This is going to pi$$ off a lot of people, but

[poptab]

I understand the premise and completely agree, however when talking about the "anti" community we're not necessarily dealing with people who have logic, common sense, etc. Additionally, tattoos, pants, and fat people don't pose a threat to their lives (speaking from their frame of mind).

I know what your saying too. Im just tired of dancing around these people who think its the job of government to keep other people from offending them.

 

[MTC]

It seems that you don't appreciate that both to keep and bear arms is a RIGHT...

It seems that what you're telling us is that we should self-censor so that people don't have to recognize our rights...
the suggestion that there is a line that ought not be crossed, or that we should moderate OUR exercise of rights because others don't think we deserve deference and respect is to cave to those who think that we ought not have them.

Well said. A few comments to expand on that.

The notion being thrown around that "you mustn't exercise a right" (meaning openly carrying this or that arm) on the grounds that "they [meaning legislators] might" do this or that doesn't hold any water here. It unilaterally cedes ground that need not be - and should never be - given up.

I do not open carry, but I'm glad that there are people who do. Without people challenging the bounds, there would be no rights.

Also here, for the most part. Doesn't mean that one has to, or not, to prove anything. However, those of us who conduct ourselves and our affairs in a (subjectively defined) rather plain, nondescript or less ostentatious manner while still doing what we can in our own way, recognize that those who open carry are doing us a favor in that regard. While it is possible to keep a situation such as exists with gun laws in a sort of stasis or stalemate indefinitely, the actual right to bear arms will not be normalized by everyone keeping it hidden at all times, as if it were somehow taboo or contraband.

As far as what legislators might do, I half hope they try. Any who advocate now or in the future for any infringement on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms out themselves as the oath-violating oxygen thieves they really are.

 

[88E30M50]

I think the comparison to the 1st Amendment is a good one. Sure, you have free speech, but if you use that free speech to threaten someone, you will run afoul of the law. If you make a perfectly innocent statement, but it is taken as a threat, you could be in jeopardy until your intent is determined. I see different types of carry as similar. The carry of a handgun is gaining a greater acceptance as there is a very strong argument regarding personal protection. Even OC is becoming a bit more accepted in today's environment. By carrying a handgun, you are seen in a particular perspective, of self protection.

I think you can carry a long arm without trouble in circumstances that are clearly non-threatening to anyone. The problem right now is that if you carry an AR over your shoulder while grocery shopping, dining out or whatever, you will be so far outside the norm, as to constitute a threat in the minds of some people. The social climate, right now, has a tendency to see OC of a long arm as an implied threat or intimidation.

Hopefully, once OC of a long arm becomes more common (if ever), the implied threat will be lessened by carrying a long arm.

 

[CathyInBlue]

CathyInBlue what did THPD arrest you for 'contempt of cop'? And why were they in your back yard?

All details will be revealed in their own time. Until then...

How do you keep a moron in suspense?



*walks away quietly*

 

[poptab]

All details will be revealed in their own time. Until then...

How do you keep a moron in suspense?



*walks away quietly*

 

[griffin]

The notion being thrown around that "you mustn't exercise a right" (meaning openly carrying this or that arm) on the grounds that "they [meaning legislators] might" do this or that doesn't hold any water here. It unilaterally cedes ground that need not be - and should never be - given up.

Exactly. I have read, in more than one forum, that we should not OC because that will rile people up and legislators will take away our right to OC.

Wow.

 

[Colinb913]

Let me preface this by stating I read through page 2, then quit. I'd just like to say this..

You want to censor our 2nd amendment right. What about freedom of speech? Just listen to what some of the people say to other people. They don't censor their right to free speech, why should we censor ours to bare arms?

 

[Rookie]

All details will be revealed in their own time. Until then...

How do you keep a moron in suspense?



*walks away quietly*

Got a rough idea how long we have to hold our breath?

 

[mrortega]

Maybe I misread your initial thread, but is this what you want? I agree that it's bad judgment to do certain things, but I am certainly not for any kind of bans.

