I am developing my opinions on open carry and have already learned a lot but need a clearer picture on some things. One of the things I've found in the past when developing a position on an issue, is to test the boundaries. It may seem fruitless to some to have an extreme or hypothetical example, but I believe it helps draw the line and reveal the root issues when we can express our opinion on an extreme example or one with complicating factors.
I agree.
I am pro-OC, but have been thinking about to what extreme I would take that, and figured that many of you who developed your opinions long ago would have something to offer in this regard. I have listed some specific OC issues below that I am considering and would appreciate your opinion on.
I'll be glad to give you my opinion - and I won't even call you a troll for asking.
NOTE: Some of the things listed below are illegal in various jurisdictions. But that is not the debate angle I am looking for. I'm looking to find out what you think should ideally be legal in your opinion. I say this to avoid responses like this: "Dude, if you are going to OC [in such-and-so way/place] you are going to go to jail." I'm not wanting to discuss the current legal situation, but more your personal worldview on what you think should be legal ideally.
I believe I understand. Thanks for the clarification.
What type of pistol?
It's probably safe to say all of us (except the trolls) are in favor of the right to OC a pistol. How far would you take that? Would you be okay with someone OCing an AK-47 pistol slung over the shoulder or in a scabbard? (Think Embody.) Why or why not?
Yes, I would, as long as it was carried in a manner that doesn't pose an immediate threat to me other others around the carrier I don't care what they carry. I believe that essentially the only justification one can have for intervening with another's actions is when the actor is infringing on an equally applied right of another individual. Unless you're doing something that threatens me, my life, my liberty, etc. then I do not have any moral grounds on which to justify stopping you from doing whatever it is that you're doing. That can be carrying a knife, carrying a gun, carrying a hand grenade, wearing lipstick, walking like a duck, quacking like a duck, kissing another man, giving yourself a wedgie, etc. It may be morally reprehensible, but it doesn't justify me intervening.
What locations?
I've seen many on this forum say that they believe in no restrictions on where you can carry. How far would you take that? Would you be okay with someone OCing in federal court? What about to the White House as a visitor? Why? Is there any place you can think of that you think should be banned? Why?
Back to the rights issue - anyone with private property, or anyone legitimately put in control of a private property, can make their own rules, and any visitors have a moral obligation to follow those rules or leave. So, basically, no restrictions "in public," but on private property, whatever restrictions the property owner comes up with are legitimate. If they say no guns what-so-ever, and you've been made known of the rules, you have a moral obligation to refrain from carrying a gun onto their property. This isn't principle that can carry over to so called "public property" when the acquisition of the property was illegitimate. It doesn't actually belong to "the public", it belongs to the poor sap that the government stole it from. So, the government does not own public property, and cannot legitimately make rules for it as a private property own could legitimately do on their own property.
What type of long gun (for states that don't allow OC of a pistol)?
OCDO doesn't allow discussion of long gun OC except in states where pistol OC is illegal. In regards to those states, is there a place you would draw the line as far as firearm type? What about carrying fully automatic rifles in public? Why?
No restrictions on fire mode, because me carrying a fully automatic weapon in a safe manner doesn't legitimately threaten you any more than a simi automatic rifle, or a fully automatic pistol, or a simi automatic pistol, or a single action pistol, or a rubber band pistol. Unless I threaten you with it, you don't have any right to intervene with my carrying, and if I do threaten you with it then you have every right to intervene no matter what type of weapon it is.
Ownership of large arms
Should the average citizen be allowed to own a shoulder mounted missile launcher? Should they be allowed to carry it in public? (LOL.) Why?
Yes. Because the principles on which intervention and use of force are founded offer no justification for the intervention against someone carrying such a weapon as long as they are not actively threatening someone with it and are transporting it in a safe manner which does not put those around the carrier at risk.
Mixing it up
Say I get a traffic ticket and have to go to court for it. Would you be okay with me carrying a AK-47 pistol slung over my shoulder in court? Should a citizen be allowed to own a tank and drive it down the road through town? If the president is in town and will be walking from his limo into a hotel, should a person have the legal right to place themselves on top of the roof of a nearby building OCing as long as they are not actually aiming a gun at the president? (Oh great, now I've flagged the NSA.) In this instance, is the citizen innocent until proven guilty, or should the Secret Service have the right to ban them from going armed on top of a nearby building? NOTE: I am not advocating that anyone do such a thing nor am I planning any such thing. I am asking because I am trying to develop an opinion on where the boundaries between personal rights and government control should be drawn.
In these sort of hypothetical situations, more changes from the current state of things are needed than just what is being discussed, in order for the changes being discussed to make sense.
Instead of giving an incomplete answer in order to remain brief, I will decline to answer these questions right now.
Much could be said on this subject - and much
has been said on this subject. But the best answers are those contained in entire books on the subject of liberty and individual rights. It's not easy to condense those concepts down into a forum-sized post. At least, not for me.
I will say that, I think things go much deeper than gun rights. I don't advocate gun rights so that I can carry a gun. I advocate gun rights because it's liberty. Liberty is the goal, and private ownership and bearing of arms is the best method we have to ensure our liberty. Maybe someday that won't be the case. Maybe someday we can minimize the threat to liberty without having to even own a firearm. But, I don't think that time has come. And so, we fight for gun rights because we fight for liberty. Gun rights are essential to the protection of all liberty.
I realize that many here will react to this post emotionally and assume that I am trolling, a spy for the gun haters, etc. That is not the case. These are the questions that are dancing around in my head and I am trying to make sense of them. The reason I chose to put them here, is because I have seen some very intelligent and articulate advocates of freedom on this forum who may be able to help me make some sense of some of these blurry lines. Thanks.
I am glad you asked. Hopefully my answers are at least a
little bit helpful. If nothing else, maybe some food for thought.
)
