"OCers have no common sense"

imported post

I'm still pretty new to all this, waiting on TX to pull through so please forgive me if I missed the boat on this subject (I'll continueto search the forums).

A primary criticism I hear is that OCers should use better judgement and discretion on where they open carry. That OC advocates hurt their cause when they don't conceal it and OC will be then prohibited because OCers "abuse the right". This concern is that of not offending anyone...there's lots of kids around...etc.

Alot of folks, mainly concealed carriers use this argument and absolutely cannot move past it.

What do you say? How do you react?

imported post

Shorts wrote:

I'm still pretty new to all this, waiting on TX to pull through so please forgive me if I missed the boat on this subject (I'll continue to search the forums).

A primary criticism I hear is that OCers should use better judgement and discretion on where they open carry. That OC advocates hurt their cause when they don't conceal it and OC will be then prohibited because OCers "abuse the right". This concern is that of not offending anyone...there's lots of kids around...etc.

Alot of folks, mainly concealed carriers use this argument and absolutely cannot move past it.

What do you say? How do you react?

Click to expand...

Let me answer you in this way-

I'm still pretty new to all this, waiting on TX to pull through so please forgive me if I missed the boat on this subject (I'll continue to search the forums).

A primary criticism I hear is that Free speech advocatesshould use better judgement and discretion on where they talk. That Free speech advocateshurt their cause when they don't Moderate their ideas and that Free speech will be then prohibited becauseFree speech advocates"abuse the right". This concern is that of not offending anyone...there's lots of kids around...etc.

A lot of folks, mainly Self appointed elitistsuse this argument and absolutely cannot move past it.

What do you say? How do you react?

Click to expand...

Now do you get it?

Regards

imported post

I love this threads headline! It certainly grabbed my attention.

I would have to say that judgement and discretion should always be used when carrying a firearm. If I do not feel confident in carrying a firearmin a certain situation, I should probably avoid that situation. This is a personal decision I have to make myself, and it does not determine whether or not the firearm should be carried; it determines whether or not I should be present.

Regarding offending someone's "tender sensitivities" (which defines the situation better for the purpose of discussion), there are many things which offend or disturb people. This is merely a matter of perception.

For example, I have a personal distaste for tatoos and body piercing. I would prefer that my children not involve themselves with these practices, so I do not take them to body art festivals. However, I expect that we will encounter people who do practice body art in public. I do not expect them to cover their tatoos, piercings,or disfigurements on my account.

Lastly, regarding open carry versus concealed carry. In my state, open carry does not require a license or permit; concealed carry requires a license. There is neither a requirement to obtain a concealed carry license nor a requirement to carry concealed if one has such a license. This would be similar to prohibiting someone from walking just because they have a drivers license. Again...a matter of perception.

Good luck with the OC movement in Texas, Shorts.

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

Shorts wrote:

I'm still pretty new to all this, waiting on TX to pull through so please forgive me if I missed the boat on this subject (I'll continue to search the forums).

A primary criticism I hear is that OCers should use better judgement and discretion on where they open carry. That OC advocates hurt their cause when they don't conceal it and OC will be then prohibited because OCers "abuse the right". This concern is that of not offending anyone...there's lots of kids around...etc.

Alot of folks, mainly concealed carriers use this argument and absolutely cannot move past it.

What do you say? How do you react?

Click to expand...

Let me answer you in this way-

I'm still pretty new to all this, waiting on TX to pull through so please forgive me if I missed the boat on this subject (I'll continue to search the forums).

A primary criticism I hear is that Free speech advocatesshould use better judgement and discretion on where they talk. That Free speech advocateshurt their cause when they don't Moderate their ideas and that Free speech will be then prohibited becauseFree speech advocates"abuse the right". This concern is that of not offending anyone...there's lots of kids around...etc.

A lot of folks, mainly Self appointed elitistsuse this argument and absolutely cannot move past it.

What do you say? How do you react?

Click to expand...

Now do you get it?

Regards

Click to expand...

:exclaim:
Amen.

imported post

Shorts wrote:

What do you say? How do you react?

