Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Psychology of OC and the response

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Syracuse, UT

    Psychology of OC and the response

    It's worth reading the original article, and response from an OC perspective, and also some of the responses, including Dennis from the 'Last Frontier'.

    Your feedback would be appreciated.

  2. #2
    Regular Member SouthernBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
    This article just reminded me of the first time I ever heard of anyone open carrying anywhere. It was in 1965 or 66 and I was working, of all places, in a women's shoe store. One of our salesman had just gotten back from a trip to Colorado. He was telling me that when there, he saw men carrying sidearms right out in the opening as they went about their normal business. I remember thinking both how cool that wasa and how unusual. I was really take back by this little bit of information. I don't know which town or city he was visiting, but I had forgotten about this until now. What I didn't know is that I could have done this right here in my own state of Virginia at that time, though I didn't own any firearms then.
    Last edited by SouthernBoy; 01-01-2014 at 07:33 AM.
    In the final seconds of your life, just before your killer is about to dispatch you to that great eternal darkness, what would you rather have in your hand? A cell phone or a gun?

    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

  3. #3
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    "That sentiment goes to the heart of the issue. The cold truth is when the average Joe or Joan Schmo sees someone with a gun, outside of a hunting situation, we think bad things. We think the gun-carrier is not right in the head."

    This statement is the one I'd feel most compelled to reply to. You see, this is not the heart of the issue, this is the heart of his personal issues. Never mind the hasty generalization, let's skip that and focus on something else. Essentially what this man is saying is that, the heart of the issue is how people perceive another man's intentions. That is not true - the issue is liberty and the heart of liberty is not how the observation of liberty makes observers react or feel. How one reacts or feels is at their heart, not the heart of what they are reacting to. As I think is the point of this thread, this exposes much more about the psyche of the observer than of the carrier, and that psyche (of the observer) is not consistent with rationality (or liberty).
    Righteous government, or the righteous lack thereof, is the product of a righteous society, not the producer of it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts