What difference does it make? It's no body's business why anyone carries. The point I was trying to make that obviously fell flat, was that I think the fear of people "showing off" is a really lame reason to be against open carry.So? Does all that mean you want to exercise your rights, could it mean you prefer open carry, or are you just wanting to be a show off?
What difference does it make? It's no body's business why anyone carries. The point I was trying to make that obviously fell flat, was that I think the fear of people "showing off" is a really lame reason to be against open carry.
Best I can tell from reading all the posts in this thread and others, is that we generally agree. Yet, for some reason when open carry is mentioned all we can seem to do is bicker and pick fights with each other. So will open carry pass? It sure the hell won't as long as we keep arguing with each other.
Alexander Fraser Tytler...he was British, but still pretty sharpSure who was it?
Alexander Fraser Tytler...he was British, but still pretty sharp
We all share the some rights no matter who we are. The only way those rights should be restricted is if a person abuses them. The government requiring training for a person to exercise their rights is not acceptable."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."
Like many of the rights granted in our Constitution/Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms MUST be viewed as a two sided coin. We have the right to free speech but yelling "FIRE" where there is none in a crowded theater is certainly criminal and dangerous and can't be legally justified. Similarly, turning citizens loose with deadly weapons without insuring some minimal training is also criminal. I don't believe that the government has the right to restrict any legal citizen from carrying any way they wish but do believe there should be some required training (and more meaningful than that now in place) that includes public and personal gun safety. The purpose of the training should not be to infringe on the right to carry (open or concealed) but to provide safety for the general public. Proficiently training shouldn't be part of this training. I don't really care if another individual is proficient as long as they don't shoot me by mistake. If you carry, your proficiency is your personal responsibility. As far as whether I would open carry if the law allowed, can't see where it makes any difference what I CHOOSE to do or why I choose to do it. I think perhaps open carry is a right not a requirement and if I choose not to open carry doesn't mean I think others should be restricted from doing so or me trying to ascribe a rationale for open carry. I don't care if someone else does or does not but I sure hate seeing the government restrict our 2nd Amendment rights in any way. The government is in the private citizen's knickers too much already across the board and we are the ones who pay for that mess in Washington.
"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."
Like many of the rights granted in our Constitution/Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms MUST be viewed as a two sided coin. We have the right to free speech but yelling "FIRE" where there is none in a crowded theater is certainly criminal and dangerous and can't be legally justified. Similarly, turning citizens loose with deadly weapons without insuring some minimal training is also criminal. I don't believe that the government has the right to restrict any legal citizen from carrying any way they wish but do believe there should be some required training (and more meaningful than that now in place) that includes public and personal gun safety. The purpose of the training should not be to infringe on the right to carry (open or concealed) but to provide safety for the general public. Proficiently training shouldn't be part of this training. I don't really care if another individual is proficient as long as they don't shoot me by mistake. If you carry, your proficiency is your personal responsibility. As far as whether I would open carry if the law allowed, can't see where it makes any difference what I CHOOSE to do or why I choose to do it. I think perhaps open carry is a right not a requirement and if I choose not to open carry doesn't mean I think others should be restricted from doing so or me trying to ascribe a rationale for open carry. I don't care if someone else does or does not but I sure hate seeing the government restrict our 2nd Amendment rights in any way. The government is in the private citizen's knickers too much already across the board and we are the ones who pay for that mess in Washington.
Should ones economic inablity or should someones age or disablity be a reason he or she shouldn't be allowed to carry a firearm?
It comes down to that more than anything. Gun control laws put a heavier burden on the poor and minorities. Most of them were originally designed to ensure that poor minorities were unable to stand up for themselves.
There is zero difference between a training requirement and a poll tax. There is zero difference between a licensing scheme and a reading test at the poll. They all serve the same purpose - as an excuse to deny people legitimate exercise of rights. Poll taxes have been exposed for what they are, and are now viewed (rightly) with disdain and outright hatred. When will we get there with this mandatory training scheme? I've heard of folks who have their grandparents' poll tax receipts and show them with pride - "here is the proof, they were discriminated against but still voted!" I hope that someday our grandchildren will display our CHLs the same way.
Under what circumstances will you choose to OC?