Click to expand...

Those arguments are clear proof that one has no real argument.
Like so many "anti" positions, they are simpy grasping at emotional straws.

Simply, I think carrying a gun is very polite.

I completely dismiss any notion that there are places one should not OC. There is simply no factual, as opposed to "feelings" that make OC inappropriate. If that were the case police would be barred from such places.

imported post

Thanks hawkflyer. Took me a sec (its 2am here) but I see it.

If I might dig here as I've never got ahold of this one. Help?:

"You can't just yell fire in a crowded theater"

imported post

Shorts wrote:

...
"You can't just yell fire in a crowded theater"

Click to expand...

Sounds like the equivalent of a negligent discharge to me.

imported post

Shorts wrote:

"You can't just yell fire in a crowded theater"

Click to expand...

Sure you can.

This one is commonly brought up by people who haven't thought out very carefully the positions they are arguing. I suggest you point that out to them after you defeat their arguments.

At any rate, the right to free speech is absolute. It is not in some way "limited" because "you can't" "yell 'fire' in a crowded theater". But, with any rights come responsibilities. Simply put, rights give you the practical ability to infringe upon the rights of others but you never have the right to do so.

For example, you have the right to carry a gun for defense, but nobody would argue that right is "limited" because you can't shoot people on the street. Carrying a gun is your right, shooting someone violates their rights.

Properly understood, rights can never be in conflict.

Back to the fire example: your right to free speech enables you to yell in a theater (although of course as its private property you may be asked to leave), but what you don't have the right to do is cause people to be injured, or cause to be broken each of the contractual agreements between the patrons and the theater operator.

So, running in and yelling "**** BUSH!" would be within your rights, as would yelling "Fire!" if there is a fire, or if there is not assuming you A: didn't cause a stampede which killed anybody and B: the theater owner hired you to do so.

In fact, if you did cause a stampede, you wouldn't be liable for "exceeding" your "limited" "right to free speech", you would be liable for causing people to be injured, something quite unrelated to and unprotected by "free speech".

imported post

Shorts wrote:

Thanks hawkflyer. Took me a sec (its 2am here) but I see it.

If I might dig here as I've never got ahold of this one. Help?:

"You can't just yell fire in a crowded theater"

Click to expand...

Marshaul probably explained it better than I could, but the point is that you have to separate what is a "RIGHT" from what are consequences of exercise of that right. So for your question the issues are-

Our RIGHT to go peaceably about our business while openly armed, verses someone else's comfort at our exercise of that right. The last time I looked there was nothing anywhere guaranteeing a person the right to be comfortable with the exercise of someones else rights, so long as their rights are not violated.

So their next argument would usually be that they have a right to move through society without fear and that I am inducing fear. That is a bogus argument. First off they do not have a right to a "fear free" life, but even if they did, the fear is self induced, it is not caused by any threatening act on my part directed toward them.

So that leaves courtesy. DOes it show a lack of courtesy on my part to be openly armed in the presence of someone who is not comfortable with firearms? I say no it is not. They have decided to be someplace where firearms are acceptable and leagl to carry. The easiest example is smoking, and while it is not a perfect allegory, it will do for our discussion.

There are non smoking areas, just as there are areas where people may not go armed. There are smoking areas just as there are places were firearms are legal to carry. AS a smoker I would have to abide by those restrictions and so should others. But it is two way street. As a non-smoker you cannot come into the smoking area and tell everyone they must stop smoking because a non-smoker has entered the space.

If my firearm bothers you that is unfortunate but then you should stick to those parts of the world that are "gun Free" zones, just as I avoid such areas.

Regards

imported post

Hawk, if you want a little bit better analogy than smoking (which can definitely be called harmful to others), you might try tattoos/piercings. Those are some inanimate things that freak some folks out.

imported post

Shorts wrote:

SNIP "You can't just yell fire in a crowded theater"

Click to expand...

Another problem with the fire-yelling example is that the penalty is only applied after the offense.

If anti-gun thinking wereapplied to yelling"fire" in a theater, they would basically cut out everyone's tongue before they entered the theater to prevent anyone yelling "fire," or sew their lips shut, etc.

