Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Contra Costa Times Anti-UOC Editorial

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Buffalo Gap, South Dakota, USA
    Posts
    193

    Post imported post


    http://www.contracostatimes.com/opinion/ci_14449344

    Editorial: Message to Open Carry members: It's time to put the guns awayMediaNews editorial

    IT APPEARS some Bay Area residents feel that simply having a right to bear arms is not enough. They also feel they must exercise that right in a public display that conjures visions of a modern-day Wild West.

    The term is known as open carry or open display, which is allowed by a provision of the California Penal Code. Open carry is a shorthand term for openly carrying a firearm in public view as opposed to concealing it, which is illegal in California in most circumstances.

    Recently a group called Open Carry orchestrated a number of displays during which gun owners showed up at suburban coffee shops and a restaurant toting their unloaded handguns in belt holsters. Ammunition for the weapons also was conveniently situated on the belts.

    More than anything else, we surmise, this display is meant as a not-so-subtle political statement. But we hope those carrying the weapons are more judicious with their firearms than they are with fashioning political statements. This one misses the target.

    Instead of some grand public lesson, this action is seen by many Bay Area residents as childish machismo.

    Needless to say, many customers of the coffee shops and restaurant — who had chosen not to exercise their right to bear arms — were taken aback by such displays. Some patrons left immediately, while others summoned police officers.

    Police have been pulled off the streets to check

    Open Carry members to make sure their weapons are, indeed, unloaded.While these pages have never been a fan of handguns, we certainly acknowledge and accept that the U.S. Constitution gives law-abiding citizens the right to bear arms.

    We also understand that the California Penal Code states "guns carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed."

    But the open carry of weapons could prompt all sorts of consequences never intended or considered by the person exercising his or her constitutional right.

    Members of law enforcement are not enamored with this open carry trend either. It doesn't help them; it makes their job tougher.

    A person carrying a weapon (loaded or not) who is confronted by police could cause a deadly result simply by making a wrong move.

    We can envision a circumstance where a teen comes into a coffee shop and runs out with the tip jar and the good citizen carrying a weapon decides to load up and pursue the youth. That has bad ending written all over it.

    Or, even more dramatically, an armed robber enters a store brandishing a loaded weapon and sees a patron with a gun on his belt. Either the perpetrator knows it is unloaded or he doesn't, but either scenario is rife with disastrous prospects.

    We could go on with the "what ifs," but you get the drift.

    We will grant that members of groups such as Open Carry likely are well-trained with a weapon. But it is unlikely that they are well-trained in police work.

    Besides, how are average, coffee-buying suburbanites expected to know who is trained and who is not.

    Many merchants are instituting policies that refuse service to gun-toting patrons. We applaud them for doing so.

    Yes, the right exists. We get it. Statement made. Now, how about everyone take a deep breath and put the guns away.


  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Connecticut USA
    Posts
    1,247

    Post imported post

    If law enforcement doesn't like open carry then have them issue CCWs to those who choose to carry concealed.

    Given the fact that most victims of violent criminal acts are confronted with NO options to defend themselves.

    The papers editorial position may sell papers along with the reports of gun violence and gun victims, but does little to protect their readers from real world situations.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Post imported post

    If they apply the same restrictions to the 1st amendment, this reporter would scream to high heaven. He/she is more dangerous than we are while exercising his/her rights.
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The rights existence is all the reason he needs.

  4. #4
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter bigtoe416's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    1,748

    Post imported post

    TatankaGap wrote:
    IT APPEARS some Bay Area residents feel that simply having a right to bear arms is not enough. They also feel they must exercise that right in a public display that conjures visions of a modern-day Wild West.

    The term is known as open carry or open display, which is allowed by a provision of the California Penal Code.
    So which is it, a right to bear arms or allowed by our state government?

    The author apparently thinks rights are great things in theory, but not in practice. He (she?) doesn't get it. Rights are absolute, inalienable, impervious to change. Surely the author would pat us on the head and say, "That's great. Just don't do it, okay?"

    At the same time he might as well tell Buddhists how their religion is great, but please don't practice it, it upsets the Christians.

    Or how about, the right to peaceably assemble is keen, but please assemble someplace where you don't disturb me, I'm trying to drink some coffee in peace, thanks.

    People like this must have failed history a million times over. They must be at least forty years old and still not understand what the point of learning history was. They would mutter things such as, "Needing a firearm to defend against tyranny? Please! We live in America!" Which of course makes perfect sense, because we all remember the saying, "Those that don't know history, are destined to repeat it, unless you live in America." :quirky

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Buffalo Gap, South Dakota, USA
    Posts
    193

    Post imported post

    bigtoe416 wrote:
    TatankaGap wrote:
    IT APPEARS some Bay Area residents feel that simply having a right to bear arms is not enough. They also feel they must exercise that right in a public display that conjures visions of a modern-day Wild West.

    The term is known as open carry or open display, which is allowed by a provision of the California Penal Code.
    So which is it, a right to bear arms or allowed by our state government?

    The author apparently thinks rights are great things in theory, but not in practice. He (she?) doesn't get it. Rights are absolute, inalienable, impervious to change. Surely the author would pat us on the head and say, "That's great. Just don't do it, okay?"

    At the same time he might as well tell Buddhists how their religion is great, but please don't practice it, it upsets the Christians.

    Or how about, the right to peaceably assemble is keen, but please assemble someplace where you don't disturb me, I'm trying to drink some coffee in peace, thanks.

    People like this must have failed history a million times over. They must be at least forty years old and still not understand what the point of learning history was. They would mutter things such as, "Needing a firearm to defend against tyranny? Please! We live in America!" Which of course makes perfect sense, because we all remember the saying, "Those that don't know history, are destined to repeat it, unless you live in America." :quirky
    The 'author' you are talking about is a major Bay Area newspaper editorial board or editor in chief - apparently believing it/he is speaking for the East Bay majority - judging from the comments posted by people in response to the article, the majority is pro 2A -

  6. #6
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    TatankaGap wrote:
    ...Many merchants are instituting policies that refuse service to gun-toting patrons. We applaud them for doing so...
    "...and by 'many' we mean two or threethat we know of..."

    In fact the vast majority of merchants respect their customers' right to life and the defense of it.
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542

    Post imported post

    Edward Peruta wrote:
    If law enforcement doesn't like open carry then have them issue CCWs to those who choose to carry concealed.

    Given the fact that most victims of violent criminal acts are confronted with NO options to defend themselves.

    The papers editorial position may sell papers along with the reports of gun violence and gun victims, but does little to protect their readers from real world situations.
    There was an armed robbery of some restraunt in San Francisco, I heard about it on the news last night, cannot for the life of me find a follow up on the story!

    I guess I also missed the simpering editorial that politely asked criminals not to rob people.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542

    Post imported post

    IT APPEARS some Bay Area journalists feel that simply having a right to free speech is not enough. They also feel they must exercise that right in a public display that conjures visions of a modern-day symposium.

    The term is known as journalism or expressing opinion, which is allowed by a provision of the California Penal Code. Biased journalism is a shorthand term for making available for sight in public view, one's personal opinion as opposed to concealing it, which is desirable in China in most circumstances.

    Recently a group called the Contra Costa Times orchestrated a number of displays during which journalists' opinions showed up at suburban coffee shops and a restaurant toting their misleading, biased and factually incorrect opinions in neat little newspaper racks. A trashcan was conveniently situated nearby.

    More than anything else, we surmise, this display is meant as a not-so-subtle political statement. But we hope those speaking their minds are more judicious with their dangerous opinions than they are with fashioning political statements. This one misses the target. Instead of some grand public lesson, this action is seen by many Bay Area residents as a disgusting exercise of freedom.

    Needless to say, many customers of the coffee shops and restaurant — who had chosen not to exercise their right to speak their mind — were taken aback by such displays. Some patrons left immediately, while others summoned police officers.

    Police have been pulled off the streets to check Contra Costa Times members to make sure their opinions don't offend anyone, and to verify that they are exercising their rights in the proper manner.

