imported post
Liberal biased wrote:
I have been confronted twice in my life by someone brandishing a gun. There was not a lot brain behind either one.
I have been personally attacked once with a weapon--a REALLY big knife. The person was obviously stupid, and on something. It was in an isolated area, jogging at night ( I worked a 2pm-midnight shift at the time, and liked to jog after work).
I didn't have time to dial 911, but I DID have a Colt 1911 Delta Elite in Stainless steel. I didn't have to fire, I just drew, and he dropped the knife and ran into the woods like a scared rabbit. I called the police, reported the assault, made a VERY accurate description (I'm a graphic designer and a photographer--I notice details VERY accurately) and waited for the Deputy to arrive and collect the knife.
Had I not had my Colt, I probably wouldn't have made it home that night...
That was over 10 years ago, in a state where I had a Concealed permit. I vowed at that time to ALWAYS be prepared for the unexpected...
Had I been Open Carrying, he probably never would have even approached me. It was BECAUSE I was CC that he saw me as a "soft target". Open Carry deters crime, because criminals are, generally lazy and cowardly. They don't want to have to work for their spoils,and so they don't mess with people who are obviously armed.
Open Carry has historically been the way that honest, law-abiding, honerable citizens went about their business--from the medieval times of carrying swords up to the early 20th Century.
Historically, Concealed Carry has been viewed with distrust. Prior to the 20th Century, the only people who carried their weapons concealed were criminals, spies, and assassins. Concealed Carry has historically been the purview of the scoundrel, specifically BECAUSE he was trying to hide his weapon so that he could surprise his victims. Honest, law-abiding citizens carried their firearms openly so everyone would know they were the "good guys".
The relatively recent trend (in the last 20 years) toward CC as a preferred mode of carry is historically perplexing. It takes a mode of carry that has historically been viewed as dishonorable and turned it into a "privilege" for the wealthy, the politically connected, and the "upper class". This came on the heels of decades of increasingly restrictive gun laws that ALL have their roots in disarming non-whites following the Civil War, and then increasing in restrictiveness in the 1940s and 1950s during the Civil Rights movement.
Keeping the poor, and blacks and hispanics disarmed has ALWAYS been the root motivation for ALL gun control laws in the USA. This is an historical fact. The growth of the "Concealed Carry Movement" in the 1980s and 1990's was not so much a reclaiming of citizen's gun rights, as it was a reinforcement of Jim Crow laws disarming the dispossessed and disenfranchised while allowing the "privileged classes" to maintain their arms. It allowed the "privileged" to carry for self-defense, while giving the "authorities" the flexibility to deny permits to "the wrong kinds of people", meaning the poor, and the minorities.
Open Carry is based on the Constitution, ancient English common law, and hundreds of years of international case law and social tradition.
It is a HUMAN RIGHT, not a privilege. Any citizen who is not otherwise "prohibited" to own a firearm may, in MOST states in the Union, carry openly. In fact there are only 8 states (and DC) that do not allow OC. Lawfull OC is, in fact the RULE, not the exception, nationwide. It's just that most don't practice it for fear of harassment by LEO's, or harassment by anti-gun hoplophobic citizens who have been programmed--through nearly a century of propaganda--that self defense is not an individual right and responsibility.
However, the Federal Courts have ruled in several cases (the most striking of which is Warren v. Washington DC) that law enforcement officers are under NO legal or statutory obligation to provide personal protection or safety for individuals. That leaves this responsibility SQUARELY in the hands of the individual.
Self Defense is a Human Right. Just like the right to worship as one sees fit, or the right to publish or speak one's own mind, or the right to assemble to address the government for redress of grievances.
How can you, as a self-professed "liberal" be against a fundamental human right, that exists outside the artificial construct of ANY governmental body?
How can you, as a "liberal", be FOR the government-sponsored restriction of a fundamental human right--the right to protect ones self against a grievous attack?
How can you, as a "liberal" justify the marginalization of the value of the lives of the less fortunate--the poor and minorities? Are you saying that the lives of some people (elected officials, movie stars, the wealthy) are somehow more valuable than the lives of an ordinary citizen?
Please, explain to me why you hate the concept of fundamental civil rights for ALL citizens?
Please tell us why you think blacks and hispanics and the poor shouldn't have the same assurance of personal safety just because they can't afford a personal bodyguard detail?
Please explain why you feel that minorities, and the poor should not be afforded "equal protection under the law", and should not be allowed to exercise their Human Rights as enumerated in our Constitution, just because of the color of their skin or the balance in their bank accounts?
Please enlighten us how you, as a "liberal" justify upholding (and even strengthening) classist and racist "Jim Crow" laws that were designed to circumvent the 13th Amendment and the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964?
Please tell me, I'm curious.
