categories

archives

meta


"walls of the city" logo conceptualized by Oleg Volk and executed by Linoge. Logo is © "walls of the city".

quote of the day – mike w.

No, I am not going to get any more involved in the current Open Carry Drama Llama parade than I obliquely did in my previous post. Why? Mike W. said it best:

Sigh. I am sick of the in-fighting. You don’t want to open carry? Fine, then don’t, but don’t tell others that they shouldn’t simply because YOU don’t like it. It makes you sound like some smarmy liberal.

… or an anti-rights bigot.

And that is all that really needs to be said. Openly carrying a firearm is a choice, just like carrying a firearm at all, or owning a firearm, or any other choice is. It is one that should be made freely, with as full knowledge of the potential problems, complications, benefits, and realities as we can get, but it is still a choice that individuals should make of their own free will, not one that should be forced upon them by other people.

And just like all choices, open carry is not for everyone, just like carrying in general is not for everyone, and just like owning a firearm is not for everyone. However, unlike the concealed-carry-only bigots out there, I will never force you to carry a firearm in a certain fashion (or carry or own a firearm at all, but that is tangential).

Why do folks supposedly on the pro-rights side of the fence feel it is appropriate to dictate other people’s actions based on their own personal beliefs, preferences, and concerns? Baseless hysteria and fearmongering used to be the sole domain of the anti-rights cultists… what changed?

I guess the good news is that some purportedly pro-rights folks could think we are spanking the "gun control" extremists so hard that they have to go and create "enemies"…

9 comments to quote of the day – mike w.

  • I am sure that many in the civil rights movement would have preferred that Rosa Parks stay at the back of the bus.

  • Here’s my beef with the whole thing: isn’t every time you carry a gun concealed a political statement? You’re showing, if only to yourself, that you are willing to take responsibility for your own safety, and your own actions. Tell me that attitude won’t leak through to the “open” side of your life.

  • @ bluesun:

    Yep, carrying at all is a political statement, albeit not overt.

    Thanks for the link Linoge. I realized long ago that I’m in a distinct minority when it comes to not wanting to force my morals & lifestyle choices upon others.

  • I agree with Blue Sun since the states that require a license outnumber those that don’t require one.

    Every time a person gets a CHL/CCW/Permit, we are showing to the state and anyone who cares we are willing to do what it takes to exercise our rights.

    That is a political statement as much as Open Carrying an unloaded firearm in California.

    I also don’t want to force my choices on anyone else.
    And IF someone says “this shouldn’t be done” I hold them to the same standards I hold antis — show me the evidence supporting your position.

  • Linoge said:
    “Why do folks supposedly on the pro-rights side of the fence feel it is appropriate to dictate other people’s actions based on their own personal beliefs, preferences, and concerns?”

    IMHO, because what most people object to, on both sides of the fence, is NOT “being dictated to”, but instead “being dictated to about the ‘wrong’ things”, i.e. it’s OK to dictate things when it’s the ‘right’ thing (noting that ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ are often opinions, not objective facts). The main problem about Republocrats and Demopublicans is they only disagree about what to dictate, not whether the police power of government should be used to dictate at all.

    Me, I’m definitely a Gadsen-flag sort, not prone to dictate to others what they should or should not do.

  • Wayne Conrad

    Something you need a permit to do is not, in any practical terms, a right. The exercise of permitted CCW merely shows that one is willing to get a permit.

    If nobody can see it, it’s not politics.

  • PMain

    While I am a proponent of Open Carry, here in California, carrying openly is being discouraged by Gun Rights Groups & for good reason. It isn’t to hinder civil rights or kowtow to the anti’s, it’s to prevent both bad-case law & media uproar that would favor the anti’s.

    Already the CA legislature has passed a bill making Open Carry illegal, period. That bill awaits signature or lack of veto by the Governor to become law of the land in CA. The only reason that this Bill came about was because others insisted on making their “political” statements & the media coverage it created. I support their right to oppose the draconian laws of CA, protest & yes, even Open Carry. But every action does come with responsibility. While I’m sure that those opponents feel better about expressing their deserved outrage, they should also own up to the fact that they may very well have caused millions of CA guns owners to – temporarily, I hope – lose that very right altogether. If nothing more, they have possibly postponed the right they sought to strengthen or exercise, until unneeded court cases can be won or a SCOTUS judgement in-favor has been ruled.

    Given the recent strides made by the Pro2A side, I cannot fathom why anyone would take steps to increase the workload of our side, whether fighting unnecessary legal battles, tying up financial resources, etc; strengthen support for the anti’s by giving them political ground on which to further the anti-gun cause or inadvertently deprive fellow gun owners their rights just to vent a frustration or bring attention to their cause.

    I understand that outside of CA these arguments may not apply or fall onto deaf ears. But the lesson learned from the Civil Rights movements of the 50′s & 60′s is to 1st get those rights legally defined, supported than enforced. The 2nd is to then proceed to begin the normalization of culture. Make no mistake this is a Civil Rights War & much like our predecessors in the past, we need to provide a united front.

    If any group of Americans has shown the ability to utilize patience, calmness & a maintaining of focus not only on a target, but what lies beyond it, it would hand-downs be the American Gun Owner.

  • Wayne Conrad

    If you can’t exercise a right for fear that it be prohibited, then you don’t really have it. You don’t have anything to lose in that condition–you certainly don’t have that right.

    The theoretical ability to exercise a right is useless unless you can exercise it in fact.

  • @ Liston: Indeed. Much though some people hate them, the historical parallels are there.

    @ bluesun: SO I am going to buck the trend, and say “no”. Oh, sure, you get counted every year when states tally up their concealed carry licenses and whatnot, but if you look at the definition for “political”, you see: “Of or relating to the government or the public affairs of a country.” By definition, concealed carry is not public.

    Now, you are demonstrating responsibility and maturity, but no one except you and “those in the know” will ever be aware of it… and that is not the way to push a movement forward.

    @ mike w.: Minority or not, I would venture to say our numbers are growing.

    @ Bob S.: Being counted is definitely a good start, but you are still just a number on a screen to the mass public… which, I guess, is more “political” than some people get. But I am not sure if I consider it actually political.

    @ Robert Slaughter: Me, I do not like being dictated to period, and I got my “dictating to others” out of my system in the military… there is a reason I am not in management at the moment.

    That said, I have to wonder how much of it also stems from some people’s innate desire to control others… which may or may not be necessarily coupled with a desire to not be controlled themselves. Humans are wierd creatures, and I imagine there are all kinds of motivations behind sticking your nose in other peoples’ businesses.

    @ Wayne Conrad: Exactly that, on both counts.

    @ PMain: I apologize for not having/taking the time to adequately address this comment at the moment, but if it is any consolation, you have motivated me to write a dedicated post in the future… For the time being, I would direct your attention to this enlightening comment by GayCynic, as well as invite you to consider some alternative thought tracks: 1. you now know which Senators need to be voted against in the future, 2. if Kalifornistan outlaws UOC in the state, how long do you think it will be before it is judicially challenged, and do you think they will win, and 3. if UOC is banned, it puts Kalifornistan on even weaker standing for their current may-issue system.

    Likewise, “calmness” and “patience” got us the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act, while careful, specific, but public activism has gotten us to the point where constitutional carry is slowly marching across the country. There is room for both tactics.



web analytics

View My Stats