    While these pages have never been a fan of allowing people to do what their natural rights intended, we certainly acknowledge and accept that the U.S. Constitution protects the natural rights of law-abiding citizens against a government infringement.

    We also understand that the California Penal Code states that your rights are protected, except in certain cases (e.g PC 415)

    But the open allowance of free speech could prompt all sorts of consequences never intended or considered by the person exercising his or her constitutional right.

    Members of law enforcement and politicians are not enamored with this free speech trend either. It doesn't help them; it makes their job tougher.

    A person carrying an opinion who is confronted by police could cause a deadly result simply by making a wrong move.

    We can envision a circumstance where a person commits a crime and the good citizen speaking their mind writes an article condemming their actions. That has bad ending written all over it.

    Or, even more dramatically, a politician commits serious misconduct, and someone has the audacity to stand up to it.

    Either scenario is rife with disastrous prospects.

    We could go on with the "what ifs," but you get the drift.

    We will grant that members of groups such as the Contra Costa Times likely are well-trained with a pen. But it is unlikely that they are well-trained in saying exactly what we want, all the time.

    Besides, how are average, coffee-buying suburbanites expected to know who is trained and who is not.

    Many merchants are instituting policies that refuse service to disgusting, freedom loving journalists. We applaud them for doing so.

    Yes, the right exists. We get it. Statement made. Now, how about everyone take a deep breath and put the newspapers away. Please.

  9. #9
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Stanislaus County, California, USA
    Posts
    2,586

    Post imported post

    ^^^ I love it! ^^^
    Participant in the Free State Project - "Liberty in Our Lifetime" - www.freestateproject.org
    Supporter of the CalGuns Foundation - http://www.calgunsfoundation.org/
    Supporter of the Madison Society - www.madison-society.org


    Don't Tread On Me.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The south land
    Posts
    1,230

    Post imported post

    TatankaGap wrote:

    http://www.contracostatimes.com/opinion/ci_14449344

    Editorial: Message to Open Carry members: It's time to put the guns awayMediaNews editorial

    IT APPEARS some Bay Area residents feel that simply having a right to bear arms is not enough. They also feel they must exercise that right in a public display that conjures visions of a modern-day Wild West.

    The term is known as open carry or open display, which is allowed by a provision of the California Penal Code. Open carry is a shorthand term for openly carrying a firearm in public view as opposed to concealing it, which is illegal in California in most circumstances.

    Recently a group called Open Carry orchestrated a number of displays during which gun owners showed up at suburban coffee shops and a restaurant toting their unloaded handguns in belt holsters. Ammunition for the weapons also was conveniently situated on the belts.

    More than anything else, we surmise, this display is meant as a not-so-subtle political statement. But we hope those carrying the weapons are more judicious with their firearms than they are with fashioning political statements. This one misses the target.

    Instead of some grand public lesson, this action is seen by many Bay Area residents as childish machismo.

    Needless to say, many customers of the coffee shops and restaurant — who had chosen not to exercise their right to bear arms — were taken aback by such displays. Some patrons left immediately, while others summoned police officers.

    Police have been pulled off the streets to check

    Open Carry members to make sure their weapons are, indeed, unloaded.While these pages have never been a fan of handguns, we certainly acknowledge and accept that the U.S. Constitution gives law-abiding citizens the right to bear arms.

    We also understand that the California Penal Code states "guns carried openly in belt holsters are not concealed."

    But the open carry of weapons could prompt all sorts of consequences never intended or considered by the person exercising his or her constitutional right.

    Members of law enforcement are not enamored with this open carry trend either. It doesn't help them; it makes their job tougher.

    A person carrying a weapon (loaded or not) who is confronted by police could cause a deadly result simply by making a wrong move.

    We can envision a circumstance where a teen comes into a coffee shop and runs out with the tip jar and the good citizen carrying a weapon decides to load up and pursue the youth. That has bad ending written all over it.

    Or, even more dramatically, an armed robber enters a store brandishing a loaded weapon and sees a patron with a gun on his belt. Either the perpetrator knows it is unloaded or he doesn't, but either scenario is rife with disastrous prospects.

