• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

US News Debate Club: Should people be 'allowed' to open carry?

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Debate Topic: Should US News be allowed to publish? Open displays of stupidity are a threat to the public. Concealed stupidity is the only way to go.

I was kinda thinking they're muckracking. Its too easy to see their debate question has a false premise--that anybody has standing to deny or grant the right to open carry.
 

PistolPackingMomma

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,884
Location
SC
^Agreed.

Still voted.

This made me :banghead: repeatedly.

NO — "People who choose to live in peace have the right not to be exposed to weapons and violence."

CONSTANCE N. JOHNSON, Democratic State Senator in Oklahoma
 

skidmark

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 15, 2007
Messages
10,444
Location
Valhalla
I was kinda thinking they're muckracking. Its too easy to see their debate question has a false premise--that anybody has standing to deny or grant the right to open carry.

I think I voted. Pressed the "up" bottons for those in favor of OC and the "down" one for those opposed.

But what about all those who have a "right" not to be exposed to violence? And why is that "righy" confined to the forced, unwanted viewing of handguns on the hips of anyone who is not The Police? Should that "right" extend to not having to view automobiles, which are responsible for car wrecks? And to airplanes, which are responsible for plane crashes? Or plain white cargo vans, which are responsible for both child abductions and molestations?

But most importantly, what is being done to protect and enforce my right to not be exposed to stupdity? Seriously, what this country needs is a law against stupidity - with only two levels of that crime: misdemeanor stupidity and capital stupidity.

stay safe.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
<snip> But most importantly, what is being done to protect and enforce my right to not be exposed to stupdity? <snip>

stay safe.
Stay home, do not leave the interior sections of your home. Close the curtains/drapes, do not energize your TV, radio(s), and computer. This will effectively insulate you from external occurances of stupidity.

By the way, the above should mitigate any exposure to violence outside of your home. The above should mitigate any exposure to properly holstered firearms possessed by other citizens outside of your home. In fact, the above will pretty much prevent you from being exposed to just about any 'external' hazards.

Stay safe....in your home.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
I'm not surprised by the fact we're winning. I'm surprised that we're winning by a massive landslide!

I think most people in our country are getting smarter about things...
 

gunns

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
270
Location
Minnesota
Voted. Also left a comment telling them they lack any facts in their judgements. Though most people don't want to know the truth, it hurts too much.
 

Tucker6900

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2008
Messages
1,279
Location
Iowa, USA
The fact that there is yet another "vote" that doesnt matter irritates me.

I sat down with a close friend the other day to discuss things like this. He recently graduated law school, and is very vocal about the Constitution.

Since that conversation, I have decided to go about my activism in a different direction. For instances where I am approached by violence driven policy enforcers, I will no longer be quoting state laws that "allow" us to exercise our rights. Those laws a null and void, per the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. All courts, judges, and officials employed by the government and charged with upholding it, must. The supreme court holds no authority to dictate, or define, what are rights include. They are written in ink and are not open to interpretation. Specifically, the 2nd Amendment states, in part, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It doesnt say, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, may only be infringed if it satisfies the people." It also does not say, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall be allowed by the decision of the Supreme Court."

Needless to say, I am not shocked that there are still people out there trying to rid us of our rights. Pissed. Yes. Surprised. No. These people are ignorant, and they believe the government is here to protect us. Unfortunately for them, they will have to learn the hard way.
 

FallonJeeper

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2011
Messages
576
Location
Fallon, NV
Voted. Also left a comment telling them they lack any facts in their judgements. Though most people don't want to know the truth, it hurts too much.

Yes, by all means, the truth should never get in the way of their uninformed opinions. :cool:
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Dave Workman and I don't always see eye to eye but I am agreement 100% on his quote at a OC meet here in Washington, when a couple from East Coast asked/told him 'they allow you to carry guns here?'

They don't allow us to do anything.

That statement to me is a strong reminder that as a free society and a liberated people we don't seek permission to exercise fundamental rights.
 
Last edited:

Sonora Rebel

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
3,956
Location
Gone
Allowed? 'Seems to me that was recognized and enumerated on 15 December, 1791 as not to be disallowed. That 'Shall not be infringed' part. The 2nd Amendment never addressed specific mode of carry because it was never a consideration. The traditional method of bearing arms in all cultures however has historically been openly.

The onerous practice of government contrivance of license/permit for a fee in the otherwise free exercise of an enumerated right is extortion. Rights cannot be sold, or purchased. Inasmuch as the Constitution is in effect as the Supreme Law of the land, denial of the right to bear arms constitutes tryanny.

The collectivists view of the people having rights but the individual doesn't is fuzzythink and always has been. In the Arizona Constitution Art 2 Sec 26: 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves (individuals) and the state (collective) shall not be impaired... 'pretty much settles that.

It is because of this state constitution that Arizona no longer requires a permit to carry concealed weapons. No permit was required until 1994 and it was argued as unconstitutional at the time. The only reason to continue with the permit is for reciprocity to carry concealed in other states where the right remains restricted.

Open carry of weapons in Arizona has been recognized since Arizona came into being. A notable exception being the gun grabbing Earp brothers... but we know how that turned out eventually.
 

Redbaron007

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2011
Messages
1,613
Location
SW MO
Seems like those who are in favor of OC are looking at that individual's right.

Seems like those against allow the 'other' person's feelings to dictate what OCers should do. :confused:
Seems like ignorance is bliss for these folks!
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
I'm inclined to think polls like this are floated after just about every widely-publicized shooting. At least the way U.S. News and World Report handles it, with equal voices from both sides of the issue, and a well-written overview, is spot-on.
 
Top