Open Carry vs Concealed Carry - a comprehensive response

she/he lost me at "wouldn't carry in a high crime neighborhood" had a hard time reading all of it after that

eye95 said:

You are an arrogant ass. I take you off ignore--and am immediately confronted with some holier-than-thou condescension. Back to ignore with you. You ain't some guru on a mountain top with knowledge the rest of us don't have, but want. You are simply an arrogant ass.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry if I came off as arrogant and condescending. But I didn't present myself as a "guru on a mountain top with knowledge the rest of us don't have". I offered an articulate explanation of my reasoning, one which you are free to accept or reject on its merits – not mine.

I'd be interested if folks have ideas for how I might have more tactfully conveyed my intent, which was to praise eye95 for being thoughtful on the matter, but to suggest that his way of articulating the reasoning could use some fallacy-proofing.

I would hope the forum would take any opportunity to point out when my own reasoning is incomplete or implicitly fallacious.

marshaul said:

I'm sorry if I came off as arrogant and condescending. But I didn't present myself as a "guru on a mountain top with knowledge the rest of us don't have". I offered an articulate explanation of my reasoning, one which you are free to accept or reject on its merits – not mine.

I'd be interested if folks have ideas for how I might have more tactfully conveyed my intent, which was to praise eye95 for being thoughtful on the matter, but to suggest that his way of articulating the reasoning could use some fallacy-proofing.

I would hope the forum would take any opportunity to point out when my own reasoning is incomplete or implicitly fallacious.

Click to expand...

I found the analogy very useful. And well thought out and not at all arrogant.

eye95 said:

Strange. The part I quoted and decried was not an analogy. Read it again. It is arrogant and condescending ass-hattery. The ass is grading the posts of others. He fancies himself a guru, but is simply acting like an ass.

Click to expand...

Nope don't read it that way, read it that he thought you were very close to his own way of thinking about it, a way that makes sense. You assumed the arrogance and condescension. Gotta remember that whole straw/rafter analogy.

Concealed Carry does nothing to promote the 2nd Amendment.

Click to expand...

BS!!!!! Arrogance of the highest order.

Every permit issued is a clear message to criminals and elected vermin that the American people will not be deprived of their right to defend themselves and their family. Their unalienable right to defend their life, their liberty, and their property.

There are many folks that I know who would not carry for self defense if it were not for a CC permit. The 2A was a academic discussion that they did not participate in, they simply had no interest in the issue. They choose to exercise their 2A in a manner that suits them. Here you are telling them that they do not promote the 2A.

BS!!!!! Arrogance of the highest order.

I do not place people on ignore, and I ain't been angry in over 30 years, but buddy, you came damn close to getting put on ignore and I am angry.

sudden valley gunner said:

Nope don't read it that way, read it that he thought you were very close to his own way of thinking about it, a way that makes sense. You assumed the arrogance and condescension. Gotta remember that whole straw/rafter analogy.

Click to expand...

Again, the part I quoted and objected to was not an analogy. It was pure post-grading from a pedantic boob who fancies himself to be the possessor of knowledge we all strive toward. We don't. There is a reason he was on ignore. I regret taking him off and put his holier-than-thou ass back.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

eye95 said:

Again, the part I quoted and objected to was not an analogy. It was pure post-grading from a pedantic boob who fancies himself to be the possessor of knowledge we all strive toward. We don't. There is a reason he was on ignore. I regret taking him off and put his holier-than-thou ass back.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

Again, I read that part and disagree.

So straw/rafter.....

eye95 said:

Strange. The part I quoted and decried was not an analogy. Read it again. It is arrogant and condescending ass-hattery. The ass is grading the posts of others. He fancies himself a guru, but is simply acting like an ass.

Click to expand...

The part you quoted wasn't an argument, which you carefully ignored in favor of a rather bombastic ad hominem attack. Again, I supported my argument, offering it on its merits – not mine.

Frankly, you are one thin-skinned individual. God forbid anybody ever point out a flaw in eye95's reasoning!

Nightmare said:

There can be no condescension among equals and peers, there being no station from which to descend. Either we are equal or we are not.

Click to expand...

There can be. There should not be. There was. He posted like an ass.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

marshaul said:

I'd be interested if folks have ideas for how I might have more tactfully conveyed my intent, which was to praise eye95 for being thoughtful on the matter, but to suggest that his way of articulating the reasoning could use some fallacy-proofing.

Click to expand...

