we were taught how to approach volatile situations, how to leverage interpreters, how to engage the community, how to scan a crowd for ringleaders...odd that we can figure out how do this in combat zones and foreign countries but not our own cities.

Easy answer is the military is trained far more extensively than police (for the most part) and citizens.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Easy answer is the military is trained far more extensively than police (for the most part) and citizens.

It is also true that we hold our solders up to higher standards and our military emphasize discipline and adherence to the rules.

 

[HomerJS]

Easy answer is the military is trained far more extensively than police (for the most part) and citizens.

Posse comitatus says that is off the table

 

[blackangst1]

Yes. And although I own a few firearms and live in an open carry state, I never carry outside my house, unless Im going out into the desert or the range.

I guess I need to clarify this. I occasionally carry concealed, but not often. I personally wouldnt open carry for a variety of reasons. First, if Im carrying, its my ace in the hole. Thats taken away if I open carry. Second, it would be easier for someone to disarm me if I open carry, as they can quickly come up with a plan. Third, guns make many people uncomfortable, and may change the way they interact with me. Thats a big negative. And finally, if its IN my pants, Im less likely to lose control of it, snag it on something, etc.

So, although Im for open carry, I think its less safe than concealed, and its just a dumb thing to do.

 

[blackangst1]

It is also true that we hold our solders up to higher standards and our military emphasize discipline and adherence to the rules.

Exactly.

 

[blackangst1]

Posse comitatus says that is off the table

Well, yes, but that wasnt my point. My point is, and always has been in these discussions, training is the biggest and most realistic approach to reduce gun fatalities.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Posse comitatus says that is off the table

I don't think he meant that we should use the military as police, I think he was saying that we should train our police more. Something I think we can all agree with.

 

[Muse]

So. If you see a white dude in the street with a long gun looking like a retarded wannabe operator you either run for your life or shoot first? Thats the lesson?

This 17 YO kid said he was doing his job. Yeah, running around with a military style rifle, he basically saw himself as a law and order maintenance professional. This is the culture we have here in America. Guns, guns and more guns. Check out the culture of teens all over the place who can't wait to kill something with their guns (and they get guns because it's part of their upbringing, their parents and general family culture embraces gun ownership). Usually it's birds, or starts with birds. It's pervasive in America. Turn on your TV, you can't avoid it unless you work at it.

 

[Starbuck1975]

It is also true that we hold our solders up to higher standards and our military emphasize discipline and adherence to the rules.

Shouldn’t we expect the same of our police?

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

There has to be a middle ground though. I just dont get the absolute sanctity of the Bill of Rights, that they are not open to interpretation. They were not handed down on stone tablets from God. They were written by human beings in the context of the time they were living. At the time they were written, weapons were single shot muzzle loaders. Is it so horrible to think that the second amendment needs to be interpreted in the light of 30 plus round magazine assault rifles that fire as fast as one can pull the trigger, or even modified for full auto?

My simple opinion, as a defender of 2A.

The purpose of the 2A was to give the citizenry a chance to overthrow a hostile/despot government. Secondarily, it was intended to give individuals the chance to defend themselves against stronger individuals (no individual 'might makes right'), as well as more simple things such as home defense and hunting for food. To maintain the intent of the 2A, it necessitates that all individuals have access to the same arms, and that those arms are identical to what the military is capable of deploying. I do not know how to normalize this with things such as nerve agents, napalm, cruise missiles, and of course, nuclear weaponry. If one cannot accept things such as that in the hands of citizenry, then I think semi-automatic, reliable, easily manufactured, assembled, and capable of firing a widely available round which can reliably kill one or more humans is probably the middle ground. To disarm the populace is to welcome an authoritarian regime. One must be willing to accept the deaths of innocents due to certain individuals deciding to kill a bunch of people in order to maintain the ability to enact the intent of the 2A. Basically, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of innocents, far more often than the blood of tyrants.

To give some rationality to the above, I personally consider authoritarian regimes the number 1 existential crisis of the current era. Number 2 being climate change. Number 3 is a distant third, and I'd have to think on what I gave a shit enough to consider to be an existential crisis... I dunno, loss of all bees or something.

I accept that most people do not think the same way I do, and I respect anyone's opinion that the above is absolutely retarded.

 

[NostaSeronx]

All I think is how will the white extremists in congress will criminalize the un-white more. If the guns in the street becomes illegal. It will be used adversely against the un-white first before the whites have to get rid of theirs.

Guess we will need more federal prisons.

