• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Can you believe this crap?

Dreamer

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
Gil223 said:
I believe the quote, "While most Americans consider the open carrying of guns socially unacceptable, it is becoming more common." to be accurate. If "most" considered OC to be a socially acceptable behavior, wouldn't "most" be OC'ing (according to the 2010 U.S. Census, that would be the majority of roughly 235,000,000 adults of legal age)? I think that "most people" (I use the term most advisedly) are uncomfortable when they see an OC'er because they assume that since the OC'er is not in uniform or wearing a badge, s/he is up to no good.
Click to expand...


The argument that OC should not be allowed because a supposed majority find it sociall unacceptable is a logical fallacy and flies in the face of the fundamental principals of the socio-political philosophies of this nation--namely that the Bill of Rights was established SPECIFICALLY to protect the rights of people with unpopular and even controversial beliefs and practices.

Sixty years ago, you could substitute "Blacks riding in the front of the bus" or "interracial marriage", or "integrated schools" or "country clubs who allow Jews and blacks to be members" for the term OC in the abov statement, and many people in the US WOULD HAVE agreed--but that DOESN'T make their opinion right, moral, or legal.
 
deepdiver

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
Look at their board of directors. 12 of 15 are from IL, CA and DC aka the usual suspects.

The founder lost his son in a criminal act with a firearm by a mentally ill person. If he had lost his son in a trafffic accident, he would be trying to ban something related to cars. If he had a daughter raped at knife point, he would be trying to ban cutlery and penises. I empathize with his loss, however, I am offended at his path of grief resolution. His world view is clearly visible in his perspective that his son would have been better in a world where the gov't violated the constitution and banned firearms rather than a world where his son was armed, willing and able to defend himself and follow a path of self-determination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top