You asked for it: The original statement "You're very, very close, eye (far closer than most get), but you could still use a bit of refinement on this point." can easily be seen as condescending. The fact that you wanted to "praise eye95" is also easily seen as condescending. The former statement indicates eye's reasoning is unrefined, not up to snuff as it were. The latter statement seems to indicate an attempt to reinforce good behavior, which is manipulation.

IMO a better way to state it would have been: "Your statement is very close to the results of my own reasoning on this topic which is as follows . . . . " Then pointing out how your reasoning differs, and why you feel the difference is worth noting.

Also IMO saying that your posting was done "like an ass" is an over-reaction.

eye95 said:

No. She is wrong. Period. No such right exists.

The only way it could exist would be to deprive others of their rights. By definition the exercise of one right cannot possibly infringe on the exercise of another. Therefore, there is no "right not to be exposed to weapons," with or without violence.

Click to expand...

Thank you eye, you presented the point I was trying to make in a much clearer and understandable way. +1

Running Wolf said:

You asked for it

Click to expand...

I did, thanks.

marshaul said:

Well... I could argue I have a right "not to be exposed to air".

But that doesn't impose on you an obligation to build me a vacuum chamber. It's totally incumbent upon myself to avoid such exposure.

You're very, very close, eye (far closer than most get), but you could still use a bit of refinement on this point.

Your argument begs the question, unfortunately, by presupposing the RKBA. Rights are unable to conflict not because one predates the other (or is enumerated in the BoR), but because of their very nature. To examine this, let's substitute simple "me" for "me, with a gun". Being alive (being me) is my right because it doesn't infringe on her ability to "not be exposed" to me (she may leave my vicinity).

My being alive doesn't prevent her from leaving and going somewhere without me (home, perhaps). "Not being exposed" to me is her right because it doesn't prevent me from being me. She exercises her right (by going home) without affecting me (I survive), and I exercise my right to live without it affecting her (she's free to go home).

Now go back and re-substitute "me, with a gun" for "me". There's no difference.

Someone quote this so eye can see it, please.

Click to expand...

Marshaul,
You asked for feedback and it is with that in mind that I post this response. Without going and posting a lot of definitions, I think you miss the point and to an extent, share in the confusion. Here is my reasoning. The use of the word "right" emplies the backing of the law or the law of the land. It suggests others (law enforcement) will back up your "right". What I see you describe as her "right" is IMHO, her "CHOICE". If she doesn't want to be near you or your weapon she can "choose" to leave and go elsewhere. She does not have the "RIGHT" to have you or LE make YOU MOVE from her sight. You both have the right to be in the same space/area (yeah there are exceptions but in general..) She does not have a "right" to not to be exposed to weapons and violence any more than I have a right not to be exposed to body piercings, droopy drawers, or violent shows on tv or at the movies. I can choose to remove my self from those sights/people but I can not demand (as a right) that they remove themselves from my sight. In summary, your analogy, to me, is a better example of a person's "choice" than their "right". YMMV

wrearick said:

Marshaul,
You asked for feedback and it is with that in mind that I post this response. Without going and posting a lot of definitions, I think you miss the point and to an extent, share in the confusion. Here is my reasoning. The use of the word "right" emplies the backing of the law or the law of the land. It suggests others (law enforcement) will back up your "right". What I see you describe as her "right" is IMHO, her "CHOICE". If she doesn't want to be near you or your weapon she can "choose" to leave and go elsewhere. She does not have the "RIGHT" to have you or LE make YOU MOVE from her sight. You both have the right to be in the same space/area (yeah there are exceptions but in general..) She does not have a "right" to not to be exposed to weapons and violence any more than I have a right not to be exposed to body piercings, droopy drawers, or violent shows on tv or at the movies. I can choose to remove my self from those sights/people but I can not demand (as a right) that they remove themselves from my sight. In summary, your analogy, to me, is a better example of a person's "choice" than their "right". YMMV

Click to expand...

I disagree. You're treading awfully close to "positive rights" when you say 'it suggests others (law enforcement) will back up your "right"'. (You do, however, subsequently and correctly reject positive rights in your penultimate sentence.)

Your distinction between (non-aggressive) choices and rights is a false one. Every choice which does not engender aggression is my right. Government does not create rights, and the recognition of them by it, law enforcement, or anyone else has nothing to do with whether a given act is a right.

The sphere of right extends to all such actions which do not infringe upon another's ability to act with equivalent freedom.

The RKBA isn't a right because it has the support of law enforcement, or the recognition of government, or anything else. The RKBA is a right because, and solely because, my bearing arms does not limit your own ability to bear arms, or to do anything else.

