My comments in bold blue:
Did you correct the kids? It's never "too soon" to teach kids appropriate facts, especially if they express something in error with respect to certain facts. We want to eradicate error and ignorance in people (especially about guns and gun rights), and nipping it in the bud in their youth is probably best.
Eh... I think I would personally draw the line at engaging another person's child in discussion. --Ididn'tsay engage in discussion, I said correct errors of fact.--
If people want to ask you questions front of their children, then sure... they should be prepared for the answers. But involving another person's child in an adult discussion -- I didn't say involve a child in an adult discussion; keep correction of facts with children simple and at their level: "No, I'm not in the Army; any adult who obeys the rules may do what I'mdoing."--
, especially one that can cause arguments or turmoil --Keeping tosimple corrections of fact which I speak of and avoidingthe "adult discussion" that you speak of precludesyour concern about argument or turmoil.--
, is something that I wouldn't do. Regardless of my views on something, I still try to pick my battles properly. --Simple correction of fact = no "adult discussion" = no "battles".--
I believe that a child should be permitted to grow up into a man or women before someone tries to undermine their parents teachings like this. --How does simple correction of fact, on the spot when presented with a simple error of fact by a child, ("No, I'm not in the Army; any adult who obeys the rules may do what I'mdoing.")undermineanother parent's teachings . . .unless the other parent is teaching lies about facts?--
It might be different if the parents were raising them to be racial bigots or something... but open carry is a right that does not bring harm to others whether an individual chooses to exercise it or not. If someone chooses to open carry or not, doesn't make them "wrong" or anything... it's just their opinion.--Again, I didn't say anything about "adult discussion" or expressing"opinion" . . . just simple correction of fact.--
And some people who support OC truly believe in tactical disadvantages of doing so... so while they may support the cause, it may not be something that they're willing to do themselves. --Again, I talked about simple correction of fact . . . not all that you bring up.--
Do we know this parent's opinion of the subject? --No, but that is not relevant to simple correction of fact stated by a child.--
Or are we assuming that by keeping an explanation simple to their child that they are ignorant? --All I'm talking about are direct simple corrections to direct simple misstatements of fact by a child . . . assumptions are made at the peril of the assumer--
I don't think it's unreasonable to give a watered down explanation to a child. If you care to disagree, then the next time a little kid asks you where babies come from, I challenge you to give them all the details. "Well son... when a man and a woman love each other very much, or they are extremely drunk after a wild night of partying... and then the ejaculate from the man's penis travels up the fallopian tube of the woman's uterus... and then 9 months later the woman begins to dilate..."--Again, all I'm talking about is adirect simple correction to a direct simple misstatement of fact by a child concerning why someone is open carrying.An open ended discussion of reproduction, and misconceptions (pun intended) surrounding it, with a child iscompletely different and not what I'm talking about.--
[Long, involved irrelevant analogy deleted, for the same reason above. Responding with "No, I'm not in the Army; any adult who obeys the rules may do what I'mdoing." is entirely appropriate.]
This isn't anyone's place but the parents', in my opinion. --I disagree. Simple correction of a fact about open carry, on the spot when presented with a simple error of fact by a child, ("No, I'm not in the Army; any adult who obeys the rules may do what I'mdoing.") is entirely appropriate.--
I'm clear on the fact that you were suggesting to correct the parent. But in doing so, you could be undermining something that the parent is trying to instill, or keep from, their child. Once the parent has been "corrected", it would naturally come with some confusion amongst the child. "But daddy... if he's NOT in the Army like you say he is, then why is he carrying a gun?" Now you've just opened up a whole ball of wax with SOMEONE ELSE'S child. It's not our place to do that. That's all I'm saying.
For instance, I was in a store once standing behind a man who looked a LOT like Santa Clause. He was wearing jeans and a sweater... the Christmas season was over. A nearby child asked her (presumably) father if the man were Santa Clause. The father said something to the effect, "I don't know honey... it could be!"
Should I have taken it upon myself to make a "simple correction of fact" by saying, "No little girl... that is NOT Santa Clause, because he doesn't exist."? No... I'll leave the rearing up to the parents.
I live my life based on the ideals that as long as my thoughts, beliefs, actions, or WHATEVER do not endanger the life, liberty, or Constitutional pursuit of happiness of another individual; then it is not their business to intervene with me. It's a huge assumption to make that the parent is ignorant or anti-OC if they tell their child "He's allowed to carry a gun because he's in the Army." How does someone telling their child that endanger your life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness? People can believe what they want... they're entitled to that. However, by intervening in their A to B conversation, you would effectively be imposing yourself upon them. You would have more affect on their life than they would have on yours. This is what I mean by choosing battles. If me fighting a battle has the propensity to create more harm than good, then I choose to disengage.
I don't have chilcren, but if I did, I would not be too happy about someone undermining me in front of them. To be frank, my response would probably be something along the lines of, "Excuse me, friend... but this conversation is between my child and I." Depending on the offender's response, the situation could quickly escalate to words. Whereas if the offender simply walked away and went about their own business, that risk would not exist.