Its called prior restraint.

Aprohibitionagainst carrying a guninfringes the person'sliberty before anyoffense is committed.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

If anti-gun thinking wereapplied to yelling"fire" in a theater, they would basically cut out everyone's tongue before they entered the theater to prevent anyone yelling "fire," or sew their lips shut, etc.

Click to expand...

Not that some people don't deserve exactly this. And while you're at it, take their cellphones and smash them against a brick wall when they insist on texting. Why somebody would pay ten bucks to go sit in a dark room and text their braindead friends for two hours while annoying everyone around them is beyond me.

imported post

Tomahawk wrote:

Citizen wrote:

If anti-gun thinking wereapplied to yelling"fire" in a theater, they would basically cut out everyone's tongue before they entered the theater to prevent anyone yelling "fire," or sew their lips shut, etc.

Click to expand...

SNIP Not that some people don't deserve exactly this.

Click to expand...

Your recommendation is prolly a little severe, but I well understand the frustration behind it.

imported post

Good insight yall. I appreciate the explanations

I love this threads headline! It certainly grabbed my attention.

Click to expand...

I thought it would. My high school English teacher would be proud, "The first line of your paper should be catchy and draw the reader in"

So, running in and yelling "@#$% BUSH!" would be within your rights, as would yelling "Fire!" if there is a fire, or if there is not assuming you A: didn't cause a stampede which killed anybody and B: the theater owner hired you to do so.

In fact, if you did cause a stampede, you wouldn't be liable for "exceeding" your "limited" "right to free speech", you would be liable for causing people to be injured, something quite unrelated to and unprotected by "free speech".

Click to expand...

This made a lot of sense to me. Are there any other consequences that can be applied? I got accused of having a 'false dichotomy' once :uhoh:

Another problem with the fire-yelling example is that the penalty is only applied after the offense. If anti-gun thinking were applied to yelling "fire" in a theater, they would basically cut out everyone's tongue before they entered the theater to prevent anyone yelling "fire," or sew their lips shut, etc. Its called prior restraint. A prohibition against carrying a gun infringes the person's liberty before any offense is committed.

Click to expand...

Great illustration here and I agree, some people could do with a little less use of their tongues lol But I also want to ask the same of this question as the one above. Are there
restrictions or regulations that are aimed at curbing/controlling, in this example, free speech other than the consequences of exercising that right?

imported post

Hawkflyer wrote:

Marshaul probably explained it better than I could, but the point is that you have to separate what is a "RIGHT" from what are consequences of exercise of that right. So for your question the issues are-

Our RIGHT to go peaceably about our business while openly armed, verses someone else's comfort at our exercise of that right. The last time I looked there was nothing anywhere guaranteeing a person the right to be comfortable with the exercise of someones else rights, so long as their rights are not violated.

So their next argument would usually be that they have a right to move through society without fear and that I am inducing fear. That is a bogus argument. First off they do not have a right to a "fear free" life, but even if they did, the fear is self induced, it is not caused by any threatening act on my part directed toward them.

So that leaves courtesy. DOes it show a lack of courtesy on my part to be openly armed in the presence of someone who is not comfortable with firearms? I say no it is not. They have decided to be someplace where firearms are acceptable and leagl to carry. The easiest example is smoking, and while it is not a perfect allegory, it will do for our discussion.

There are non smoking areas, just as there are areas where people may not go armed. There are smoking areas just as there are places were firearms are legal to carry. AS a smoker I would have to abide by those restrictions and so should others. But it is two way street. As a non-smoker you cannot come into the smoking area and tell everyone they must stop smoking because a non-smoker has entered the space.

If my firearm bothers you that is unfortunate but then you should stick to those parts of the world that are "gun Free" zones, just as I avoid such areas.

Regards

Click to expand...

