Results 1 to 13 of 13

Thread: How Bizarre: A Gun-Hater Who is Pro Open Carry!

  1. #1
    Regular Member TFred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Most historic town in, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    7,705

    How Bizarre: A Gun-Hater Who is Pro Open Carry!

    No, you really just can't make this stuff up! The gun-hating crazies really are bizarre!

    From Sunday's Free Lance-Star (Fredericksburg.)

    TFred

    Letter: People who don't own guns have rights too

    Excerpts:

    Concealed carry needs to be done away with. All gun owners should carry openly.

    When I see you at the counter in Starbucks, I should have the right to decide if I want that coffee now or leave the store immediately.

    When I drop my sons at soccer practice and see you’re one of the coaches, I should have the right to decide if my son joins another team or plays Little League.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Soccer? Move to the EU ya lizard !

    We play football or baseball in the USA.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Fairfax VA
    Posts
    52
    I like it how the writer, Kiberly Blatt, takes a neo-noir approach to her anti-gun tomfoolery.

    One thing that made me chuckle was where she said that open carriers are "1. You are prepared; 2. willing to kill me."

    I hope she realizes that this conclusion of hers could also apply to those who drive cars. Or use chainsaws. Or are playing little league baseball.

  4. #4
    Regular Member The Wolfhound's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Henrico, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    697

    As usual they misuse the term "Rights"

    She has the right to her feelings, they are her property. She has no right to insist I assist her in feeling any particular way. It is in fact impossible for an outside force or person to make her feel any particular feeling as the entire process of feeling is internal. My gun does not interfere with any of her enumerated rights as described in the Constitution or any other rights as interpreted in legal precedent. Her attitude and thus her actions are trying to interfere with mine, just so she "feels" safe. I wish there were a way to allow such nimrods to suddenly see all the guns around them that they were not aware of. Of course, we would need more psych beds for the catatonic.
    Last edited by The Wolfhound; 05-24-2016 at 11:40 AM.
    Appleseed, Virginia State Coordinator
    Are you a Rifleman yet?
    http://appleseedinfo.org

  5. #5
    Regular Member wrearick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Virginia Beach, Va.
    Posts
    635
    She insists that people disclose to her personal and private decisions (to carry concealed) so she may make a judgment on the threat level she "feels" from you. She has no more "right" to that information than she does to the genitalia between the legs of that little league coach or the person in line in front of her at Starbucks. While I am sure she may want to know that information and even see it as a right so she can determine how she "feels" (judgment) about her child's proximity to that person it is not a right.

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by TFred View Post
    No, you really just can't make this stuff up! The gun-hating crazies really are bizarre!
    Actually, this isn't at all bizarre. It is really quite rational (once we ignore the irrationality of being terrified of guns). If the gun is present, it presents as much of a threat whether it is visible, or whether it is concealed beneath a layer of clothing.

    We had several people making very similar comments about 10 years ago in Utah when our legislature and State Supreme Court (highest court in Utah) forced the taxpayer funded Colleges and Universities to respect our permits to carry. The rhetoric was almost identical. "If you are going to carry a gun you shouldn't hide it. You should carry it out in the open so I know when I need to leave an area or so a professor knows who might pose a risk in the classroom."

    Of course, the not so subtle implication was that if gun owners were required to carry openly, then the gun-haters could use social stigma or even official harassment to discourage anyone from carrying a gun. How does the OCer adult college student prove that his professors are grading his papers lower because they know he carries a gun? Where is the legal line between campus cops making good faith checks that the OCd firearm is carried legally rather than being a threat, and frequent harassment that results in being late to class?

    But at some point, word gets out that carrying a gun on campus is more hassle than it is worth and people don't carry despite having the legal right to do so.

    What is most telling, however, is that ten years on with concealed carry universally acknowledged as legal and acceptable and with students starting to OC on campus, some of the same voices who once demanded gun owners OC (ie wear that Star of David so they can be discriminated against), are now demanding that all guns be kept out of sight (ie that gun owners get into the closet). It is clear that social / peer pressure hasn't stopped people from carrying. Most professors are academically honest enough to grade papers accurately despite personal disagreement with student's political views. And there are limits to what campus cops are willing to do in terms of harassment.

    So if the gun haters can't keep guns off campus, they now desperately want to keep guns out of sight, to keep gun carriers a fringe element of society, to force them into the closet lest they influence others in a similar direction.

    As the old aviation saw goes, "When you're taking flak you know you're over the target."

    When the gun-haters are unhappy, we're likely to be doing something right.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  7. #7
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    While she needs mental health evaluation, she is correct in that OC allows the public to decide if they want to be around a gun carrier. Long ago OC was legal in almost every state, including NYS, and CC was illegal there was a reason for that. That reason has been explained in the courts in decisions on carry, it was referenced in Heller by Scalia(RIP). The courts have said that OC is a right, and CC can be regulated. Even in our own NC constitution it is spelled out as such. Considering that almost all criminals conceal if they carry, and OCers have been more sane, and safe from the statistics then her point has merit.

    We may not like her reasons, but must recognize the reality of her conclusion.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  8. #8
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373
    That's why the concealed carry statute requires registration, background checks, and certification of eligibility to be in possession of a firearm. What this person is saying is that she doesn't trust the state's decisions regarding the balance between public notice that one is carrying and the hoops one has to jump through to be allowed to carry concealed.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Lynchburg
    Posts
    591
    When someone begins claiming about their rights and their feelings they are true social justice warriors.