Going back to the prior analogy, it is the woman's right to get away from me, but she cannot compel me to create that distance; she must do so on her own. It is my right to own and carry a firearm, but I cannot compel law enforcement to purchase me a firearm; I must collect resources and acquire one on my own.

Right never implies that others must make special accommodations, or must be compelled to do anything.

IMO, the correct response to the woman in question is, "you have a right to not expose yourself to whatever you like. You do not have a right to force me to avoid exposing myself to you."

While eye95 and yourself are correct in pointing out that the woman has no right to compel behavior from me to accommodate her preferences (rights), that was not my issue with his reasoning. His reasoning begged the question by presupposing the RKBA, in a similar manner to what you've done.

I attempted to point out this fallacy, and to show how it may be resolved without changing the (correct) conclusion: that RKBA is a right, and that there is no right to compel individuals (armed or otherwise) to do anything at all. It happens that, from this analysis, we see that the woman does have a right to avoid exposing herself to things, contrary to the semantic deconstruction of eye95's post.

I suspect his thinking was correct anyway, but his articulated reasoning is easily construed as implicitly fallacious. In my opinion, it could have been stated more precisely, without any possibly-construed implicit fallacies. That's all.

We will have to agree to disagree. Not that your aurguments are wrong but I don't understand them and can't agree with them.

For example do these statements:
The sphere of right extends to all such actions which do not infringe upon another's ability to act with equivalent freedom.

and "The RKBA is a right because, and solely because, my bearing arms does not limit your own ability to bear arms, or to do anything else."

apply if you substitute the words "walk around naked"? My doing so would not infringe upon her right to do so and the statement "The ability to walk around naked is a right because, and solely because, my walking around naked does not limit your own ability to walk around naked, or to do anything else.

I just disagree with that logic/statement. I have never heard of the distinctions of "positive rights" or (non-Agressive) options and those may be correct terms for the rights and options I described but I am not a lawyer and view things too simplictically perhaps.

wrearick said:

We will have to agree to disagree. Not that your aurguments are wrong but I don't understand them and can't agree with them.

For example do these statements:
The sphere of right extends to all such actions which do not infringe upon another's ability to act with equivalent freedom.

and "The RKBA is a right because, and solely because, my bearing arms does not limit your own ability to bear arms, or to do anything else."

apply if you substitute the words "walk around naked"? My doing so would not infringe upon her right to do so and the statement "The ability to walk around naked is a right because, and solely because, my walking around naked does not limit your own ability to walk around naked, or to do anything else.

I just disagree with that logic/statement. I have never heard of the distinctions of "positive rights" or (non-Agressive) options and those may be correct terms for the rights and options I described but I am not a lawyer and view things too simplictically perhaps.

Click to expand...

You do, in fact, have a right to walk around naked – at least, until you venture onto private property whose owner prohibits it.

That the state prohibits this merely indicates that the state infringes right freely, as it does in many ways.

Thomas Jefferson said it most simply (although I prefer my phrasing for the utmost in semantic precision):

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

-Thomas Jefferson

Click to expand...

Does your walking around naked pick my pocket, or break my leg? (By my definition: does it infringe on my own ability to walk naked, or to exercise my other rights?)


Also, this is a brief article explaining "positive" vs "negative" rights:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

I've always liked the phrase: "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose."

marshaul said:

<snip>

Does your walking around naked pick my pocket, or break my leg? (By my definition: does it infringe on my own ability to walk naked, or to exercise my other rights?)

Also, this is a brief article explaining "positive" vs "negative" rights:

Click to expand...

If Kate Upton was in my sphere, and she were walking around naked.....you can bet a dollar to a doughnut that my leg would get broken.....though she did not break my leg.

Running Wolf said:

You asked for it: The original statement "You're very, very close, eye (far closer than most get), but you could still use a bit of refinement on this point." can easily be seen as condescending. The fact that you wanted to "praise eye95" is also easily seen as condescending. The former statement indicates eye's reasoning is unrefined, not up to snuff as it were. The latter statement seems to indicate an attempt to reinforce good behavior, which is manipulation.

IMO a better way to state it would have been: "Your statement is very close to the results of my own reasoning on this topic which is as follows . . . . " Then pointing out how your reasoning differs, and why you feel the difference is worth noting.

Also IMO saying that your posting was done "like an ass" is an over-reaction.

Click to expand...

This is the Internet. Your level of reasonability is not allowed!

wrearick said:

Thank you eye, you presented the point I was trying to make in a much clearer and understandable way. +1

Click to expand...

You are most welcome.