Open Carry

[randmplumbingllc]

Once again, how does the 2nd amendment support open carry? I carry concealed. I have additional armament at home. Where has my right to bear arms been infringed?

Where does the right to bear arms equal open carry?

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

What do you take that to mean ? Do you think that the founding fathers really said "...the right of the people to keep and CHL, shall not be infringed" ? Do you really think that they only were only talking about bearing arms in your home ?

I guess this will all be settled when the Chicago v. case gets heard by the Supreme Court.

YOUR rights are not being infringed upon, in YOUR opinion. There are OTHER PEOPLE in this country that can't or don't want to conceal or can't afford it. Why should THEY not be afforded the same protection that you are ? AND, if open carry is not for you, then why not let the people who wish to, the freedom to do so ? Why not say , "to each their own" ? How does it hurt you ?

I promise, to Gods ear, I am done with this post. D O N E !

 

[APatriot]

My friend,

I still present and stand by my previous arguments about the drug dealer and probable cause and a whole host of other problems with it. So yes I do still have a few problems with open carry, I just wanted to point out that particular thing. But I'm still not going libertarian extremist. Just a constitutional conservative. LOL!

I too have problems with open carry which is why I am questioning its purpose and value. Just to "open carry" without any constraint at this point borders on an anarchistic tendency on the part of some. Again, I would support open carry if one is licensed to conceal carry. Why? Because there has at least been a minimum of competency established. For all to consider: our beloved founding fathers created a constiution and a bill of rights to promote and safeguard our individual liberty and freedom within the confines of a civil society. That is what I support. Unfortunately, since the New Deal we have gradually over the years, and now rapidly, been moving toward collectivism which is anti-liberty and freedom. I respect what you call a constitutional conservative. I am simply a Patriot and a Bircher.

 

[APatriot]

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

What do you take that to mean ? Do you think that the founding fathers really said "...the right of the people to keep and CHL, shall not be infringed" ? Do you really think that they only were only talking about bearing arms in your home ?

I guess this will all be settled when the Chicago v. case gets heard by the Supreme Court.

YOUR rights are not being infringed upon, in YOUR opinion. There are OTHER PEOPLE in this country that can't or don't want to conceal or can't afford it. Why should THEY not be afforded the same protection that you are ? AND, if open carry is not for you, then why not let the people who wish to, the freedom to do so ? Why not say , "to each their own" ? How does it hurt you ?

I promise, to Gods ear, I am done with this post. D O N E !

I have addressed the issue before as to affordability. I would support a waiver of fee to help others access a license. Yet, if one "can't" conceal, that begs me to question their suitability. If one "doesn't" want to conceal, that begs me to question why would they be interested in open carry in the first place.

 

[eriadoc]

Once again, besides the constitutionality argument, I have yet to read one sound argument for open carry. Yes, it may be a RIGHT, but does anyone have any other argument for open carry vs. concealed carry?

I don't.

I gave you at least three sound arguments before that you haven't debunked at all.

 

[APatriot]

I gave you at least three sound arguments before that you haven't debunked at all.

I must have missed them. Sorry. Could you provide again. Thx.

 

[eriadoc]

Again, I would support open carry if one is licensed to conceal carry. Why? Because there has at least been a minimum of competency established.

Then why not just approach it like the Swiss do? Require everyone to maintain a firearm and require proficiency training. If we're going to legislate, I'd rather not see legislation that takes away from our rights. There are always multiple ways to solve a problem, but the government only wants to enact those methods that infringe upon our rights.

 

[texas_teacher]

I must have missed them. Sorry. Could you provide again. Thx.

I believe I heard this argument as a kid...

The novel ideas go round and round... Round and round... Round and Round... The novel ideas go round and round... To the point of redundancy...

Ok maybe it's not the same as when we were kids but it is the 21st century...

 

[eriadoc]

I must have missed them. Sorry. Could you provide again. Thx.

Sure thing.

There shouldn't have to be any argument aside from it's our inalienable right (only the Feds have Constitutional rights). But here are a couple things for your consideration:

1.) Good guys shouldn't have to skulk around, concealing their weapons. They are in the right and should have no issues whatsoever wearing a gun on their hip. In times past, it was the bad guys that hid their guns, just as they hid their intentions.