 

[ivwshane]

I can tell you how we did it in the Army, it was through extensive training on de-escalation and threat assessment. In the Balkans, there was no shortage of guns and no good guys...so we were taught how to approach volatile situations, how to leverage interpreters, how to engage the community, how to scan a crowd for ringleaders...odd that we can figure out how do this in combat zones and foreign countries but not our own cities.

I thought all you needed to deescalate was to employ old military equipment and now you are telling me there is more to it than simply how to use such equipment? What a crazy world we live in!

 

[ivwshane]

My simple opinion, as a defender of 2A.

The purpose of the 2A was to give the citizenry a chance to overthrow a hostile/despot government. Secondarily, it was intended to give individuals the chance to defend themselves against stronger individuals (no individual 'might makes right'), as well as more simple things such as home defense and hunting for food. To maintain the intent of the 2A, it necessitates that all individuals have access to the same arms, and that those arms are identical to what the military is capable of deploying. I do not know how to normalize this with things such as nerve agents, napalm, cruise missiles, and of course, nuclear weaponry. If one cannot accept things such as that in the hands of citizenry, then I think semi-automatic, reliable, easily manufactured, assembled, and capable of firing a widely available round which can reliably kill one or more humans is probably the middle ground. To disarm the populace is to welcome an authoritarian regime. One must be willing to accept the deaths of innocents due to certain individuals deciding to kill a bunch of people in order to maintain the ability to enact the intent of the 2A. Basically, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of innocents, far more often than the blood of tyrants.

To give some rationality to the above, I personally consider authoritarian regimes the number 1 existential crisis of the current era. Number 2 being climate change. Number 3 is a distant third, and I'd have to think on what I gave a shit enough to consider to be an existential crisis... I dunno, loss of all bees or something.

I accept that most people do not think the same way I do, and I respect anyone's opinion that the above is absolutely retarded.

Good god what horse shit!! I’ve already debunked most of your opinion in one of my previous posts but your last claim is easily debunked as well. We are the most heavily armed country in the world and we are on the cusp of losing our democracy to an authoritarian. Your guns don’t stop authoritarians, they enable them.

The reason you can’t figure out how to normalize the disparity in weapons access is because it doesn’t work (although you can check with former communist countries to see how your interpretation works).

Democracy doesn’t work when it’s held at gun point.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I thought all you needed to deescalate was employ old military equipment and now you are telling me there is more to it than simply how to use such equipment? What a crazy world we live in!

On this topic, you and I agree. It’s absurd that we arm our police as combatants.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Good god what horse shit!! I’ve already debunked most of your opinion in one of my previous posts but your last claim is easily debunked as well. We are the most heavily armed country in the world and we are on the cusp of losing our democracy to an authoritarian. Your guns don’t stop authoritarians, they enable them.

The reason you can’t figure out how to normalize the disparity in weapons access is because it doesn’t work (although you can check with former communist countries to see how your interpretation works).

Democracy doesn’t work when it’s held at gun point.

Ease down dude, damn. I'm not your enemy. Guns are available to authoritarians regardless of whether the citizenry have. It just so has it that now you have fucking little hair turds of conservatives that seem to think they need to shoot at rando civilians because their ideal of the bestest nation in the whole world doesn't include darkies or civil protest. So that's why I said we're basically a big bag of babies, and are probably going to get our toys taken away from us before terribly long.

OUR democracy was borne at gunpoint. You may be right in that it doesn't work any more, I don't know. I'm not a history major, nor do I study current events and current American social climate from an empirical standpoint. Just observations.

 

[ivwshane]

Ease down dude, damn. I'm not your enemy. Guns are available to authoritarians regardless of whether the citizenry have. It just so has it that now you have fucking little hair turds of conservatives that seem to think they need to shoot at rando civilians because their ideal of the bestest nation in the whole world doesn't include darkies or civil protest. So that's why I said we're basically a big bag of babies, and are probably going to get our toys taken away from us before terribly long.

OUR democracy was borne at gunpoint. You may be right in that it doesn't work any more, I don't know. I'm not a history major, nor do I study current events and current American social climate from an empirical standpoint. Just observations.

But that’s always been the problem, the wrong people always seem to be the ones that are armed more than than anyone else. Might makes right, except it doesn’t.

The founding fathers understood this which is why they were implicit in giving states and congress the ability to put down rebellions and insurrections. Making the purpose of the 2nd to be able to overthrow the government completely contradicts article 1 section 8.

You want to know how you preserve democracy and guard against authoritarianism? By having an educated and engaged populace, by making is easier for citizens to participate, not make is harder like we’ve been doing for decades.