Open Carry, and Political Correctness

[chasfm11]

It is no longer necessary for one to be armed in order to survive daily life. Threats do still exist, even ones that are outside the reasonable protection of local law enforcement. For that reason, I believe that citizens should arm themselves. But we also live in drastically closer quarters than we did back then. We have new drugs and abnormalities that did not exist or were not as prevalent back then. Your average citizen has access to others on a scale that would have stupefied any of the founding fathers. We have a lot more "idle hands" than ever before... regulation of firearms is paramount.

For the same reasons I support regulation of firearms, I support campus carry and the employer parking lot bills. I (cautiously) support open carry. I want the good guys to have guns. I know that the bad guys will get them, regardless of the laws, but I want to make it tougher for them, and for them to be more heavily punished when they do break the laws. Unregulated ownership and carrying of firearms threatens our ability to do that. But... I digress. This is about OC, not about gun control. BTW - go mavs :)

I see OC in a similar fashion to the eight blind men touching an elephant. Each reports what he feels but none is able to provide the comprehensive picture.

There are places in our country where it is absolutely necessary to be armed to survive. There are places in our cities where even the LEO refuse to go. There are varying degrees of that lawlessness. Camden, NJ is a great example.

In contrast, even populated areas of PA would not be agast at OC. Guns are an accepted way of life and seeing one is not going to cause mass hysteria. I agree that Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are probably not good candidates for OC but Lancaster County or Wilkes Barre would be.

I'll submit that in many places (Chicago) we currently have unregulated ownership of firearms. The bad guys have them. The good guys, because of the overregulation, do not, or not in any effective way. NJ is another place. Yes, you can own them but don't even think about using them for personal protection. Yet in Newark, gun crime is significant. None of the guns involved in those crimes follow NJ's burdensome gun controls.

I don't want to take this too far but I do believe that there is a reason. Politicians are not afraid of BGs with guns except on a random basis. They are afraid of GGs with guns. Hence the disparity.

I would agree that some of our US population needs a period of time to acclimate to OC carry again. That process needs to start somewhere and at some time. I don't see mass hysteria coming from the States that already offer OC but admit that the reason may be that not many people do it. In Texas, OC in Justin or even Weatherford would probably go unnoticed. The same OC in Dallas could produce a different result. Downtown Atlanta would not be good either but Kennesaw, where individual gun ownership is a requirement for all households, would probably not have a problem with OC.

My chief concern with OC is not that 30.06 signs will suddenly appear everywhere. There will have to be a catalyst. Many people would assume that an OC was an off-duty LEO unless that appearance and demeanor of that person said otherwise. Two guys with western style revolvers and holsters showing up in a Austin shopping mall would be that catalyst. As the Texas Legislature acted to handle the aftermath of the church shootings by loosening the restrictions on church carry, I believe that they would act to tighten up gun carrying in general if there were several OC catalyst events. I doubt that the best efforts of the NRA and associated groups would be able to manage the Legislative overreaction to those catalysts.

[mgood]

The main principle of the constitution is the enumeration of God given rights, not the granting of them. . . .

. . . the constitution of the united states is not about enumerating rights granted by any particular god (the word "god" is not written once in the constitution). It's about rights granted by the government to its citizens.

The government has no power which we do not give it. In this government of the people, by the people, and for the people, power (rights) is not given to the people by the government. Power flows from the people to the government.

To me, the 9th Amendment is as vague as any statement of law can get. I read it as "hey, just in case we missed somethin'..."

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are there to make sure the leash is tight around the neck of the federal government (although we seem to have let it loosen over the years).
I think the 9th and 10th Amendments are perhaps the most important parts of the document. That may be one of the most basic differences between a conservative and a liberal. The Bill of Rights doesn't grant rights to the people, it limits the powers of the government.
They are frequently overlooked today as government uses the "general wellfare" phrase from the preamble and the commerce clause in Article I, Section 8 as justification to micromanage just about anything they desire to stick their noses into.

[Purplehood]

I understand that you see it that way, but that does not make me incorrect. Historically, governments of all types and locales have *not* granted these rights to their citizens. In fact, the previous government denied many of these rights to its citizens. Regardless of why the rights are being protected or where their foundation lies, they are still "granted" by the government. *Any* right that the citizens have under a government is *by definition* granted. I know you disagree, but please do not be so rude as to call me "absolutely incorrect" because I believe differently from you.

I am relatively sure that we are both utterly convinced on who is correct, and who is not. If you consider it rude for me to characterize you as "absolutely incorrect", than I have to wonder just how shallow a threshold you have for being offended. I thought I was being rather diplomatic and if necessary, will apologize.

really? how do you defend that stance? The first half of that sentence cannot stand on its own and be anywhere near grammatically correct. Therefore, the sentence *must* be taken as a whole. As I wrote above, I interpret that to mean that the right to keep and bear arms is directly related to the first half of the sentence, not a separate one. After all, the framers could have separated them if they wanted to... but they did not.

The Second Amendment has a single sentence in it, comprised of two parts divided by a number of commas.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This amendment has gone through roughly 3 phases of Judicial interpretation. The final interpretation under HELLER, is that the RKBA is an individual right and not just collective. It appears to me that you are in support of the second phase of Judicial interpretation. I am not.

Once again, I disagree. Violence has not only changed, it has changed *drastically*. There are still embattled parts of inner cities in which it does take place with the same regularity, but that environment was the norm in 1776, not the exception. We had just finished fighting an 8-year-long WAR that *literally* happened in our backyards. Local law enforcement was almost non-existent, and vigilante justice was often the only type available. I'm not suggesting that we should not be armed, but the general climate in regards to violence is *nowhere near* the same.e]

We are parsing words here. Violence is still just that....violence. It has not become respectable or civilized. It is still a nitty-gritty dirty reality that anyone, anywhere can encounter. Local law enforcement reports and investigates crime. They rarely get the opportunity to prevent it. The individual citizen is the only person that can be counted on to provide for their own security.
My contention is that violence has not changed since the first man bunched-up his fist and his woman cold-cocked him across the noggin with a rock from behind. It DOES NOT happen in specific locations, during certain time-frames and to people that "deserve it". Violence is indiscriminate.

I am not ready to advance the cause of OC at this time. My ultimate goal is what is commonly known as "Constitutional Carry". What bothers me, is that many people interpret the Constitution so differently.

Mgood, I agree completely with you.

[Middle Age Russ]

Consistent with the political theories upon which the United States Constitution was based, the prevailing sentiment of the Framers was that the citizenry should be armed -- so that a "well regulated militia" could be quickly mustered, but also so that the then newly-formed government would not become "Tyrannical". The armed citizen is the last defense in the face of a government that tries to take away the rights all men should have.

The Constitution enumerates the specific powers that the federal government should have, and these powers do not include a great many assumed by the federal government since 1789. These assumed powers cover a wide gamut, from a standing army (well regulated militia, you say???) to overreaching environmental and other regulations. The key component in most of the regulatory actions seems to be that citizens will not do what is best for themselves and others, so regulations must be enacted to make them behave. All gun control measures certainly fall in this category.

Due to the ability of men to personify objects in their thought processes, many in today's world (the soft minded, from my perspective) have been led to believe that guns, or high capacity clips (magazines), short barreled rifles, short barreled shotguns, sound suppressors, automatic (not just semi) firearms and others are evil and should be regulated for everyone's good. This is certainly not true, but it proves that PT Barnum was right. In the end, though, our society has not changed so dramatically since 1789 that power no longer corrupts, that all men are good, or that the government does not need an armed citizenry to keep it in check at the end of the day. The Framers predicted this.

[djjoshuad]

"...I understand that you see it that way, but that does not make me incorrect. Historically, governments of all types and locales have *not* granted these rights to their citizens. In fact, the previous government denied many of these rights to its citizens. Regardless of why the rights are being protected or where their foundation lies, they are still "granted" by the government. *Any* right that the citizens have under a government is *by definition* granted. I know you disagree, but please do not be so rude as to call me "absolutely incorrect" because I believe differently from you...."this quoted from above post...

...the right to protect myself and my family by owning and bearing weapons was NOT granted to me by our government...rather, it is a common right of man...and, if you rightly understand OUR history...you'll realize that it appears in the bill of rights not as a grant to the people by the government...but as an ULTIMATUM by the PEOPLE TO the government that this right was not to be tampered with as other governments had and still do try to do...it's not a matter of your believing differently...it's a matter of what clearly happened in our history and your understanding that correctly...or not...

You are focusing too closely on a semantical disagreement that has little impact on the underlying premise. You say that they are rights of man, I say look at all the places where men do not have these rights. Of course I understand *why* they are there, but that is hardly the point. There is a simple fact - the bill of rights ensures that the government does not trample the rights contained within. Let's move past the chicken and egg discussion, it's not doing us any good.

[Purplehood]

The problem is that the Government is trampling the rights of the people. And a part of that problem is how some individuals perceive and interpret those rights.

[Katygunnut]

"...I understand that you see it that way, but that does not make me incorrect. Historically, governments of all types and locales have *not* granted these rights to their citizens. In fact, the previous government denied many of these rights to its citizens. Regardless of why the rights are being protected or where their foundation lies, they are still "granted" by the government. *Any* right that the citizens have under a government is *by definition* granted. I know you disagree, but please do not be so rude as to call me "absolutely incorrect" because I believe differently from you...."this quoted from above post...

...the right to protect myself and my family by owning and bearing weapons was NOT granted to me by our government...rather, it is a common right of man...and, if you rightly understand OUR history...you'll realize that it appears in the bill of rights not as a grant to the people by the government...but as an ULTIMATUM by the PEOPLE TO the government that this right was not to be tampered with as other governments had and still do try to do...it's not a matter of your believing differently...it's a matter of what clearly happened in our history and your understanding that correctly...or not...

