“I don't care how 'poorly' secured your firearms are, it's the fault of the thief for stealing it, not you for not securing it better.”
by Pyrotek85




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

telling them not to be dicks would be a waste of time

It is disappointing when an ostensibly pro-rights forum sinks to engaging in reasoned discourse simply because the member in question had the temerity to question a supposedly pro-rights organization’s stance on open carry in Texas. Unfortunately, this behavior does not appear to be unprecedented at the forum in question.

It is even more disappointing when an ostensibly pro-rights competitive shooter and low-grade attention whore sides with two grade-A attention whores* when they decided to saddle up the open carry drama llama and engage in a delightful round of Blame-the-Victim Polo.

At this point, having hashed this ground into a fine mush of red Tennessee clay, I can only dredge up what I wrote last year:

I believe in freedom. Right up until your actions can be factually proven to detrimentally affect another person, against their will, in some specific and demonstrable fashion, you should be free to do whatever it is your little heart desires. This is not a matter of potentialities and probabilities and could-be’s, this is a realm of cold, hard facts.

I believe in choice. Whether we are willing to acknowledge all of them or not, we almost always have choices in any given, specific situation. I believe we should do everything possible to maximize those choices not only for ourselves, but for others as well. See above.

I believe in the sanctity of life. Our lives are the only things we truly own in this world, and, so far as we know, we only get one of them. As such, we should not only be permitted, we should be encouraged to do anything and everything necessary to protect those lives from anyone who would deprive us of them. Again, see above.

… with the following caveat: the concept of "freedom" does not mean "freedom to do only do what I agree with" or "freedom to do things I like"; it means "freedom to engage in whatever activities a person may enjoy or appreciate so long as they are not directly, detrimentally affecting another person against their will". Freedom carries with it the possibility that some people will be stupid, that some people will abuse those freedoms, that some people will, knowingly or not, provide a horrific face to "your" cause.

This is the nature of "freedom". This is life. Deal with it.

dickishbackstabberBut if your method of "dealing with it" is to encourage people to limit their own freedoms, or limit other people’s freedoms, I will be perfectly blunt: you are wrong, and you are doing more damage to the cause of protecting and preserving our rights than any "ass-clowns" you might care to name.

In the end, I support carry, because I am rational and intelligent enough to know that open carry changes nothing. I guess the same cannot be said of all folks supposedly on our side of the fence.

(* – One of whom has a particular predilection of putting photographers downrange during a live-fire exercise right next to targets people were actively shooting, pretty much ruining any credibility he might have otherwise had in my eyes.)

9 comments to telling them not to be dicks would be a waste of time

  • Heather

    I choked at bit at the “Achievement Unlocked” graphic. Nice one!

  • Adam

    “One of whom has a particular predilection of putting photographers downrange during a live-fire exercise right next to targets people were actively shooting, pretty much ruining any credibility he might have otherwise had in my eyes.”

    Which one?

  • Oh and look, California is planning to close the “bullet button” loophole.

    I wonder if the folks behind the bullet button will get blamed when Cali bans all magazines that can be removed by any means.

  • Wow, this makes my little spat with Miguel look positively quaint in comparison.

  • @ Heather: They earned it!

    @ Adam: You missed out on the whole “Tactical Response Puts Photographers Downrange” shindig? Or Yeager threatening to break people’s backs for daring to call him names?

    Lucky you.

    The guy is a complete tool, and people who choose to associate with him… well, you can always tell a person by the company he keeps.

    @ The Jack: If you take some idiots’ “logic” to its natural conclusion, anyone who owns an “assault weapon” in Kalifornistan is to blame for the “bullet button” legislation.

    Like Chris said, blaming the victim…

    @ Erin Palette: Oh, believe you me, the whole shindig between open carry supporters and anti-open carry folks has been running for… a while now, with all manner of bad blood and ill will on both sides of the fence. Unfortunately, there is not likely to be any kind of settlement any time soon, so grab the popcorn.

  • TS

    Even though we are getting our butts kicked in California (i.e. gun control bizarro world), we should never preempt our own rights by doing what they want us to do (as opposed to what the current law is) just because we are afraid they will take another thing away. Use your Bullet Buttons. Carry legally if you so choose. Make them write laws for every little thing that we do. Make them show the world that their laws are about politics- not about crime. How many people have been shot by a gun with a Bullet Button? And how many people have been shot by OCers again?

  • And that is just the thing – as someone else said somewhere else, if you allow public opinion and the “danger” of losing your rights to coerce you into not exercising those rights, you have lost them already.

    When you get right down to it, I almost all for forcing the petty authoritarians to show their hand by lobbying for legislation that further removes and infringes on individual rights. Let them do our work for us; let them demonize themselves in the face of the American public, who is, gradually, I will admit, learning better.

  • TS

    I think the next thing the California carry movement will try and do is come up with some quick release holster that meets the definition of “locked”. It could be a fanny pack or something since it would be simply using the normal transportation laws- so it can be fully concealed. I’d have to look at the exact text of the law, but it might have to be concealed. I guess their answer would be to create New Jersey style transportation laws where if you so much as stop for gas on the way to the range you go to jail.

  • Fairly easy concept – you take cypher locks (the kind that Gun Vaults use for their non-biometric safes) and somehow integrate them into the construction of a soft-sided case.

    And, yeah, that would be the inevitable response.

    I heard somewhere that the current plan of attack for Kalifornistan is to induce the legislators into passing such horrifically restricting laws that higher courts would have no choice but to overthrow them.

    Not sure how valid that tactic is, or even if it is the tactic, but it could work.