Also good insight. Thank you.

imported post

How can an OC'er determine when it is appropriate to OC or CC? We need to CC if kids are around or if we offend? How would one know if thearea they are in is going to have someone freak out if they see a gun? I believe it all boils down to perception. I work in and out of c-stores everyday. I see sheriff's, police, security, correction officers, military all the time OC'ing, and no one freaks out. What is the common denominator? Honestly I think it is because of the uniform. No seriously. The average anti sees a person in a uniform that has a gun and they think this person is trained to use the gun, is "allowed" to have the gun, it is a part of their job to have the gun. If these same people walked into a store wearing street clothes then the antis wouldworry. The "uniform" tells the anti theyare ok. So when a civilianOC's there is no uniform involved so they are worried. They feel that you are not responsible with the weapon because they are unfamiliar with weapons in generalso you must not be familiar them either. Even though like most of us, we go to the range and practice, we walk through different scenarios in our heads of "What if" it just doesn't matter because no uniform means you are not "trained". When should a person OC or CC? I think it is up to the individual.It is not our responsibility to soothand comfort anyones sensibilites. I can't think of any birthright that gives anyone the right to go through life without fear, worry, or to not be offended. If the sight of a gun is worrisome because it is has taken so many lives, then we need to rethink vehicles, they account for the most deaths in the world, yet we will give a 16 year old a license and have them drive on the highways with little experience. I think the antis are fighting the wrong battle if they want to save lives, they fight this battle for their own agenda.

imported post

It has always amused me that a gun not seen (concealed) is okay but a visible gun (OC) is dangerous. This is the example of what you don't see, can't hurt you. That premise is wrong. It is all about perception as seen by the eye of the beholder.

How does the person change from being a good guy to a BG when they move from CC to OC? Answer is they don't but other people's perception of him may. Strange - nothing else is different.

Yata hey

imported post

Have you ever noticed that often times when someone doesn't agree with another about something and can't give a strong argument for their position, they restort to belittling. It seems that when they can't show that their opinion has superior qualifications (which in their minds is a must), they resort to cutting down the views or opinions that do not coincide with their own.

We all have to admit that we would like to be right about everything all of the time. But, in reality, that isn't going to happen. And it can be tough for some of us to admit when are wrong. What is also tough for some people to admit tois that there can be more than one right, yet different,answer to an issue. This is when egos get in the way.

imported post

Shorts wrote:

So, running in and yelling "@#$% BUSH!" would be within your rights, as would yelling "Fire!" if there is a fire, or if there is not assuming you A: didn't cause a stampede which killed anybody and B: the theater owner hired you to do so.

In fact, if you did cause a stampede, you wouldn't be liable for "exceeding" your "limited" "right to free speech", you would be liable for causing people to be injured, something quite unrelated to and unprotected by "free speech".

Click to expand...

This made a lot of sense to me.  Are there any other consequences that can be applied?  I got accused of having a 'false dichotomy' once   :uhoh:

Click to expand...

Sure, if you yelled "Fire!" in a crowded theater, you have committed a tort against the patrons and the theater operator, who are all going to want to be reimbursed for ticket price/lost earnings. You are liable for this.

What false dilemma have you been accused of manufacturing?

imported post

Shorts wrote:

A primary criticism I hear is that OCers should use better judgement and discretion on where they open carry. That OC advocates hurt their cause when they don't conceal it and OC will be then prohibited because OCers "abuse the right". This concern is that of not offending anyone...there's lots of kids around...etc.

Click to expand...

IMHO, no right can be "abused". A right is just that, and is (supposedly) inviolate. I personally refuse to use descretion in anything I dobecause it might offend someone as I'm sick to death of whiners always sniviling about how they find this, that, and the other offensive to them. I drive a full sized pickup truck, I drink, I smoke, I open carry and own firearms, I fly the Confederate flag,I voted for McCain,etc. Any or all of that's going to offend someone andI refuseto walk on eggshells because someone mighttake offense at what I do.Besides, I've read the Constitution and no where did I see a Constitutionally guarenteed right to not be offended.

(rant off)

As for the hardcore OCers, you carry the way youlike and we'll carry the way we like.There should'nt be any discord here at all because it all boils down to the same thing; the right to own and carry arms, and we should all be on the same side in this.

III