You are focusing too closely on a semantical disagreement that has little impact on the underlying premise. You say that they are rights of man, I say look at all the places where men do not have these rights. Of course I understand *why* they are there, but that is hardly the point. There is a simple fact - the bill of rights ensures that the government does not trample the rights contained within. Let's move past the chicken and egg discussion, it's not doing us any good.

Djjoshuad - I disagree with alot of your points, but I respect your civility and obvious intelligence in how you are expressing them.

However, on this point in particular, I completely and totally disagree with what you are saying. Government (of any type) is incapable of granting rights to its people. Government does not intrinsically possess rights that can be granted any more than government intrinsically possesses money that can be given away. The best that any government can do is to provide services that help people in better enjoying their rights (such as providing for the national defense). Of course, the government must first collect resources from the people (taxes) before anything can be done, so they are not really giving the people anything. Rather, they are at best selling a service to those people for a price.

Your statement above (the part that I bolded) seems to be saying that certain rights cannot be rights of men, because there are places where men do not have these rights. I would assert that men only lack these rights when a government has taken them away from such men. When you and I prevent a government from taking away our rights, that is NOT the same thing as the government granting us a right. By extension, I guess I should thank the criminal who was prevented from stealing my car since he gave me a car.

[Hoi Polloi]

Your statement above (the part that I bolded) seems to be saying that certain rights cannot be rights of men, because there are places where men do not have these rights. I would assert that men only lack these rights when a government has taken them away from such men. When you and I prevent a government from taking away our rights, that is NOT the same thing as the government granting us a right. By extension, I guess I should thank the criminal who was prevented from stealing my car since he gave me a car.

I completely agree with you. I would make the slight edit to say that in those places, people are having their rights ignored or abused, not taken away. They retain the right, but the government is blocking the free exercise of those rights. It's a nuance, but an important one.

Saying that the government is taking people's human/natural/innate/inalienable rights leaves the conversation open to how much they can take. It becomes a conversation of negotiations and individual values. By stating that some governments abuse people's human rights, there is no allowance for restricting those rights or for joining their ranks.

[mbw]

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes....Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

--Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in Chapter 40 of "On Crimes and Punishment", 1764.

[speedsix]

"...You are focusing too closely on a semantical disagreement that has little impact on the underlying premise. You say that they are rights of man, I say look at all the places where men do not have these rights. Of course I understand *why* they are there, but that is hardly the point. There is a simple fact - the bill of rights ensures that the government does not trample the rights contained within. Let's move past the chicken and egg discussion, it's not doing us any good...."

..re:your statement quoted here: I am NOT "focusing too closely...that has little impact on the underlying premise...".what I am focusing on is the whole ball of wax...it IS the premise...the fact that you don't put the worth/value/weight on it is the problem...thousands have given their lives because they realized we HAVE these rights...and have, by our form of government, set up the standards where our government cannot take them from us...unless we let them...we are not talking about "all the places"...we're talking about the USA and how and why our Bill of rights came to be as it is...what you're calling the "chicken and egg discussion" is all this country has been about since she came into being...WE tell our government what it can/can't do...we already HAVE the rights...and we won't give them up...the problems we have today are because some don't think they're worth fighting for anymore...if you don't believe that we already have the rights...then you will "negotiate" with government so that you may please have them, kind sirs...if you know that the rights are already yours...then you are willing to fight...and die for them...the "chicken and egg" discussion and proper understanding of it is the foundation we build on...if you don't have it...you're already a subject...
...seems like you only want to discuss what you feel important...and want to sweep away others' ideas...and beliefs...which have "done me good" all my life...

[Purplehood]

gah...gah...gah!!!...gah...gah...gah!!!...

Sorry, I had to get that off my chest.

[speedsix]

...well, I'm a little uneducated and I don't catch your meaning...but I'm gonna do what I'd do if I was in the midst of a lively conversation on the street and someone came up and made that contribution...I'm gonna leave this conversation...which may have been your meaning...y'all have fun with it...

[Ameer]

The problem is that the Government is trampling the rights of the people. And a part of that problem is how some individuals perceive and interpret those rights.

The phrase "shall not be infringed" looks very clear. I don't understand the confusion, unless people are basing their arguments on their personal prejudices and emotions instead of the words in the Constitution of the United States.

[chuckybrown]

In my books, "Infringed" means Infringed. You rights can't be "sorta" Infringed, or "partially" infringed, or "acceptably" infringed. They either are, or they're not.

I believe our forefathers left a country where dissent = hanging. As a direct descendant of Nathan Hale, I get the commitment to what our framers thought our nation/constitution was about.

Thanks to everyone for the civil discourse.

[flintknapper]

In my books, "Infringed" means Infringed. You rights can't be "sorta" Infringed, or "partially" infringed, or "acceptably" infringed. They either are, or they're not.

I believe our forefathers left a country where dissent = hanging. As a direct descendant of Nathan Hale, I get the commitment to what our framers thought our nation/constitution was about.

Thanks to everyone for the civil discourse.

BTW, that would make a good signature line!