You and the very good-looking gal in the video haven't thought this through, at least not beyond the first quarter of the way. Let's progress...
First, as Qui-Gon Jinn once remarked, "the ability to speak does not mean you are intelligent."
Same goes for beauty. Some snails are beautiful. So are many tropical fish.
"This is probably going to be an emotionally-charged issue..."
No. Anyone who makes it such is simply incapable of carrying on a polite, philosophical conversation as to the pros and cons of all sides.
"What brought this deal on? Basically it was the deal with Chipotle. They don't want people bringing guns in their restaurant anymore."
Chipotle did so at the bequest of Bloomberg's "Everytown" mindblow. If they were fully aware of the facts surrounding 2A issues, they'd invite gun owners into their stores in droves.
Other chains have attempted the same as Chipotle for many reasons over the past 230 years of our nation's history. The result is always the same: When you disarm honest, law-abiding customers, you inadvertently invite the criminal element to pray upon those not smart enough to leave your premises. You create your own "gun-free-zone," what the criminals refer to as a "target-rich environment."
"What shot this off is some folks in Texas who came toting their battle rifles into an area where people came to chill out..."
Oh, damn, does this sound familiar! The only difference is that my post,
The Rising Backlash Against ANY Type of Open Carry -- If Not ALL Types. had everything to do with attitude, and not the actual exercise of our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, which I not only support in the fullest, but which I supported in that thread, too, when I said, "For several years, I've recognized the fact that carriers of rifles and other long arms often complain they have no other way to exercise their right to keep and bear arms," immediately followed by my observation of the "rising tide of counter-gun sentiment has hit the wild amplification of news channels."
In case some
MORONS here who weren't able to connect the dots, it was all about being smart than the media, circumventing their attempts to paint us in a bad light. Most of you "got it." Some didn't.
The remainder of this ditz-brain's arguments, which I listened to in her 6 minute and 45 second entirety, are
"Let's dumb down what a weapon is and define it. A weapon is a tool ... that allows you to have an edge in a fight to defend yourself, others, or property."
The greatest tool eradicates the likelihood of such fights in the first place. If all fights were 50-50, but avoiding a fight was 100-0, which would you prefer? A 50% chance of survival, or a 100% chance of survival?
"Open carry fundamentally misunderstands the true nature of a weapon, and it sees it rather than as a tool, it sees it as a political statement."
ThePatriotNurse fundamentally misunderstands the true nature of Open Carry as a weapon, and rather sees it as a political statement rather than the tool it is. Seriously, girl - It's a quarter-second response tool, and the deterrent value is that criminals see it in precisely the same manner.
"I would submit that people who are arguing about cover garments reducing reaction time that they haven't trained enough."
Which is why, of course, all beat/duty cops conceal... NOT! And do you know why? It's for two reasons: Deterrence and rapid acquisition. 'Seeing is believing,' and most criminals take one look at a firearm and walk away. Those who don't are SNAP met with a quick response unhindered by fumbling with clothing, jackets, shirts, pants, leg pants, or any other encumbrance. This is precisely WHY beat cops open carry. They don't have the time to fumble with clothing when life or death is measured in split-seconds.
If you can't picture this, then view this video, worth ten-thousand words:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=670841776267356#
"There are some people who are regarding open carry as some sort of talisman to ward off evil attacker spirits, and that's not based on logic. If you want to avoid a criminal assault, you want to stay under the radar."
Criminals don't target aggressors. They target those weak prey, those who appear to have no teeth. So go ahead, stay "under the radar." That way you'll pop up bright and clear on the criminal's radar, and he'll get you first, avoiding me because I'm not weak pray.
Seriously, you're severely misunderstanding the difference between the way law enforcement or the military would approach someone and the way criminals would approach someone. As a nurse, you probably associate with law enforcement and the military, and your judgement is being clouded by the way they would handle a situation. Criminals are rarely found in either law enforcement or the military. Please stop misconstruing the way they would view and approach someone who is open carrying and the way a criminal would view and avoid someone who is open carrying.
REALITY: ThePatriotNurse confuses the difference between predatory and military/law-enforcement threats. Criminals attack only those targets which they perceive will return the maximum reward, i.e. rich, apparently unarmed targets. Criminals are not military in nature. They are predatory in nature. Totally different set of rules. When criminals see a greater threat i.e. open carry, they don't adopt a law-enforcement response and attempt to take it out. They adopt a predatory response and bypass it altogether so as to maximize their criminal goals of getting away with the greatest heist with the least repercussions.
Bottom line, her "arguments," as groundless as they were, have absolutely NOTHING to do with the reason I posted the Backlash thread. My entire emphasis in that thread was simply this: "Work smart, not harder. By all means exercise your Second Amendment rights, but please STOP allowing the media to make you out as fools. Stop playing into their hands, as you bring down our whole efforts when you do."
As for the remainder of her arguments, from 5:00 on, she has some valid points. Don't be stupid. Don't serve up media points which can and will be used against us by behaving in ill-considered manners.
Regardless, Open Carry remains the best way to go in the vast majority of day to day activities, so CARRY ON!
) carry my sidearm openly because I want to make some sort of statement, NOT because I want to dissuade any potential attackers (I don't have dreams of being a hero by "surprising" assailants who've already surprised me) or because I wish to protect my family and my loved ones.
