Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 33

Thread: Open Carry is a fundamental Human Right, not a partisan issue

  1. #1
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    One of the big reasons I was attracted to this board was the presence of so many people who view open carry as a human right, outside the lines of partisan politics.

    I think this is an important distinction from much of the internet gun community at large. As a "Jeffersonian Liberal" (sometimes called a Libertarian nowadays), I have no use for the "conservative" politics of the GOP (nor have I any time for the pseudo-liberal politics of the democratic party -- the only thing I have done fewer times than vote Republican is vote Democrat -- but that is beside the point).

    As the membership here has grown, so has the "conservative" slant. This is only to be expected, on a gun-related forum.

    I think it's fair to point out that OC is not a partisan issue, and in fact it is a freedom that is in excess of what both parties would willingly grant us, yet not outside the tolerance of rational folks, Republican and Democrat alike.

    An anecdote: I have more than a couple democrat-voting friends who view OC as an action inherently lacking any potential for harmful intent, and thus not reasonably subject to "common sense" regulation.

    While I have no doubt that every member of this board would disagree with these democrat-voting friends of mine, it's important to recognize that their tolerance leaves them open to the "educational" aspect of OC, which has the potential to demonstrate before everyone's very eyes that the myth of "common sense gun control" is a fantasy.

    After all, the sentiment of Thomas Jefferson (paraphrasing the words of Cesare Beccaria) is a product of true of "common sense":
    Thomas Jefferson wrote:
    Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.

    Personally, my hope for the future of our fine country lies outside the boundaries of partisan politics, as do my own political views. To me, OC is a great way to demonstrate that human rights are universal, even though political views may not be.

    I feel that the open carry movement has great potential; greater than that of most every other gun-rights group. Part of that potential is the ability to demonstrate to naysayers and those "on the fence" that Americans can be trusted with guns. I think we can maximize that potential by working to present OC as human rights issue, without respect to the politics of either major party.

    It's not just OC. The 2nd amendment is bigger than "us vs them." Yet, it seems that on both sides, people are content to perpetuate the problem by treating it as a partisan issue.

    I think the OC movement should work to change this unfortunate reality.

    Edit: pressed "send" too soon. Probably a little late to start writing this...

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    I'm giving myself a bump, because I can.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Eagle, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    639

    Post imported post

    Hear, hear!

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    I have often asked the questionwhy the right to OC but not CC. During the Revolutionary war General Francis Marion was criticized by teh British for his tactiics and not being the gentleman to stand up in a line like the Redcoats were trained to do.

    The OC argument is often that it takes away the surprise and shows your intentions but in reality is just a mask for being the accepted gentleman's way. I see no difference in teh right to be armed whether open or concealed. Those who have a CWP are content to tell those who refuse and just OC to et a permit and quit complaining. Those who refuse to get a CWP say back that OC is a right but CC isn't.

    The 2A doesn't say that right to OC, it says the right to bear arms. Why so many interpret that as only OC is a mystery to me.

  5. #5
    Regular Member MetalChris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    1,215

    Post imported post

    I think folks who insist on making partisan statements that have nothing to do with OC should be warned, and if they persist, banned. I'm getting tired of seeing it all the time from both the neo-cons and the ultra-libs.

    Tired of it!

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    I have often asked the questionwhy the right to OC but not CC. During the Revolutionary war General Francis Marion was criticized by teh British for his tactiics and not being the gentleman to stand up in a line like the Redcoats were trained to do.

    The OC argument is often that it takes away the surprise and shows your intentions but in reality is just a mask for being the accepted gentleman's way. I see no difference in teh right to be armed whether open or concealed. Those who have a CWP are content to tell those who refuse and just OC to et a permit and quit complaining. Those who refuse to get a CWP say back that OC is a right but CC isn't.

    The 2A doesn't say that right to OC, it says the right to bear arms. Why so many interpret that as only OC is a mystery to me.

    Agreed. I have nothing against OC, but CC 100% of the time myself. I don't see how CC isn't a right. Keep and bear arms doesn't put any restrictions on how I can bear them. If anything, I'd think CC would be the more people-friendly way to carry due to lower shock factor. If everyone agrees that we have some innate right tobear arms then it shouldn't matter how we choose to bear them.


  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator longwatch's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Northern Fauquier Co, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,297

    Post imported post

    Thats some mighty ironic misspelling there.