That's exactly what I don't want. That's the why of this thread. What is the line that we shouldn't cross just to beat our chests before we invite a storm down upon ourselves. I don't think a responsible person would do any of the three examples I posited even though we have the right to do it.

 

[mrortega]

You're probably right. That's why the test is not what a "reasonable man" would decide. That might be an acceptable rule for many situations, but it does not work when one side has a claim of RIGHT.

You shouldn't have to worry about "keeping" what we have. The framers made it hard to change the constitution for a reason. The right to keep and bear arms is one of the most important rights we have, and Americans will not be letting it go anytime soon.

This isn't about idealism versus reason. Every legal concept requires an application of logic. The idea is to make sure you're applying the proper test. The simple rule of reason just isn't sufficient for a fundamental, enumerated constitutional right. You're simply not applying a rigorous enough test.

Boy, I hate to break this to you, Downzero, but our so-called constitutional rights are hanging by a thread. That little clause in the 2nd Amendment, "A well regulated militia" is all that the antis need to beat the thing into an unrecognizable gaggle of loose words. One more SCOTUS "bad" justice and it could be gone in a flash. Remember, it was just a 5-4 vote last year that affirmed that the 2nd applied to citizens as individuals. It could have gone the other way.

 

[daddymikey1975]

I read through all of these pages... I would like to add the following:

I totally understand the point that the OP is trying to convey.. I also agree that it's a fine line to walk (as to whether we SHOULD walk the line just because we can, as in activism).. however.. I remember a time not too long ago (and it's still going on to some degree) when gays were becoming more prevalent and outspoken in our society. "Society" didn't really accept that two men (or women) were allowed to sit oon a park bench and hold hands or show public displays of affection. Do gay folks have the right to do these things ? Of course they do. The sad part is that they (as their own group or society) had to push long and hard and keep on pushing until it became 'allowed' (and that's not even saying it's 100% accepted).

Should we, as gun owners, just sit down and be complacent? Should we (in our own personal way, following our own personal convictions) be activists for our own cause in our own way disregarding (for the most part) what 'society' believes to be acceptable ? I'm all for standing up for what we believe is right and just in our capacity. Would I personally go sit in front of the mayor's house in camo with an AR and binoculars ? Most likely not because I believe there are more effective ways to demonstrate our rights collectively and in a more effective and meaningful manner.

Does that mean that I won't grab a lawn chair if there's an INgo event ?? Bet your hairy but-tocks I'd be there (after all, I believe a message is easier to convey in numbers)

 

[mrortega]

A lot of interesting responses but some feel that the "right" trumps any kind of restraint. Okay, let's turn up the heat. How about sitting on the river front with your legally owned .30 caliber belt fed, loaded machine gun. You have the right to do that so why not? If that sounds like a ridiculous scenario think about it. It's legal, isn't it?

My point is there has to be a limit on your actions to not cross the line that the public will not support. What is that limit?

 

[KG1]

A lot of interesting responses but some feel that the "right" trumps any kind of restraint. Okay, let's turn up the heat. How about sitting on the river front with your legally owned .30 caliber belt fed, loaded machine gun. You have the right to do that so why not? If that sounds like a ridiculous scenario think about it. It's legal, isn't it?

My point is there has to be a limit on your actions to not cross the line that the public will not support. What is that limit?

Some believe that there should be no limits to a right. Especially one that says "shall not be infringed" It's to bad some courts and legislators don't see it the same way.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

A lot of interesting responses but some feel that the "right" trumps any kind of restraint. Okay, let's turn up the heat. How about sitting on the river front with your legally owned .30 caliber belt fed, loaded machine gun. You have the right to do that so why not? If that sounds like a ridiculous scenario think about it. It's legal, isn't it?

My point is there has to be a limit on your actions to not cross the line that the public will not support. What is that limit?

Is your position that you wish other people agreed with you on what behavior is advantageous to the gun community and which behavior is disadvantageous?

I am not criticizing, I myself wish other people agreed with what me regarding what they should and should not do.

I think that we are here dealing with the free market of ideas in its very essence.