    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Ban-Social-Justice-2.jpg 
Views:	100 
Size:	92.6 KB 
ID:	13114


    And if that does not get them enough justice they enter phase 2 of the protest.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Cry Baby Attack.jpg 
Views:	86 
Size:	75.6 KB 
ID:	13115


    Nemo

  10. #10
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    That's why the concealed carry statute requires registration, background checks, and certification of eligibility to be in possession of a firearm. What this person is saying is that she doesn't trust the state's decisions regarding the balance between public notice that one is carrying and the hoops one has to jump through to be allowed to carry concealed.
    I think she is saying she is scared of guns, but wants the option to see just who is carrying. In that respect she can make her choice whether to be around the gun person, or not. Which is within her rights to make that choice to be around guns. She is not advocating no carry, but open carry, just like many of us.

    Many of us carry open for her same reasons, to give the public the choice to be around us, or for the criminals to make a choice to seek a unarmed target. It is what IMO the founders intended for the government to be wary of armed citizens. Anonymous armed does not have the same affect, that is IMO why the writers chose the work "bear" instead of carry, or possess.

    While I think she has mental issues with her fear of guns, her reasoning to make her own choices is not as offensive. She is not demanding taking guns away, she just wants to know who is armed.

    ETA since most people are more scared of OC, than CC she has little chance to see a change in the law. IMO a better option would be for her to lose her fear of firearms, then carry herself to defend herself from any threat.
    Last edited by WalkingWolf; 05-26-2016 at 09:50 AM.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

  11. #11
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,795
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    She is not advocating no carry, but open carry,
    Not overtly. But I'd bet dollars to donuts that given the choice, she'd prefer no carry to OC. In my past interactions with gun haters who profess a desire to see OC, they are not really supporting OC or any other carry, but are hoping that social stigma or even various levels of official harassment will result in de facto no carry.

    Once the realize that isn't going to work and people are going to carry, they change their tune to demanding CC only so they can delude themselves into believing nobody has a gun....or, more importantly, denying carriers the opportunity to normalize the possession of guns.

    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    Anonymous armed does not have the same affect,
    To be fair, discretely armed carries a different and perhaps larger benefit for society. With OC, criminals can pretty quickly determine who is armed vs who is an easy target. With discrete carry, criminals have a harder time determining which are the easy targets.

    10% of Utahns have carry permits. (Not nearly that many actually carry on any regular basis, but let's pretend they did.)

    10% is a very small minority. But when carried discretely, it presents a serious problems for criminals. To make a living stealing $20 to $100 at a time, a mugger has to be pretty prolific. A one in ten chance of facing an armed victim are high enough odds to make many criminals rethink how they operate. Hence, Lott's findings that as the number of carry permits increase, violent crime decreases while property crime increases. Smash and grabs from unattended cars at the mall is a lot safer than a 1 in 10 chance of staring down the barrel of a gun.

    In an interesting parallel, 10% or even 5% of a jury pool committed to justice would make it all but impossible to convict unjustly. If 10% of the jury pool is committed to restraining the state, there is a 72% chance that a 12 person jury will refuse to convict (with a hung jury) if the jury is not screened to weed out the troublesome persons. Even a 5% minority results in an almost 50% chance of a hung jury. In this parallel, OC is a bit like allowing the prosecutor to ask enough questions to figure out who the 5% or 10% are and then exclude them.

    On the flip side, OC concentrates the benefits of carrying to the individual carrier. I'm not relying on the crook being good enough at math or having had enough personal experience to know that he might face an armed victim. All he has to do is notice that gun on my hip and he is likely to wait for an easier target. Plus the benefits of normalizing possession of firearms by private citizens.

    So your phrasing was spot on. It isn't that CC offers fewer benefits than OC. It is that OC and CC provide different benefits, potentially to different groups.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  12. #12
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373
    Quote Originally Posted by WalkingWolf View Post
    I think she is saying she is scared of guns, but wants the option to see just who is carrying. In that respect she can make her choice whether to be around the gun person, or not. Which is within her rights to make that choice to be around guns. She is not advocating no carry, but open carry, just like many of us.

    Many of us carry open for her same reasons, to give the public the choice to be around us, or for the criminals to make a choice to seek a unarmed target. It is what IMO the founders intended for the government to be wary of armed citizens. Anonymous armed does not have the same affect, that is IMO why the writers chose the work "bear" instead of carry, or possess.

    While I think she has mental issues with her fear of guns, her reasoning to make her own choices is not as offensive. She is not demanding taking guns away, she just wants to know who is armed.

    ETA since most people are more scared of OC, than CC she has little chance to see a change in the law. IMO a better option would be for her to lose her fear of firearms, then carry herself to defend herself from any threat.
    I agree completely, but my point was that she doesn't trust the system to make a determination about concealed carriers that she can rely on.
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  13. #13
    Regular Member WalkingWolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    12,278
    Quote Originally Posted by user View Post
    I agree completely, but my point was that she doesn't trust the system to make a determination about concealed carriers that she can rely on.
    I don't trust the system(guberment) with that type of control. It has been shown many times that government cannot legislate who is sane, and who is not, or safe. The best option is no government interference. Which is not what she wants, she wants more intrusion, but for the same reasons as I want less, it would seem.
    It is well that war is so terrible – otherwise we would grow too fond of it.
    Robert E. Lee
    The patriot volunteer, fighting for country and his rights, makes the most reliable soldier on earth.
    Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
    What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.
    President Donald Trump

Posting Permissions

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