I have made a relatively big deal of exposing the bigotry of anti-rights advocates at this webpage (a project that was inspired by Joe Huffman’s attempts to do the same), but I would be lying to say that supposed pro-rights activists are free of this baser intellectual shortcoming themselves.
The following blockquotes are from a single post on a thread regarding open carry in a forum I read and keep up with. All of these statements were written by the same author, and I omitted very little of the original post – a post wherein the author made it very clear that he is against open carry in almost all circumstances, simply because he disagrees with the concept. After each blockquote will be statements I do not at all support, but do sound very similar to what the post author said.
I have watched OC people walking around in public armed and for the most part, it seems they revel in making people around them uncomfortable.
“I have watched shooters at ranges blowing holes in person-shaped targets, and it seems they revel in the ability to kill people from a distance.”
Just because the law says you can really does not validate this. Ego is a much more realistic reason.
“Just because the law says you can own a gun really does not validate this. Ego is a much more realistic reason.”
There are places where OC is acceptable. Out in the field, on your land working, hunting, on the range, part of your job duties as an armed guard … even riding in a vehicle are some examples that have legitimacy.
“There are places where owning a gun is acceptable. Out in the country, farmers, people who have high-risk professions, police officers… even people who have known and documented threats against their lives are some examples that have legitimacy.”
The need to go out in public and feed the perception that one is armed and dangerous … don’t mess with me is a state of mind that needs to be questioned.
“The need to own a gun and feed the perception that Americans are armed and dangerous… anyone who would do such a thing needs to be willing to submit to a psychological test.”
As I mentioned in the second paragraph above, I do not agree with any of those statements in quotes and italics – they are there only to serve as an example of how this individual’s bigotry is not tremendously different than the bigotry exposed by anti-rights advocates like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence Ownership, MikeB302000, Laci the Bitch Dog, and others, on a daily basis. Likewise, many of those italicized comments could have gone entirely different directions, and still been valid – for example: “Just because the law says you can own a gun really does not validate this. Compensating for physical deficiencies below the belt-line is a much more realistic reason.”
One would think that individuals who have been on the receiving end of anti-rights advocates’ bigotry would then learn not to pass on that bigotry to other people who are on the same nominal side as them, but apparently we have as much work to do within our own ranks as we do with those who are obviously against us. As I mentioned before, it is a wonder we have made it this far, really, with supposed “friends” like the one who wrote the above blockquotes.
This is something I don’t get from gun owners — You shouldn’t do it because I don’t like it.
I probably won’t ever shot bench rest competitions because it seems to be more an exercise in buying equipment then in a shooter’s skill — but I support the heck out of people doing it.
It’s one thing to say I don’t like it, here is why.
This is just giving ammunition to the Anti-Rights Advocates.
If you had a quantifiable reason for not liking something, backed up with specific, historical examples, statistics, studies, or whatever-the-hell other facts you wanted to use, then I would be more than willing to sit down with you and consider them.
If the best you can bring to the table is a Brady-Bunch-style emotion-based “I feel” argument, then piss off, wanker, and let the adults talk.
Debating styles like that not only give ammunition to the anti-rights advocates, they emulate the anti-rights advocates, to the point where I am almost having a hard time seeing the difference – at this point, it just seems like a matter of scale.
Suffice to say, I finally abandoned that thread – this individual’s post was simply the easiest to quote, but it was far from being alone in either content or style. Unfortunately, that forum, on average, has never had a particularly “glowing” view of open carry, despite being a forum regarding one of the few states where it is legal. Wierd.
Linoge,
I think the is a big – huge –difference in not liking something and not wanting something practiced.
That is the problem I see with Open Carry. Those simply don’t like it often are the ones who don’t want it done. Not by them, not by anyone.
I think that you are referring to ‘not wanting something’ done in regards to having evidence, statistics, etc.
Simply not liking something is enough to not do it; better bring more to the table then emotion if you want me to stop doing it though.
Think we are saying the same thing, just different semantics
Ack, so, first, the “you” was more a generally-everyone “you”, and not a “Bob S.” kind of “you” – did not mean to sound like I was singling you out, if that is how it came across.
.
