- Messages
- 1,517
- Reactions
- 2,777
Apologies, I'm sure this topic has been done before, but using the search function I did not see a specific thread pertinent to my specific position for the group.
As a Second Amendment originalist, I am loathe to support any restrictions on our right to keep and bear arms. Keep and bear are given equal weight in the Bill Of Rights, one coming before the other solely for logical flow of the language. The Constitution doesn't equivocate: Shall not be infringed has no qualifications, no asterisks, and nothing to imply that our right to bear arms should be subject to popular opinion. That said, I personally do not favor open carry of firearms. Full disclosure: I have done it and used to do it fairly regularly. Now I will only carry concealed, and generally try to avoid jurisdictions where I am not legally able to do so.
1. Recent events have shown that -- in contravention of the intentions of the Framers and of the language of the Constitution itself -- that our rights are indeed subject to popular opinion. Setting aside for a moment all the lies about lawful gun owners, all the fallacies proffered by gun-grabbers, all the intentional distortion of the data, we should recognize that our rights really are subject to the whims of even the most ignorant among us. Imagine your typical anti-gunner is a smorgasbord of the ideological sycophant, the pacifist, the soccer mom, the authoritarian, the nanny-statist who are at once utterly frightened by firearms, ignorant to their function and capabilities, and happy to place us -- the least-criminal demographic -- in the same group as street thugs, gang-bangers, and incel school shooters. To use a pun, they are indeed triggered by the mere sight of a firearm. Right or wrong, and whether we like it or not, enough of these people are compelled to take what they consider "action" usually in the form of voting for anti-gun legislators who are well-funded by the statist cabal and who will happily disarm you and me (as long as they get to keep their private armed security). I see no utility in setting these folks in motion, and compelling them to weaponize their fear against us. We ought not be giving them any more ammunition to come after us. Pun also intended.
2. Don't ask, don't show, don't tell: I've never seen the tactical utility of an openly-displayed firearm in day-to-day life. I could see a few exceptions -- like the bumbling McCluskys and their horrid display of weapon handling and trigger discipline -- but only in those very acute circumstances where you are defending your property, but out in public I see no reason to expose yourself as the first one the angry mob will want to take out. The power of concealment is the tactical advantage should you ever find yourself in a situation where god forbid you have to use it. I've always been taught "don't ask, don't show, don't tell." Don't ask another person (unless you know them or are LEO with a legitimate lawful purpose) if they are carrying -- it is none of your business; Don't show your gun -- it scares people and you lose your tactical advantage; Don't tell -- don't announce that you have a concealed weapon, see: "don't show." Thinking tactically, were I depraved enough to shoot up a public place, the first thing I'd do is take out the armed security, if any. In my view, that Glock on your hip might as well be a target painted on your center mass.
To be unequivocally clear: I will never support any restrictions on our mutual right to keep and bear arms. This includes open carry laws. But I would ask my fellow gun owners to think carefully about the reasons they might consider OC, or why they do if they are currently. Also, this is not a judgment on my part: If you think OC is right for you, then do it. You do not have to justify your personal decision to me or anyone else. But just consider the potential unintended consequences up to and including soccer moms wetting themselves and calling their rep to "demand action."
What say you?
As a Second Amendment originalist, I am loathe to support any restrictions on our right to keep and bear arms. Keep and bear are given equal weight in the Bill Of Rights, one coming before the other solely for logical flow of the language. The Constitution doesn't equivocate: Shall not be infringed has no qualifications, no asterisks, and nothing to imply that our right to bear arms should be subject to popular opinion. That said, I personally do not favor open carry of firearms. Full disclosure: I have done it and used to do it fairly regularly. Now I will only carry concealed, and generally try to avoid jurisdictions where I am not legally able to do so.
1. Recent events have shown that -- in contravention of the intentions of the Framers and of the language of the Constitution itself -- that our rights are indeed subject to popular opinion. Setting aside for a moment all the lies about lawful gun owners, all the fallacies proffered by gun-grabbers, all the intentional distortion of the data, we should recognize that our rights really are subject to the whims of even the most ignorant among us. Imagine your typical anti-gunner is a smorgasbord of the ideological sycophant, the pacifist, the soccer mom, the authoritarian, the nanny-statist who are at once utterly frightened by firearms, ignorant to their function and capabilities, and happy to place us -- the least-criminal demographic -- in the same group as street thugs, gang-bangers, and incel school shooters. To use a pun, they are indeed triggered by the mere sight of a firearm. Right or wrong, and whether we like it or not, enough of these people are compelled to take what they consider "action" usually in the form of voting for anti-gun legislators who are well-funded by the statist cabal and who will happily disarm you and me (as long as they get to keep their private armed security). I see no utility in setting these folks in motion, and compelling them to weaponize their fear against us. We ought not be giving them any more ammunition to come after us. Pun also intended.
2. Don't ask, don't show, don't tell: I've never seen the tactical utility of an openly-displayed firearm in day-to-day life. I could see a few exceptions -- like the bumbling McCluskys and their horrid display of weapon handling and trigger discipline -- but only in those very acute circumstances where you are defending your property, but out in public I see no reason to expose yourself as the first one the angry mob will want to take out. The power of concealment is the tactical advantage should you ever find yourself in a situation where god forbid you have to use it. I've always been taught "don't ask, don't show, don't tell." Don't ask another person (unless you know them or are LEO with a legitimate lawful purpose) if they are carrying -- it is none of your business; Don't show your gun -- it scares people and you lose your tactical advantage; Don't tell -- don't announce that you have a concealed weapon, see: "don't show." Thinking tactically, were I depraved enough to shoot up a public place, the first thing I'd do is take out the armed security, if any. In my view, that Glock on your hip might as well be a target painted on your center mass.
To be unequivocally clear: I will never support any restrictions on our mutual right to keep and bear arms. This includes open carry laws. But I would ask my fellow gun owners to think carefully about the reasons they might consider OC, or why they do if they are currently. Also, this is not a judgment on my part: If you think OC is right for you, then do it. You do not have to justify your personal decision to me or anyone else. But just consider the potential unintended consequences up to and including soccer moms wetting themselves and calling their rep to "demand action."
What say you?