    We could go on with the "what ifs," but you get the drift.

    We will grant that members of groups such as Open Carry likely are well-trained with a weapon. But it is unlikely that they are well-trained in police work.

    Besides, how are average, coffee-buying suburbanites expected to know who is trained and who is not.

    Many merchants are instituting policies that refuse service to gun-toting patrons. We applaud them for doing so.

    Yes, the right exists. We get it. Statement made. Now, how about everyone take a deep breath and put the guns away.
    Here is my take on this useless piece of garbage that passes for a news:

    SO, they recognize the right of the people to have and bear arms--but REALLLY wish they wouldn't....

    They complain that it makes the job of the police "tougher"--awww, I'm sorry, but it isn't our job to make your job easier. It is our job to protect our rights....

    They are also afraid a trigger happy cop might just shoot someone who is OC'ing--like the threat made by the Palo Alto cop.....IF they are that trigger happy--they really need to find another job where they pose less of a danger to society as a whole.

    "Yes" they recognize the rights exist--now be a good Commie and don't exercise those nasty ole rights....


    Whoever wrote that article would have gone far under Stalin.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542

    Post imported post

    suntzu wrote:
    They complain that it makes the job of the police "tougher"--awww, I'm sorry, but it isn't our job to make your job easier. It is our job to protect our rights....
    Police dont have to e-check us. They choose to, and there is typically a degree of malice in it. I feel like many LEO enjoy exercising some "tactical" scenarios, to break out of the humdrum.

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    ^^^ I love it! ^^^
    I was going to submit it to the CCT but they wouldn't publish it.



    Edit: Aha, here is the follow up on the robbery the other night.

    http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_14463394

  12. #12
    Regular Member Gundude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sandy Eggo County
    Posts
    1,691

    Post imported post

    heliopolissolutions wrote:
    suntzu wrote:
    They complain that it makes the job of the police "tougher"--awww, I'm sorry, but it isn't our job to make your job easier. It is our job to protect our rights....
    Police dont have to e-check us. They choose to, and there is typically a degree of malice in it. I feel like many LEO enjoy exercising some "tactical" scenarios, to break out of the humdrum.

    CA_Libertarian wrote:
    ^^^ I love it! ^^^
    I was going to submit it to the CCT but they wouldn't publish it.



    Edit: Aha, here is the follow up on the robbery the other night.

    http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_14463394
    comment posted
    A citizen may not be required to offer a ―good and substantial reason-- why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The rights existence is all the reason he needs.

  13. #13
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Post imported post

    civil rights are now a "right",, but should not be an excuse for rosa parks to sit in the front of the bus! it make some people uncomfortable....
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Bay Area, , USA
    Posts
    10

    Post imported post

    I wonder what would have happened if an OC'er was inside that French restaurant at the time of the robbery? Or maybe even an OC meet? That story would have probably been a lot different (or maybe a robbery would not have occurred).

    Anti-UOC articles like these are getting the general public to look at us in a negative way. But what can you do? Freedom of speech is their right too.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Livermore, California, USA
    Posts
    229

    Post imported post

    heliopolissolutions

    heliopolissolutions, THAT was quite possibly the best post ever "penned" on OCDO. +Infinity on that one!!!

    Carry On!

    Livermoron

    PS - See you in SF this Saturday???

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542

    Post imported post

    I wish I could!

    My miniature tyrant is dragging me along to some birthday party down south! For being 1/3rd my weight she has altogether far too much power over me.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    542

    Post imported post

    .

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Buffalo Gap, South Dakota, USA
    Posts
    193

    Post imported post

    heliopolissolutions

    that post is top +10000 - I'd love to see it published somewhere - or put on a flyer -:celebrate

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Riverside County, California, USA
    Posts
    353

    Post imported post

    There comes a time when even visiting the page of a rag like that to flame the writer or write the editor is too much support since they get ad views out of it. When you notice things like this feel free to not only quote the article, but include the writer and editors email addresses so that the rest of us don't give into the temptation to support the sensational garbage by giving them ad revenue.

Posting Permissions

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