    In that I would like to see no regulation of carry a la Vermont. The climate for the last few centurys has seen fit to regulate the concealed carry of arms, ergo it is not recognized right now as part of the individual right. Heller pretty much affirmed that, so further climate change with wider OC and more shall issue CCW is what it will take to achieve more freedom.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    DFW, Texas, USA
    Posts
    429

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    One of the big reasons I was attracted to this board was the presence of so many people who view open carry as a human right, outside the lines of partisan politics.
    I feel that the open carry movement has great potential; greater than that of most every other gun-rights group. Part of that potential is the ability to demonstrate to naysayers and those "on the fence" that Americans can be trusted with guns. I think we can maximize that potential by working to present OC as human rights issue, without respect to the politics of either major party.
    I too was drawn to this board by the wide range of views and beliefs put forth toward a shared goal. There is something special about the OC movement. The short time I've been on this forum has had me reevaluatingsome of my long held beliefs.

    I came here seeking people who share my interest in RKBA. What I found is people who share my love for FREEDOM. People from all walks of life, all parts of this great countrywith disparate religious and political views coming together to work toward a common solution to a common issue.

    We are truly an agent for change in this country. A vast resource of brilliant minds and able bodies to affect the changes that we can to refortify basic inalienable human rights for every individual. I am proud to be a small part of such a noble endeavor.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    I have often asked the questionÂ*why the right to OC but not CC.Â* During the Revolutionary war General Francis Marion was criticized by teh British for his tactiics and not being the gentleman to stand up in a line like the Redcoats were trained to do.

    The OC argument is often that it takes away the surprise and shows your intentions but in reality is just a mask for being the accepted gentleman's way.Â* I see no difference in teh right to be armed whether open or concealed.Â* Those who have a CWP are content to tell those who refuse and just OC to et a permit and quit complaining.Â* Those who refuse to get a CWP say back that OC is a right but CC isn't.

    The 2A doesn't say that right to OC, it says the right to bear arms.Â* Why so many interpret that as only OC is a mystery to me.
    I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply any difference between OC and CC with my thread title. This is Open Carry.org, so the reference to OC in the title was to indicate relevance, not to exclude CC.

    Overall, I'm inclined to agree with you, but this is a different debate for another thread.

    cccook wrote:
    marshaul wrote:
    One of the big reasons I was attracted to this board was the presence of so many people who view open carry as a human right, outside the lines of partisan politics.
    I feel that the open carry movement has great potential; greater than that of most every other gun-rights group. Part of that potential is the ability to demonstrate to naysayers and those "on the fence" that Americans can be trusted with guns. I think we can maximize that potential by working to present OC as human rights issue, without respect to the politics of either major party.
    I too was drawn to this board by the wide range of views and beliefs put forth toward a shared goal. There is something special about the OC movement. The short time I've been on this forum has had me reevaluating some of my long held beliefs.

    I came here seeking people who share my interest in RKBA. What I found is people who share my love for FREEDOM. People from all walks of life, all parts of this great country with disparate religious and political views coming together to work toward a common solution to a common issue.

    We are truly an agent for change in this country. A vast resource of brilliant minds and able bodies to affect the changes that we can to refortify basic inalienable human rights for every individual. I am proud to be a small part of such a noble endeavor.
    It's good to hear from someone who shares my feelings on the matter!

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    , Connecticut, USA
    Posts
    2,715

    Post imported post

    longwatch wrote:
    Thats some mighty ironic misspelling there.

    Haha! Maybe somewhere in my subconcious I want to carry naked. :P Late night posting FTL.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Sonora Rebel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Gone
    Posts
    3,958

    Post imported post

    In Arizona's history... it was at one time considered cowardly to conceal your arms. The thinking being... why would you want to? Kind'a connected with 'up to no good' in doing so. This is why AZ has no restrictions on carrying knives (openly) of any length. Sword too it ya felt inclined. Arms... not limited to firearms. The Constitution never mentions firearms. Arms... period. I have a CCW but OC out of necessity... plus it's my preference. No political statements intended... I carry for my own defense and as a deterrent. I live in a rural area of the Sonora Desert... 'same desert it was back in the Wild West... 'least where mobody's built nuthin' on it yet. 'Lotta that too... 'got wild places here bigger then some States. Wild places have critters... not all of 'em friendly. 'Also, being close to the border... 'seems reasonable and prudent to do so.

  12. #12
    Regular Member Thundar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Newport News, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    4,961

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    As a "Jeffersonian Liberal" (sometimes called a Libertarian nowadays), I
    Libertarianism should not be equated with Jeffersonian Liberalism. Agree with everything else you say in the post.
    He wore his gun outside his pants for all the honest world to see. Pancho & Lefty

    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us....There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! ...The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, Sir, let it come …………. PATRICK HENRY speech 1776

  13. #13
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    Well, I used to consider myself a libertarian. I would have disagreed with you then.