Also, in all honesty, I fully expect anyone who does not like something to have an explainable reason for it – I have a particular phobia of heights, but that is simply because I am an ungainly, klutzy futz who would fall off a ledge at a bare breeze. I also expect people to have fully-explainable, factual, rational reasons to support why they might not want something done, but given that the individual who wrote the above quotes was using his dislike of something as a basis for his not wanting something done, in this particular case, the two ideas are effectively the one and the same.
So, yeah, same basic idea, different way there
friends and enemies
Yesterday, I wrote about a particularly eggregious example of anti-open-carry bigotry, coming from within the ranks of firearm owners ourselves. I think I did a fairly decent job showing how the arguments put forward by that particular anti-open-carry …
Actually, the statements you show here are the statements I hear from supposedly progun people all of the time. IIRC, I have heard similar statements on this very blog, making that one of the few subjects where you and I disagree.
The people who advocate a business that is open to the public* being able to put up a sign and ban a person from carrying a concealed weapon use nearly identical arguments. It is hard for me to see how a person with a CONCEALED weapon is in any way harming a business owner, except “I don’t like it, so you can’t do it.”
(*Note that a residence, NOT being open to the public, is not in the same class as a business that IS. That is why fire codes, OSHA, ADA, and other laws also only apply to businesses.)
Welp, if you are going to make a claim like that, you might as well put up some specific examples – Lord knows every last post I have written here is available in its full, unedited form, and typically findable by that search function off to the left (though I need to work on how many returns that search function can display).
However, before you go digging, you should probably be aware that (property owner exerting his rights over his property) != (random schmuck off the street exerting non-existant powers over the population as a whole). As the saying goes, there is no “there” there.
A property owner deciding who he will or will not do business with is operating well within his personal rights, and more power to him – I do not necessarily have to do business with him, and if I do, I simply have to decide whether the inviobility of my rights, or my need to do business with him, takes priority. In his case, he can use whatever argument or rationale he so desires – it is his right.
However, a random-assed individual off the street has absolutely no right to tell other individuals how they should deport their lives, so long as they are not on the first individual’s property. As such, to even try ot make the argument that this particular individual was trying to make, I am going to hold him to a much higher standard, if I am going to even consider his argument at all (which I am not likely to, it was simply put here to expose his thought process… such as it was).
There is simply no comparison between property rights (being an extension of individual rights) and baseless totalitarian desires over other people in all facets of their lives. As such, based on the precedents involved, arguments that are wholly acceptable in one case have no value in the other.
So if what you are saying is that the right of a person deciding who he will do business with and will not do business with overrides all other rights, then a person should be free to put up a “No coloreds” sign in his restaurant, and that any colored person who then enters should be subject to imprisonment?
Or how about a business that has no fire protection system or emergency exits, and refuses to allow any customers to have a fire extinguisher. If a fire should start through no fault of the business owner, does the business have any liability if customers should perish in the fire?
Not flaming, just food for thought.
That is not what I am saying, but I have no problems with that outcome. To be perfectly honest, I am completely comfortable with the concept of a business refusing or allowing service to anyone they so desire, for whatever reason they so desire, in whatever manner they so desire. If they are willing to weather the negative publicity, the outrage, and the reaction of the American public to such a decision, they are well within their rights (in my opinion) to do exactly that.
More power to them.
That said, the reason that is not what I said is that there are no “overriding” rights – there are simply rights. A business owner has the right to associate with, or not, whomever he so chooses, as do all people – that right does not exactly vanish just because you choose to engage in commerce with other people.
[...] a firearm, and if that were not enough, it would appear as though we have an unending stream of bigots within our very own ranks who leap at the opportunity to oppose open carry and belittle those who choose to do so, simply [...]
[...] bigots within the very ranks of firearm owners are not quite as tolerant of the idea of people exercising their rights as they like to claim they [...]
[...] 1911s (14)the internet is forever (12)money and guns (11)i said i would (11)i can haz house? (11)bigots within our ranks (11)back up and running-ish (10)major posts commercial appeal [...]
[...] (30)home-grown 1911s (17)not according to plan (13)i promise they are different (13)ipadding (13)bigots within our ranks (12)smile, wait for flash (12)stunning admission (11)looters by any other name (11)c.o. arms follow-up [...]