As to the whole rights vs law/internal vs external validation discussion, I know what my rights are. If the law does not recognize those rights, my rights are not somehow diminished, I am merely under the subjugation of unjust laws. My rights are My rights regardless of the recognition of others.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Got a rough idea how long we have to hold our breath?

Guy's in possession of all of the facts. It's up to him when/if/how I go full-disclosure on here.

 

[Rookie]

Well I am sure I'm not the only one looking forward to it.

 

[mrortega]

Is your position that you wish other people agreed with you on what behavior is advantageous to the gun community and which behavior is disadvantageous?

I am not criticizing, I myself wish other people agreed with what me regarding what they should and should not do.

I think that we are here dealing with the free market of ideas in its very essence.



As to the whole rights vs law/internal vs external validation discussion, I know what my rights are. If the law does not recognize those rights, my rights are not somehow diminished, I am merely under the subjugation of unjust laws. My rights are My rights regardless of the recognition of others.

I don't necessarily want anyone to agree with me. The question is so simple. Where are the limits of what YOU would do even if going farther is technically legal?

 

[MTC]

This issue of "limitations" came up in a thread last month discussing another aspect of gun control. It is not necessary, yet often happens that some will bring up hypothetical scenarios that quickly move beyond any well-meaning issue of self-restraint and are suggestive of a "need for" legislative prior restraint on a specifically enumerated, fundamental right.

Repost in part:

Once all of the rights in the Bill of Rights are acknowledged, and that others have these, too, then the limitations on the actual exercise of a right will be arrived at and become more clear, though not always as clear in every conceivable situation as one might like. Still, it is to be acknowledged and understood that one is not to [use any "right" to] commit a crime.

One common theme of gun control proponents is that they prefer to talk about limitations on the RKBA first, then work backwards from there - that is, in the direction of ever more restrictions - to arrive at the point where they think gun laws should be.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

I don't necessarily want anyone to agree with me. The question is so simple. Where are the limits of what YOU would do even if going farther is technically legal?

Thank you for the clarification. I thought you were catching needless grief in this thread because people were not understanding the question you were asking.

In answer to your question, I personally am not likely to take actions that draw the attention of large groups of strangers. I do not wear jewelry or brightly colored clothes (excepting when safety requires). I do not have bumper stickers on my car or any of that. I personally do not care to interact with strangers unless it is necessary or beneficial, but that's my deal. Its a matter of taste

I am probably not going to OC my Ak down the main drag, but I am probably not going to wear a sports team hat either and one matters to me about as much as the other.

In the course of my employment I came to know a drag queen. Dresses, wigs, heels, the whole nine yards. It was not something I would do because among other things it seemed like a lot of hassle in order to get attention. Maybe he liked the attention. Maybe he liked how stressed out it made some people. Whatever his deal, it was not my deal, but it is a free country. I feel the same way about the hypothetical guy with the AK. It's not my way, but it is a free country.

All that said, if the mood were to strike me you might see me wobbling down the street on high heels toting my AK. A person doesn't really know what they would do until they've done it.

How's that?

 

[mrortega]

Thank you for the clarification. I thought you were catching needless grief in this thread because people were not understanding the question you were asking.

In answer to your question, I personally am not likely to take actions that draw the attention of large groups of strangers. I do not wear jewelry or brightly colored clothes (excepting when safety requires). I do not have bumper stickers on my car or any of that. I personally do not care to interact with strangers unless it is necessary or beneficial, but that's my deal. Its a matter of taste

I am probably not going to OC my Ak down the main drag, but I am probably not going to wear a sports team hat either and one matters to me about as much as the other.

In the course of my employment I came to know a drag queen. Dresses, wigs, heels, the whole nine yards. It was not something I would do because among other things it seemed like a lot of hassle in order to get attention. Maybe he liked the attention. Maybe he liked how stressed out it made some people. Whatever his deal, it was not my deal, but it is a free country. I feel the same way about the hypothetical guy with the AK. It's not my way, but it is a free country.

All that said, if the mood were to strike me you might see me wobbling down the street on high heels toting my AK. A person doesn't really know what they would do until they've done it.

How's that?

Whew. I'm back now. After getting the visual of you carrying an AK while in drag I had to go throw up!