    These days, when I consider the kinds of people who call themselves "libertarian," I'm inclined to agree.

  14. #14
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    SeaTac, Washington, USA
    Posts
    434

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    I have often asked the questionwhy the right to OC but not CC. During the Revolutionary war General Francis Marion was criticized by teh British for his tactiics and not being the gentleman to stand up in a line like the Redcoats were trained to do.

    The OC argument is often that it takes away the surprise and shows your intentions but in reality is just a mask for being the accepted gentleman's way. I see no difference in teh right to be armed whether open or concealed. Those who have a CWP are content to tell those who refuse and just OC to et a permit and quit complaining. Those who refuse to get a CWP say back that OC is a right but CC isn't.

    The 2A doesn't say that right to OC, it says the right to bear arms. Why so many interpret that as only OC is a mystery to me.
    I agere completely. There is also no requirement in the constitution the firearm be for hunting, self defense or anyother specified purpose. The difference between CC and OC is only in the degree of protection you need at the moment and convenience.

    I posted this in another thread "Self defense can take more than one form. We often hear "if you pull your gun, shoot". It is not unusual for a BG to change his mind once a CCer pullshis weapon. So you were defended without shooting. But deterrents are also self defense. If you are carrying a gun OC you can be conked on the head and your gun taken. But this can also happen if you are CCing. You could get conked and robbed even if you are unarmed. For the unarmed there is no deterrent. If you are CCing you must pull andbrandish your weapon for it to become a deterrent. In other words the assault is already in progress before your weapon becomes a factor. If you are OCing the BG can see this and must be willing to risk his life. Why would he when there are so many unarmed victims around. Guns themselves are cheap and readily available so why die to get one? OC then becomes the only actual deterrent.

    In summary CC responds to an assault. OC deters an assault. Either can be used to stop an assault."

    I think it is relevent here. No license should be required carry a firearm.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Walton County, Georgia, ,
    Posts
    475

    Post imported post

    The 2nd amendment isn't limited to only firearms. The amendment uses the word 'arms' and does not specify which arms we have a right to keep and bear. All arms (grenades, fully automatic machine guns, switchblades, baseball bats, tasers, OC sprays, etc.) should be legal in America. It may seem a little crazy but if we're going to go with a literal translation of the 2nd amendment we should go all the way. Also, criminals are going to get there hands on those weapons regardless of the law and law abiding citizens aren't going to cause harm to society with them, so why not allow the people to have them?



  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    N00blet45 wrote:
    The 2nd amendment isn't limited to only firearms. The amendment uses the word 'arms' and does not specify which arms we have a right to keep and bear. All arms (grenades, fully automatic machine guns, switchblades, baseball bats, tasers, OC sprays, etc.) should be legal in America. It may seem a little crazy but if we're going to go with a literal translation of the 2nd amendment we should go all the way. Also, criminals are going to get there hands on those weapons regardless of the law and law abiding citizens aren't going to cause harm to society with them, so why not allow the people to have them?

    This discussion keeps getting brought up on this board and keeps getting deleted for being off topic. At times it appears that some feel the 2A only applies to OC of guns. Until we have universal OC carry some of us are going to have to limp along either with CC or in some cases with other types of defense such as knives or walking sticks. The Heller ruling was a giant leap forward but since it was limited some are very unhappy about it. It is that "All or Nothing" too many times means nothing.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Walton County, Georgia, ,
    Posts
    475

    Post imported post

    I understand that strategy and it's best to 'cut at the edges' till you can get to the core sometimes. However, if you bring up the 2nd amendment you should know that it means all arms and not just the arms you want, much in the same way the 1st amendment guarantees all speech and not just what you want to hear.

  18. #18
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    None of this was the intended topic of this thread.

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Walton County, Georgia, ,
    Posts
    475

    Post imported post

    Sorry for derailing the topic. I tend to do that quite often. So I'll put it back on track.

    I agree with you that a lot of rights have become partisan issues. Neither major party seems to support the entire Bill of Rights as it is written. During the elections they try to 'court' the various groups of voters. The thing is that once the voters 'give it up' to the candidate the voters end up alone in bed while the newly elected president leaves without fulfilling the promises made the night before or even cuddling.

    The only way we're going to get OC and other civil rights into the election as a real issue and not a partisan game is by having a third party with enough political base to challenge the current two for votes.

