Fewer Guns in Public Means More Freedom – Wait… What?

When someone not in uniform carries a gun in public, they are in effect saying “I could kill you, if I chose.” Which in turn poses an immediate threat to my own freedom of speech, freedom of action, freedom to congregate and freedom to be in public spaces.

So does driving a car make the same statement then?

Open carry advocates claim they are protecting the public by being a secondary, informal police force. Personally, I prefer the trained, publicly accountable and regulated police force. I know the rules that law enforcement are obligated to protect. I do not know what laws, regulations, whims or prejudices govern the behavior of someone I have never seen before who is carrying a weapon.

Publicly accountable? hahhaha  How often is a police officer held accountable for their actions when they do something wrong?

Also, the last part I put in bold I found especially hilarious.

Full Article at Huffington Post – HERE

It feels like a troll article.. written to get some traffic to the site. If that’s the case I suppose I fell for it, because the author does such a good job of being blatantly ignorant.

What do you guys think?

13 COMMENTS

JUMP DOWN ↓ TO ADD ANOTHER

Paladin July 30, 2010 at 03:24 pm

To start with: I don’t promote open (or concealed, for that matter) carry because I want to be a secondary, informal police force. I promote carrying a weapon because the trained, publicly accountable, and regulated police force will be no where around if/when I’m faced with a life threatening situation. It’ll just be me. That trained police force will arrive after the fact, to gather evidence and notify next of kin.

The author makes the assumption, correctly, that he/she can’t know the laws, whims, and prejudices that I operate under. What the author fails to also note, is that the same condition occurs whether or not I’m carrying a gun or not. If I were the type of person prone to murderous “whims”, the lack of a gun wouldn’t stop me. The only thing banning weapon possesion does is virtually guarantee that the author won’t have a means to defend themself against me.

Reply

kingof9x July 30, 2010 at 04:39 pm

I am not a fan of open carry. I notice that it makes other people nervous when they see a gun on anybody who is not wearing a uniform with a badge. The only time I feel comfortable carrying my firearm openly is when hunting or spending time in back country.
I am a fan of concealed carry. I would prefer to have the safety of a firearm without making other people around me feel uncomfortable.
As for accountability of police officers I believe that we need a better way to hold law enforcement accountable for their actions. For example I believe that the recent ruling on the BART police officer, Yohanis Mehserle, for the accidental shooting of Oscar Grant is a step in that direction. My heart goes out to the officer. I would not wish his situation on anybody.

I don’t believe the argument that people who carry guns want to be a secondary, informal police force. That would be vigilantism which is against the law. People who own guns need to be fully law abiding citizens to have the right to own a firearm. I think that anybody who carries, openly or concealed, for that reason should take a look at their career choice and consider joining a law enforcement service if they need to carry a firearm to protect other people.

Reply

El Duderino July 30, 2010 at 05:16 pm

Totally agree with the first 2 responses!

The folks in CA who are bringing light of gun issues in CA by open carry (unloaded) have NOT helped but put the spotlight on the guns themselves — instead of the rights they’re fighting for. Photographs of Joe Blow with a Glock on his hip like the one above make some people CRAZY. You can’t photograph the 2nd Amendment or “shall issue” concealed carry!

Open carry is for the wilderness. Remember, open carry was illegal in the “wild” West in almost every town — it was fine for the ranch or the farm but had no place in the city. Concealed carry by all lawful possessors should be legal in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, that’s our fight folks! Open carry is a sideshow.

Reply

Linoge July 31, 2010 at 12:10 am

Open carry is a sideshow.

To be perfectly and absolutely frank, bullshit.

Open carry was the general norm in this country before people started getting their panties in a twist over law-abiding Americans exercising their naturally-granted and Constitutionally-protected rights. In fact, the prevailing opinion during our Founders’ time was that any individual who hid his gun was apparently doing so for nefarious purposes, and should be regarded with the utmost suspicion and caution – after all, why would an honest, honorable man need to hide his firearm?

Here in Tennessee, open carry is legal in that it is not expressly verboten, and I openly carry whenever it is possible or legal for me to do so. Does that make me a “sideshow”? Yeah. Right. It makes me an adult human being deciding to exercise his rights in a certain fashion. Or, I suppose, you could take the stance that me wearing my Gaelic cross outside my shirt is a “sideshow” as well? Or how about a Muslim woman wearing a Hajib, since that might be a little more topical to the times?

