imported post
wally1120 wrote:
I wish I wouldn`t have even sayed anything now.
Oh dont feel bad, It has been a productive discussion, and fun to see how people feel about it. It was a good topic.
I still feel that CC is something better left to those who are trying to get away with something. Dreamer said it better than I could over on the "What do you say" thread.
Dreamerwrote :
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.