  20. #20
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    DFW, Texas, USA
    Posts
    429

    Post imported post

    marshaul wrote:
    I feel that the open carry movement has great potential; greater than that of most every other gun-rights group. Part of that potential is the ability to demonstrate to naysayers and those "on the fence" that Americans can be trusted with guns. I think we can maximize that potential by working to present OC as human rights issue, without respect to the politics of either major party.
    So perhaps the OC movement is the "third party" that NOOblet45 is speaking off. Not necessarilyas a political party but in a "we the sovereign people" sort of way. And by remaining separate from partisan politics we may exercise greater affect on the human condition in America.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Michigander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Mulligan's Valley
    Posts
    4,830

    Post imported post

    Gun ownership and possession in general is a constitutional right, and some believe God given. It need not be related to politics. And the same is true of our cause, we should keep political arguments out of things as much as possible. It's kind of like Ted Nugent. If he didn't go and insult Democrats so much, he'd be much more respected. We need to keep things like that in mind.
    Answer every question about open carry in Michigan you ever had with one convenient and free book- http://libertyisforeveryone.com/open-carry-resources/

    The complete and utter truth can be challenged from every direction and it will always hold up. Accordingly there are few greater displays of illegitimacy than to attempt to impede free thought and communication.

  22. #22
    Moderator / Administrator Grapeshot's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    North Chesterfield, Va.
    Posts
    34,616

    Post imported post

    cccook wrote:
    marshaul wrote:
    I feel that the open carry movement has great potential; greater than that of most every other gun-rights group. Part of that potential is the ability to demonstrate to naysayers and those "on the fence" that Americans can be trusted with guns. I think we can maximize that potential by working to present OC as human rights issue, without respect to the politics of either major party.
    So perhaps the OC movement is the "third party" that NOOblet45 is speaking off. Not necessarilyas a political party but in a "we the sovereign people" sort of way. And by remaining separate from partisan politics we may exercise greater affect on the human condition in America.
    One can hope!

    Each one of us is an emissary.

    Yata hey
    You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC

    Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.

  23. #23
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    cccook wrote:
    marshaul wrote:
    I feel that the open carry movement has great potential; greater than that of most every other gun-rights group. Part of that potential is the ability to demonstrate to naysayers and those "on the fence" that Americans can be trusted with guns. I think we can maximize that potential by working to present OC as human rights issue, without respect to the politics of either major party.
    So perhaps the OC movement is the "third party" that NOOblet45 is speaking off. Not necessarilyÂ*as a political party but in a "we the sovereign people" sort of way. And by remaining separate from partisan politics we may exercise greater affect on the human condition in America.
    This is my thinking on the matter. I believe it is a realistic goal we can work towards, starting right here on this forum.

    Personal responsibility is an incredibly powerful concept. When you give people responsibility, they will eagerly embrace it. It's not a political party, but it is the Personal Responsibility movement.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Marietta, OH, ,
    Posts
    100

    Post imported post

    Open Carry is a fundamental Human Right, not a partisan issue
    You know, it's easy to say this, but with the election just around the corner, is it true? The reality is that gun ownership period, comes into question when looking at the candidates. You can't even get deep enough into the argument of OC'ing/CC'ing, machine guns etc. without first seeing who is more favorable for the RTBA.

    Just off the top of my head without looking up any statistics, I would say thatRepublicans have been more gun friendly than the Dems. That doesn't hold true all the time I know. Our Dem. Gov here in OH is more 2nd Amendment friendly, and has passed more favorable laws, than our last Republican weenie.

    But still, when you look at the voting records of Bama/Biden vs. McCain/? and a Democrat majority Congress, how can you seperate politics from gun ownership, much less OC/CC?

  25. #25
    Campaign Veteran marshaul's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia
    Posts
    11,487

    Post imported post

    My initial inclination is to point out that there are more rights than just RKBA, rights which are unambiguously being trashed by the forces of partisan politics.

    But this thread is about 2nd amendment rights, so I'll address your argument directly. The Republican party does not have a history of supporting a "right" to bear arms, only a privilege to own them. For example, the current GOP candidate for POTUS is a well-established "gun-grabber."

    http://www.gunowners.org/mccaintb.htm

    So, essentially your argument boils down to the same tired, old lesser-of-two-evils baloney. Take a look down at the bottom of the following page, and you'll see what I (and a few others) think about that.

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum4/15313-2.html

    Edit: I didn't "separate politics from gun ownership," I decried the negative effects of partisan politics on same. Discussing abrogation of rights is very much political.

    Furthermore, it is exactly that kind of complacent/terrorized (take your pick) reliance on your political party of choice to "have a better record" that has dug us into this hole in the first place. It's exactly that partisanship I'm attempting to address with this thread.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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