I swear, this must be the new incarnation of fuddism, only, this time, it is not assault rifles and hunting rifles, but now it is concealed carry versus open. I cause no one harm by openly carrying. Contrary to the above-quoted HuffPo idiot’s rantings and ravings, I threaten no one by openly carrying. In fact, you make my point for me, in that I am raising awareness about the issues by openly carrying – concealed carriers, by their very nature, are easy to marginalize, minimalize, and demonize, simply because no one knows who they are, where they are, or anything about them. However, when those same people come to the realization that their next-door neighbor carries firearms… well… then it is a little harder to buy into the nonsense being peddled by the VPC and the Brady Bunch.

Hell, I can even point out a specific instance: thanks to me carrying, I was able to discuss the relevant laws with a Canuckistan resident. If I was concealed carrying, the issue never would have come up, and my chance for spreading the good word would have been lost.

So go ahead, do what you want, and carry as you please – I fully expect the same tolerance in return.

Reply

El Duderino August 1, 2010 at 12:03 am

I think you’re narrowing in a bit here. I didn’t say open carry in and of itself is BAD! It really should be fine — it’s the opinions, attitudes, and hang-ups of everyone else that make it problematic.

I don’t agree it should be the primary political goal, the legalization of open carry everywhere. Legal gun ownership first (where it isn’t), concealed carry second (where it isn’t), and open carry third. In areas where all three are legal, fight for Constitutional carry and other rights that have been taken away. I said open carry is a sideshow — not for us, but for our opponents as it’s much easier for them to attack and make a huge issue. No one freaks out about concealed carry because no one sees it!

I spent 4 years in North Carolina and I now live in Washington State. The gun culture here is very different than TN/NC, that flavors my views a bit too. We’re too busy fighting local governments that enact stupid laws counter to the state constitution, many legal accessories are illegal here, etc. Going for open carry just isn’t a priority up here.

Reply

diesel556 August 1, 2010 at 11:13 pm

I’m sorry Duderino, but you just don’t seem to know what you are talking about. Hopefully we can work on that. Washington State has a very large number of supporters of Open Carry, just do a search for OCDO, and look at the Washington sub-forum. I personally openly carry in and around Seattle and the Eastside on a daily basis (and have for years), and have had many positive conversations/interactions with others about guns and the law that otherwise would not have occurred.

There is also no need to be “Going for open carry”, “up here”, because open carry is already LEGAL with full state preemption of local ordinances in Washington! Please get your ducks in a row, and do your research before adding fuel to the fire.

I do agree that our state is even more restrictive than federal law when it comes to things like fully automatic weapons, suppressors, etc. and that is something we should work on.

Reply

Dan August 5, 2010 at 11:33 am

Kind of off topic, but I live in WA now by way of NC too. Where in NC did you come from? I agree open carry is a right in some states and any law abiding citizen shouldn’t be barred from it if it’s legal. Although, it’s a simple matter of the times are a changin’. The norm used to be to carry openly, it also used to be the norm to ride horses, but times are different now. concealed carry is just an obviously smarter way of carrying. There are so many arguements both ways so there is no reason to even start.

Point is, glad to have another dude from NC livin out here in WA too.

Reply

jmo September 7, 2010 at 06:42 pm

First of all, let me say I am not comparing the plight of anyone, only the people on the other side of that plight!

I disagree with almost everything.
“I think you’re narrowing in a bit here. I didn’t say open carry in and of itself is BAD! It really should be fine — it’s the opinions, attitudes, and hang-ups of everyone else that make it problematic.”
This is the same argument that slowed the progress of civil rights! Black people weren’t causing problems in restaurants, or drinking from water fountains, it was everyone else’s reaction! This is exactly why open carry is so important. We should have the option. Forcing concealed carry is the equivalent of saying “You can exercise religion all you want, but only in your own home. Don’t bring that shit out here.”
If people are uncomfortable with seeing guns, THEY ARE THE ONES THAT NEED TO CHANGE. I am sure interracial couples made people unconfortable back in the day, but the ignoramuses are the ones that were forced to change, not the couples. We are exercizing our rights, nothing more. It upsets me to hear people say “you can exercise your rights, just not if I can see it”

To answer your question, I think it was a troll article.

Reply

AH July 31, 2010 at 01:27 am

This is ridiculous. Why would anybody want to create class differences in our citizens. If we don’t like something that means we need a law? Now the police can do what ever they want and never be treated as equals because we would no longer be equals but place movie stars and police above all others. Even some officers are found guilty of crimes, domestic violences and killing people when they get pissed which is a higher rate of the average open carry advocate.