2.)Think about this - when you are on your own private property, you can carry openly or any way you so desire. Now, that seems intuitive enough, but when you really dissect it, all it really means is that you get to decide who the good guys and bad guys are, and you take responsibility for your own safety. So denial of that right when you're in public really only means that the government is taking that decision from you and deciding themselves who is a bad guy and who isn't. So first of all, when has the government ever decided jack correctly? Second, the mere act of stepping off your property with a pistol on your hip makes you a bad guy in the eyes of the government, despite what the Founders laid out as your inalienable right to keep and bear arms. Taking away my rights "for my own good" has a weird way of pissing me off in a special kind of way. It has nothing to do with being a cowboy and everything to do with being a responsible adult that fiercely defends my independence and responsibility to secure my own person. Finally, your willing abdication of that right doesn't do much more than inconvenience the bad guys, while absolutely prohibiting the good guys, which is point #3 ....

3.) Attempting to regulate anything in this country has never done anything but inconvenience the bad guys and prohibit the good guys. Instead of trying to prohibit things, make the consequences prohibitive. Preying upon an armed populace has prohibitive consequences. Preying upon a disarmed populace is just easy pickin'.

Sometimes in a truly free society, people are going to do things you just don't like. As long as they aren't harming anyone, then you just have to live with it. If they're harming someone/society, then you have to make the consequences prohibitive. Open carry doesn't harm a soul.

One of the many problems in our country is that too many people have taken up crusading for behavior modification.

See, to me that's where we ought to be legislating. Everyone ought to be trained to use a firearm (potential militia duties). I'd much rather go the Swiss route and have every household required to keep and maintain a firearm and require training for said firearm.

 

[APatriot]

Then why not just approach it like the Swiss do? Require everyone to maintain a firearm and require proficiency training. If we're going to legislate, I'd rather not see legislation that takes away from our rights. There are always multiple ways to solve a problem, but the government only wants to enact those methods that infringe upon our rights.

It is more than just proficiency. What about mental state, drug use, criminality...just to name a few. Should those who live under the overpasses open carry a firearm? Should those strung out on coke open carry? Without some legislation to offset the above, would we not be advocating anarchy?

 

[biglucky]

ROFL @ the threadnaught...

As far as I am concerned anyone who states that they are pro second amendment and anti open carry are guilty of the same hypocrisy that the liberals and statists in Mark Levin's book that you keep pointing at trying to look like you are smarter than everyone else while making a plain stupid argument. I don't want to insult you, I merely call it as I see it. There have been many points made in this threadnaught that you just chose to ignore, but in the end the only thing that matters is that it is my right to keep and bear arms and nobody has the right to tell me how to do it. Your licensing argument is somewhat valid, but just like today plenty of people who are not able to legally purchase a firearm carry one concealed, what makes you think that it would change in any way with open carry??

Anyway, like the plumbing guy said above I am so done posting in this thread for the sake of the few that either are just utterly stubborn or feel like arguing for fun....

 

[APatriot]

Where in the 2nd amendment does it specifiy open carry as a right? As a CHL, I am bearing arms.

Your comment about concealment is a "straw man". I prefer concealment as a tactical advantage and a low profile mentality, yet at the same time, I can protect myself and others.

Concealment provides me the "tool" to secure my person as would open carry. Therefore, your point is a non-starter.

Concealment prohibiting the good guys? From what?

 

[APatriot]

ROFL @ the threadnaught...

As far as I am concerned anyone who states that they are pro second amendment and anti open carry are guilty of the same hypocrisy that the liberals and statists in Mark Levin's book that you keep pointing at trying to look like you are smarter than everyone else while making a plain stupid argument. I don't want to insult you, I merely call it as I see it. There have been many points made in this threadnaught that you just chose to ignore, but in the end the only thing that matters is that it is my right to keep and bear arms and nobody has the right to tell me how to do it. Your licensing argument is somewhat valid, but just like today plenty of people who are not able to legally purchase a firearm carry one concealed, what makes you think that it would change in any way with open carry??

Anyway, like the plumbing guy said above I am so done posting in this thread for the sake of the few that either are just utterly stubborn or feel like arguing for fun....

I have answered the threads. You may not like my answers. Referring to me as a hypocrite and stupid, and then telling me you don't want to insult me, is sort of like let's shoot the messenger because we don't like the message, and then apologizing to the messenger after you have shot him...LOL. Sort of like the arguments, or lack thereof, as to open carry.....they are at this point simply conjecture and opinion wrapped around the 2nd amendment.

 

[eriadoc]

It is more than just proficiency. What about mental state, drug use, criminality...just to name a few. Should those who live under the overpasses open carry a firearm? Should those strung out on coke open carry? Without some legislation to offset the above, would we not be advocating anarchy?

See, this is the crux of the matter. You and every politician have the complete bass ackward paradigm. We have the right to bear arms (openly, concealed, in our vehicles, hanging from our ear, wherever) until we individually prove otherwise. Your paradigm seems to be no one has the right to bear arms unless they fill out forms, take classes, kiss ass, and stand on your head while facing east during the midnight hour of a blue moon.

We don't have to prove we're innocent, the government has to prove we're guilty. We don't have to prove we're capable of speaking our mind, the government has to prove we shouldn't. We don't have to give a reason why we shouldn't be searched at will, the government has to prove they have a real reason to search us. It's all about the paradigm.

Those who would give up a little liberty for a little security will lose both and deserve neither. - Benjamin Franklin

 

[eriadoc]

I have answered the threads.

Really? You chose one point I made to try and rebut, to which I replied above. You chose to ignore the other three bulleted points, as well as the general Harm Principle aspect. I anxiously await your response. Those points have very little to do with the 2nd amendment.

And since we mention the 2nd amendment so frequently, and since you recommended a book to me earlier, I'll recommend one to you - the Federalist Papers, by Alexander Hamilton. Of particular note are his objections to the establishment of the first ten amendments at all. But I don't want to threadjack, I suppose.

 

[jordanmills]

See, this is the crux of the matter. You and every politician have the complete bass ackward paradigm. We have the right to bear arms (openly, concealed, in our vehicles, hanging from our ear, wherever) until we individually prove otherwise. Your paradigm seems to be no one has the right to bear arms unless they fill out forms, take classes, kiss ass, and stand on your head while facing east during the midnight hour of a blue moon.

We don't have to prove we're innocent, the government has to prove we're guilty. We don't have to prove we're capable of speaking our mind, the government has to prove we shouldn't. We don't have to give a reason why we shouldn't be searched at will, the government has to prove they have a real reason to search us. It's all about the paradigm.

Those who would give up a little liberty for a little security will lose both and deserve neither. - Benjamin Franklin

You don't have your public speech license? How will you know how to speak in an acceptable fashion without your state-approved speaking course and licsense fee? I'm afraid I'll have to take you to jail.

 

[DCortez]

Where in the 2nd amendment does it specifiy open carry as a right?

Granted these are Frenchmen, but you get my point

 

[Harley Rider 55]

Where in the 2nd amendment does it specifiy open carry as a right? As a CHL, I am bearing arms.

Your comment about concealment is a "straw man". I prefer concealment as a tactical advantage and a low profile mentality, yet at the same time, I can protect myself and others.

Concealment provides me the "tool" to secure my person as would open carry. Therefore, your point is a non-starter.

Concealment prohibiting the good guys? From what?

Texans are free to open carry long guns.

 

[Skip]

Those who would give up a little liberty for a little security will lose both and deserve neither. - Benjamin Franklin

I like that quote... atriot:

 

[Fisherman777]

Then why not just approach it like the Swiss do? Require everyone to maintain a firearm and require proficiency training. If we're going to legislate, I'd rather not see legislation that takes away from our rights. There are always multiple ways to solve a problem, but the government only wants to enact those methods that infringe upon our rights.

I understand what you're saying. However, this is the same thing in the other direction. I support my neighbors right not to own a gun if he doesn't care to as long as he doesn't care if I want to. The idea that the gov should require everyone to do anything is such a slippery slope. It gives them the opportunity to require other things and on and on until we have no rights at all. It's getting there fast enough anyway.

Here's my view on open carry. It should be a choice. Say I'm in my home town and I'm going hunting or just out in the woods to hike or anything I want to be out in the woods for. I would like to open carry in that case. Having to conceal in addition to wearing cold weather clothes (layers) would be uncomfortable and difficult. I mean, if I'm hunting, I'm already carrying a long gun. What's the big deal if I have another gun. Is a short gun so differrent from a long one? Can a short gun kill better than a long one. Not by a "long shot"! Ahem... I want to not have to worry about open of concealed on my way to the woods as well as when I get there.

If I drive into a big town, I'll conceal. I get the tactical thing. I do get it. But, if someone that lives in that big town and knows the area wants to open carry, they should be allowed to. I hate living in big towns so I wouldn't even think of it.

Whether people open or conceal carry, I still think they should know the law and have at least some safety training (on their own) before they carry everywhere. Maybe a pamphlet with the sale of any gun. The salesman could say, "This is important. Read it." It would have the state gun laws, safety stuff and advice on how to find places to shoot for proficiency.

Enough laws! Enough infringement!

 

[Fisherman777]

And to me open carrying is not a display thing. It's an I don't care if they see it thing. That's different. Again, it depends on where I am. Familiar ground = (open carry or concealed) = comfort; Unfamiliar ground = (concealed) = uncomfortable, gun in pants or under shirt or jacket, etc...

I want the option.

Now, you can't be agin' that. Can you?