Now why not ban saggy pants and tattoos in public? That creates a public panic too. We cannot ban everything that makes a few people uncomfortable. I had a man approach me near the airport today and say wow I didn’t know people could do this in CA (open carry). He said he is from NV where it is not a big deal, he was waiting for clouds to clear so he could get over the hills.

California should ban gays kissing in public because it insights violence against them and something MAY happen to them like they will get robbed or beaten for kissing in public (sorry guys). Point is there are uncomfortable items in the world and we lose the ability for our citizens to make lawful arrests as is done now which will make the ability for a criminal to commit crimes much higher. What if all of us refused to help the police? This is what this bill advocates to do.

This bill advocates to make a criminal out of those in police training since they are not on the job and prevent officers from open carrying when off duty. We all know this is excessive regulations but we all say save my poor dog and use those emotions to create a reaction to something that has nothing to do with criminals. This bill does nothing to prevent crime just enables it. Nothing should be done to these strong community volunteers who are using those activities to promote civil rights and constitutional rights.

There is NO RISK FACTOR for open carry committing a crime. Our resources in the cities should not be expended on the lawsuits. YES THIS WILL be a direct cost to the cities. You want less officers and more power to the criminals due to needing to fight yet another bad piece of legislation that asks cities who are already overburdened to bear these costs. Appropriations bypassed because there is NO general fund reimbursements. This means it is all in the cities backs when this gets sued. Many of these suits cost High Millions, can your city afford this? What are you willing to cut to pay for this mandated program that is not backed by many DA offices and most police departments and sheriffs?

Under a misdemeanor offense we have costs that far exceed those this bill provides for ($1000). A public defender will be allowed due to it will become a crime. With this we now have court costs and excessive staffing that is necessary. This cost we still need to project. In SF 300 cases in 2 months that were not priority were referred out to private attorneys so that just doubled those costs not including the individual contracts that need drawn. Still sound good? There is tons more here where this came from and I should know.

Stop using a tear jerking crime to press an agenda. This is not a video game and not a movie where we have all the views of guns do one thing/ kill. Wake up and look at those who shoot for sport or these with limited ways to defend themselves. Under this bill only temporary residents can open carry now ask yourself why are they more privileged? Why can movie starts carry and those who live in certain areas but I am not equal enough for this. Make you segregations and special classes and pick on small classes of citizens using their free speech rights and now we no longer live in America where we have control, we lose the ability to petition or government and god forbid you get threatened because while you wait the 8-10 months once you qualify for a CCW (which is almost impossible) maybe you may find a need like I did for a gun. I am 36 and just bought a gun and I did it because we had a scare one night and we could not even find adequate weapons for defense. The police took 15 minutes to get here, now make that 8-10 months and we will talk about it. The only way now we can carry when at risk is to open carry but I now risk that because someone is UNCOMFORTABLE? I still need to protect myself and my children, my uncomfortable starts when only those who are going to hurt me have the guns instead of those trying to protect themselves like me. Crimes are not limited to my home. Have YOU ever needed the police when outside of your home? That is the same risk we all look at when we take away defense means from law abiding.

Now ask yourself where does our Military personnel stand in this. I guess they are a new class of criminals too? Where does this stop? Maybe when we take those guns from officers because those make the same people uncomfortable. There are plenty of people who open carry who are officials and this makes people uncomfortable too. All guns being taken away will not happen so leave the citizens alone and go after the criminals instead! Watch this one and then think twice: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MttE3mOX-3I&feature

Reply

Jake Dorsey July 31, 2010 at 07:40 pm

Totally a troll.

But great comments have sprung forth from it, which is great.

Reply

Freeman August 2, 2010 at 06:21 pm

“I do not know what laws, regulations, whims or prejudices govern the behavior of someone I have never seen before who is carrying a weapon.”
Obviously the writer was trying to refer to armed civilians with this statement… so does that mean they know every single police officer in the world? I mean they did say they do not trust someone they have never seen before.
Oh and clearly they never heard of police misconduct before. After all you can ALWAYS trust a LEO… ALWAYS… without exception… right? *end of smart-assed sarcasm*

Reply

jmo September 7, 2010 at 06:46 pm

or people in general? I don’t know what peoples intentions are when I pass them on the street. When I see a homeless person, I don’t know if they are up on meth and looking to score my watch. Being in public carries risks, this was just a troll looking to gain notoriety.

Reply

Ken August 4, 2010 at 07:48 pm

Cali.Figures. Publicly accountable…thats a riot.

Reply

LEAVE A COMMENT:

Previous post:

Next post: