What's up with the elitist attitude?


PDA






Josh Aston
July 25, 2008, 04:56 PM
I don't think I'm the only one that's noticed a disturbing trend of elitism sweeping through The High Road. We accuse gun banners of elitism because they still want their bodyguards to be able to carry, yet we would deny those who so choose the right to openly carry their firearms, and those under 21 certainly shouldn't be trusted to own a handgun, much less carry it. When someone figures out a way to get around laws preventing them from legally carrying we jump on them for committing scandalous activities and jumping through loopholes in the law. What's up with this?

The Second Amendment says shall not be infringed, yet even we as supporters of the amendment want to apply infringements to it. This internal strife isn't doing anyone any good. In fact it's causing harm by pushing away people who could be valuable allies.

You may not want to open carry your pistol, but don't deny others the right. You may not have been mature enough to carry a handgun at 18, that doesn't mean others aren't. There is no room for interpretation in the part of the Second that says "Shall NOT be infringed". Unfortunately Americans have allowed the infringement of our right to keep and bear arms. We have a forward momentum, we need to maintain it. It is time for our right to be restored to its original status, but we must be united to do this. This current trend of elitism among supporters of the Second Amendment is disturbing to say the least.

If you enjoyed reading about "What's up with the elitist attitude?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
bogie
July 25, 2008, 05:00 PM
When someone figures out a way to get around laws preventing them from legally carrying we jump on them for committing scandalous activities and jumping through loopholes in the law.

It's not about loopholes.

It's not about technicalities.

If folks put as much effort into changing the laws as they do in getting around them, we could roll back past 1968.

mbt2001
July 25, 2008, 05:04 PM
What's up with this?

So, if we do not approve with what and how someone does something, then we are wrong? There was a saying once, "I agree with your argument, but not your methods."

Anyway, I think there is something about the internet that makes people into "Dear Abby's" trying to dole out advice and solve issues... It's a good thing. :p

Cosmoline
July 25, 2008, 05:06 PM
we would deny those who so choose the right to openly carry their firearms

Who is "we"? I was not aware of any anti-open carry policy on THR.

markk
July 25, 2008, 05:09 PM
I don't think I'm the only one that's noticed a disturbing trend of elitism sweeping through The High Road.

You are not alone. I have mentioned it half a dozen times or so in the last six months.

It's really sad to see so many supposedly pro-2A people who are so eager to find a reason to deny another of their rights...

ilbob
July 25, 2008, 05:10 PM
There is no room for interpretation in the part of the Second that says "Shall NOT be infringed".
No offense intended but do you not understand the way our legal system works?

The first amendment says "congress shall make no law...". Very clearly a specific prohibition on congress doing something, and nothing else. The courts have interpreted this to mean that congress can pretty much do as it pleases in this area while it enforces it against the states who are not even mentioned in the 1A.

Abortion is not even remotely mentioned in the constitution, thus it would seem to be something reserved to the states. Yet, the SC has decided very arbitrarily that unrestricted abortion is OK during a certain time frame, and not during others, and is enforcing it on the states. [Not trying to start an abortion argument, just an obvious example]. Do you really think there is anything anywhere in the constitution that supports this kind of decision?

The 2A is pretty clear at first read, and so is the 14th. Yet the courts came up with the absurd selective incorporation doctrine out of thin air, where they incorporated the 1A (which is not really a statement of right so much as it is a prohibition on congress) and interprets much of the rest of our rights so they are mostly meaningless.

Seems like a lot of interpreting going on.

You may not want to open carry your pistol, but don't deny others the right. You may not have been mature enough to carry a handgun at 18, that doesn't mean others aren't. I don't think anyone here is opposed to OC so much as they feel CC offers some tactical and political advantages.

If 18 is OK to carry a handgun, why not 17? Or 6 for that matter? A line has to be drawn somewhere and the legislature has that power.

Phil DeGraves
July 25, 2008, 05:10 PM
I'm with Cosmoline. Who are you talking about?

lions
July 25, 2008, 05:11 PM
I must be reading all the wrong threads because I'm not sure what you are talking about.

conw
July 25, 2008, 05:12 PM
I said I choose not to open carry, but also said it was a right other people are welcome to exercise in my book.

Second, "infringement" and "reasonable restriction" are two different things. Every right has a reasonable restriction, like the "fire in a crowded theater" standard for the first amendment.

For the same reason, young kids' rights to gun ownership are not protected. (Now, there are some exceptional kids, like sm talks about, as well as exceptional incidences - the beauty there is no harm, no foul.) That's a reasonable restriction.

18, 21...there is debate as to whether it is a reasonable restriction or infringment. That's not elitism, it's debate. Some people may feel 14 should be the age to carry, others 18, others 20, 21...why holler elitism??

bogie
July 25, 2008, 05:13 PM
Heck, the fellow may be talking about me...

IMHO, we need to fight the battles incrementally... And right now, we're way ahead on the "hearts and minds" front. I've read too many posts from people who seem downright combative about their right to open carry - if that combative attitude carries over into their interaction with ordinary Joe Citizen at the supermarket, etc., then they are LOSING us ground, not gaining it.

Gunnerpalace
July 25, 2008, 05:17 PM
anti-open carry policy on THR.


Oh yeah it's here, I don't like OC (tactical advantage stuff) but I don't think it should be illegal, might do it myself while hunting.

As for the 18 thing, 18 is the age of majority in the US you can vote and die for your country why not carry? Were working on drinking laws,

markk
July 25, 2008, 05:19 PM
Guys, don't get hung up on any one particular example and lose sight of the valid point the OP made.

Every day here at THR there are more and more threads about some "idiot" and why he shouldn't be allowed to own a gun...he drinks beer, he's too young, not enough training, he made a flippant comment on a website, whatever the reason, the feeding frenzy starts and it does more to tear down our position than the Brady Bunch could ever hope for...

Bogie and Cosmoline, I doubt the OP is referencing you guys so please don't derail his point by trying to pick it apart. I know exeactly what he is saying and you two are most certainly not the problem..

MakAttak
July 25, 2008, 05:24 PM
Guys, don't get hung up on any one particular example.

Every day here at THR there are more and more threads about some "idiot" and why he shouldn't be allowed to own a gun...he drinks beer, he's too young, not enough training, he made a flippant comment on a website, whatever the reason, the feeding frenzy starts and it does more to tear down our position than the Brady Bunch could ever hope for...

Bogie and Cosmoline, I doubt the OP is referencing you guys so please don't derail his point by trying to pick it apart. I know exeactly what he is saying and you two are most certainly not the problem...

Not being hung up on a particular example is rather difficult when no examples have been mentioned.

You claim a trend. Please back that up.

I have seen some posters spout off about someone not deserving to own a gun, but this is hardly new. These are not the majority opinion in any thread, but merely an aberration. Are you chosing single outlying data points in order to form your hypothesis?

bogie
July 25, 2008, 05:26 PM
Well, some people ARE too idiotic to own a gun... Generally, however, they are removed from the "gun pool" before they turn 21...

Now, consider this - will you trust a friend, let's call him Joe, with your car? You -know- you'll get it back, but it may be in pieces. Would you trust Joe with a gun?

markk
July 25, 2008, 05:29 PM
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=380238
Here is one example from earlier today.
Whatever opinion you may hold on 18yo's and CCW does not justify the arrogance of the several people who's response was for the OP to grow up, stop whining, and worry about his schoolwork. Is this how we at The High Road address a fellow gun enthusiast?

Cosmoline
July 25, 2008, 05:32 PM
Bogie and Cosmoline, I doubt the OP is referencing you guys so please don't derail his point by trying to pick it apart.

I'm not trying to attack it, I just wanted to get some specifics. The OP uses "we" but doesn't explain who this "we" is. To my knowledge there is no set THR policy on open carry, age of carry or any other policy questions. There is certainly disagreement, but this does not mean "we" as a body are "elitist." We just argue a lot.

Is this how we at The High Road address a fellow gun enthusiast?

If he's a youngster, perhaps it is. That's not elitism, though it might be considered "ageism." You are free to disagree, of course, and to argue your points. I'm not sure what the OP wants. Is he asking for everyone to agree with him?

Josh Aston
July 25, 2008, 05:32 PM
The one markk posted is one example. There was one about a kid getting two non-resident permits so that he'd be legal to carry under 21 in his state. Every time OC comes up people jump all over it. Those that merely say they wouldn't do it but see no problem with others doing it aren't those I have issues with. Those that would deny everyone else the right to OC because they don't like it are the ones I hold issue against.

SsevenN
July 25, 2008, 05:33 PM
http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=380408

Example #2.

This thread, while totally gun-related based off the OP, has pretty much turned into a UFC bashing thread for no reason at all.

The attitudes seem a touch "Elitest" to me.

ilbob
July 25, 2008, 05:36 PM
grow up, stop whining, and worry about his schoolworkAll good advice, but only marginally relevant.

bogie
July 25, 2008, 05:40 PM
What I particularly hate to see are posts that basically say "Mommy and Daddy won't let me have a gun." Well, maybe there's a reason...

At any rate, if you're gonna live at Mommy and Daddy's, you play by their rules. And if you want to live at Mommy and Daddy's until you're 45, you need a clue...

markk
July 25, 2008, 05:41 PM
I'm not sure what the OP wants. Is he asking for everyone to agree with him?

I think he just wants people to lose the elitist attitudes which so often seem to imply that if you don't share the same opinion as me re. training requirements, alcohol consumption, age, open carry, holster type, etc. you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.

Ltlabner
July 25, 2008, 05:43 PM
There's 1385 people on line right now. The crazy wild side of me is willing to bet someone out in cyberworld is going to disagree with one of your positions.

Because they do so does not automatically mean they are "elitist". Simply means they are different.

And somebody suggesting that perhaps you shouldn't have access to a firearm does not mean they are elitist. It means they own an opinion, and most reasonable people understand that has zero impact whatsoever on how you conduct your life.

Ltlabner
July 25, 2008, 05:45 PM
I think he just wants people to lose the elitist attitudes which so often seem to imply that if you don't share the same opinion as me re. training requirements, alcohol consumption, age, open carry, holster type, etc. you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.

I see, so the OP is entitled to his/her opinion, but nobody else is allowed to have one, especially one that disagrees?

Riiiiiiiigggggghhhhtttttt.

It is 100% possible to suggest a limitation on the ownership of a firearm without being a card carying liberal, frothing, gun grabbing, anti.

markk
July 25, 2008, 05:46 PM
What I particularly hate to see are posts that basically say "Mommy and Daddy won't let me have a gun." Well, maybe there's a reason...

At any rate, if you're gonna live at Mommy and Daddy's, you play by their rules. And if you want to live at Mommy and Daddy's until you're 45, you need a clue...

I agree 100%.
However, that is not what this thread is about.
Juvenile posts/posters like the one you referenced also annoy me, so much so that I reported his childish antics long before that particular thread.;)

ctdonath
July 25, 2008, 05:46 PM
I've noted it too. A growing number of posters accept and promote restrictions on behavior, including (with many vigorous threads thereon)
- don't open carry (ever)
- don't carry in airports (despite GA legislature specifically legalizing it)
- don't carry when drinking (even one glass of wine at a fine restraunt)
- you're too young to carry (barely under 21)
- licensing should be required (to no discernable purpose)
- training should be required (more as restriction than education)
- nobody needs a MG (even if a personal M16 is exactly what the FFs had in mind)
- don't challenge infringing laws
- a felony conviction for merely possessing a standard-capacity AR15 mag in NY is reason to lose one's RKBA
among others.

Now, most certainly everyone is entitled to their opinion, which many here will defend even if disagreeing therewith.
It does, however, seem to me (and apparently others) that the assortment of accepted restrictions is growing in adherents, who are increasingly adamant about others submitting thereto. I've been following THR and related boards for a very long time, and the density of "but of course that infringement is reasonable" comments seems growing.

It's certainly not THR policy, it's just personal views of a growing number of posters, reflecting a change in the culture - an apparent growing acceptance of long-touted "anti" positions by presumably hardcore "pro-RKBA" types.

Those saying "but what you're pushing for will lose us ground" mirrors the NRA vs. Gura et al conflict regarding Heller (nee Parker): the NRA tried hard to derail Mr. Heller et al because they feared the Big Loss - and suddenly jumped on board when it would clearly become the Big Win. Yes, I want open carry in a grocery store - if people get used to seeing OC everywhere, they'll get used to seeing OC everywhere.

Can I point to proof of the trend? Probably, but the expenditure of effort for it far exceeds the payoff. It's an impression, which apparently I am not alone in achieving.

markk
July 25, 2008, 05:49 PM
I see, so the OP is entitled to his/her opinion, but nobody else is allowed to have one, especially one that disagrees?



Nobody said or even implied that.
However, on a board called "THE HIGH ROAD", there is a lot to be said about how you express that opinion.

MakAttak
July 25, 2008, 05:49 PM
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=380238
Here is one example from earlier today.
Whatever opinion you may hold on 18yo's and CCW does not justify the arrogance of the several people who's response was for the OP to grow up, stop whining, and worry about his schoolwork. Is this how we at The High Road address a fellow gun enthusiast?

Alright. Thank you, that's one example with 30 responses and 4, maybe 5 posters saying they didn't think the 19 year old should have a gun.

Does 5 people in that thread constitute a prevailing attitude in that thread, let alone within THR?

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=380408

Example #2.

This thread, while totally gun-related based off the OP, has pretty much turned into a UFC bashing thread for no reason at all.

The attitudes seem a touch "Elitest" to me.

Thank you. This one has one guy saying the UFC doesn't matter and another saying we should not be overly concerned about the opinions of celebrities. Nineteen responses in that thread and two people saying they don't care about the UFC, which you have deemed elitist.

Two posters, nineteen responses. Please note the question I posed about the previous example.

Thernlund
July 25, 2008, 05:51 PM
You guys are wasting bandwidth. I'd rather be contributing to the "I'm so tactical" thread.

You ever notice how Robert De Niro closes his eyes when he shoots?

Hey... I bought a new gun yesterday. Look for some photos coming soon.

When's lunch? I'm hungry.


-T.

Ltlabner
July 25, 2008, 05:52 PM
Nobody said or even implied that.

I would beg to differ. You posted...

lose the elitist attitudes which so often seem to imply that if you don't share the same opinion as me re. training requirements, alcohol consumption, age, open carry, holster type, etc. you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.

What you are saying is that the OP is entitled to his opinion that the age 21 rule to CCW is stupid. But that if anyone disagrees, and dares to hold an opinion that includes a restriction on ownership (real or imagined), they are elitest.

Whether you realize it or not, what you are saying is that folks disagreeing with the OP of the thread in question are not allowed to have an opinion because you deam it elitest. And you are going so far as to publically proclaim that it's a "problem" that is effecting THR, in effect, trying to quash the opinions of those with whom you disagree.

Daemon688
July 25, 2008, 05:52 PM
Ummm....what are you talking about? Sounds like you're making broad generalizations about everyone on this board based on a few comments by a few members. The fact is, the open carry threads in this forum has had many people arguing on both sides. I remember seeing that 18 year old kid posting and many were quite positive and congratulating him.

texas bulldog
July 25, 2008, 05:52 PM
i see it in every single OC thread. alleged 2A supporters claim that "just anyone" shouldn't be able to walk around with a gun. they need classes, qualification, etc.

the implication often seems to be:
well, i'm qualified to handle a firearm safely, but those people over there, that's another story...

that's what i would attribute to elitism. i see it in CC threads too. despite the lack of any verifiable evidence that training provides a beneift or that OC makes you a target, folks continue to spout it. these are the arguments of the antis.

josh...i totally understand what you're saying.

mbt2001
July 25, 2008, 05:54 PM
I think he just wants people to lose the elitist attitudes which so often seem to imply that if you don't share the same opinion as me re. training requirements, alcohol consumption, age, open carry, holster type, etc. you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.

uhhhhh

If I drank and didn't train, but got onto you for drinking and not training THAT would be elitist, having a different OPINION is another matter.

If you do not like the law, then LOBBY, that is what the rest of us have to do. You don't draw a lot of folks to your cause with drama queen antics and name calling.

Josh Aston
July 25, 2008, 05:55 PM
I see, so the OP is entitled to his/her opinion, but nobody else is allowed to have one, especially one that disagrees?

Riiiiiiiigggggghhhhtttttt.

Everyone is allowed to have their opinion. The problem isn't people that disagree with my opinions. The problem is people that don't think I'm entitled to an opinion because it doesn't agree with theirs.

Thernlund
July 25, 2008, 05:55 PM
http://www.gronnevik.se/rjukan/uploads/Main/cute_kitten.p.jpg


-T.

MakAttak
July 25, 2008, 05:55 PM
i see it in every single OC thread. alleged 2A supporters claim that "just anyone" shouldn't be able to walk around with a gun. they need classes, qualification, etc.

You may see it in every open carry thread, but I am more than willing to wager that it is expressed by the same posters in each of those threads...

Edit: Incidentally, Thernlund..... that's hilarious.

Thernlund
July 25, 2008, 05:57 PM
Edit: Incidentally, Thernlund..... that's hilarious.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v67/sageko/1192676259166.jpg


-T.

Ltlabner
July 25, 2008, 05:58 PM
Everyone is allowed to have their opinion. The problem isn't people that disagree with my opinions. The problem is people that don't think I'm entitled to an opinion because it doesn't agree with theirs.

Yet you are the one posting that the opinions of the posters with whom you disagree are elitest because they don't jive with yours.

And frankly, I really don't remember ever reading "you aren't allowed to have that opinion" here at THR. Now, I don't read every thread, and I try to avoid the real heated ones, so maybe it happens and I miss it.

But mostly what I see/read are people with different view points discussing, and sometimes arguing, about them.

Thernlund
July 25, 2008, 05:58 PM
http://www.w3bdevil.com/forums/Hijack-DeNiro.jpg


-T.

mbt2001
July 25, 2008, 05:59 PM
Those saying "but what you're pushing for will lose us ground" mirrors the NRA vs. Gura et al conflict regarding Heller (nee Parker): the NRA tried hard to derail Mr. Heller et al because they feared the Big Loss - and suddenly jumped on board when it would clearly become the Big Win.

I was not for the Heller case. I wasn't and wanted congress to change the law and supported the NRA in their stance... But being a reluctant soldier isn't a crime. Once the battle was joined and retreat wasn't possible, then I got behind it... Also, if O'Conner hadn't retired (which she hadn't at the time) then we would have lost that case, so let's not act like it was obvious. I am happy as heck we won, but I understand being reluctant to gamble it all. Sun Tzu says that War is serious business and shouldn't be entered into lightly, I don't have a problem with others of the same stripe on other issues.

Drinking and carrying isn't a good idea. I am a recovering Alcholic, so I am for not drinking at all, but that is merely me. If you want to drink, I am sure that the advice that you are getting is that it isn't SMART just in case the SHTF, the cops would be on you... Smart is good I thought.

markk
July 25, 2008, 06:00 PM
If I drank and didn't train, but got onto you for drinking and not training THAT would be elitist, having a different OPINION is another matter.


Actually, that would be hypocritical not elitist...

CountGlockula
July 25, 2008, 06:00 PM
It's called being in the possession of a powerful tool that will destroy, and that type of power influences our thinking also.

bogie
July 25, 2008, 06:00 PM
Would you trust The Dude to open carry? After all, he's old enough.

Or Walter? Heck, the thought of Walter with a nerf gun scares me...

Eleven Mike
July 25, 2008, 06:01 PM
18, 21...there is debate as to whether it is a reasonable restriction or infringment. That's not elitism, it's debate. Some people may feel 14 should be the age to carry, others 18, others 20, 21...why holler elitism??

Yup. The OP has an elitist attitude toward those younger than his 18-year standard. :neener:

Thernlund
July 25, 2008, 06:02 PM
http://images.starcraftmazter.net/4chan/for_forums/thread_hijack.jpg


-T.

Ltlabner
July 25, 2008, 06:02 PM
I think the real issue that's not being adressed is the devide between those who feal all weapons should be available to anybody at any age with with zero restrition and those who feal *some* restrictions are prudent.

It seems that whenever (or at least in my experience) someone suggests the slightest restriction to ownership or use of a firearm, real or imagined, the cries of elitest go up.

Example:

Poster 1: "I fired my full auto AK into water at a flat angle and there was a camp 500 yards down range"

Poster 2: "Hey man, you might want to be carefull. Bullets can skip off of water".

Poster 1: " The 2A says SHAL NOT BE INFRINGED". It's elitest attitudes like this that lead to gun grabs".

Thernlund
July 25, 2008, 06:04 PM
http://www.hickerphoto.com/data/media/29/cute_puppy_picture_T3505.jpg


-T.

mbt2001
July 25, 2008, 06:05 PM
Actually, that would be hypocritical not elitist...

In this context, it is the same. Rosie hate's guns, Rosie's body guards are armed...

In any event, it isn't elitist to have an opinion. I happen to think that some kind of age restriction is a good thing. I don't know how it could possibly be lower than 18 or 21, considering the law and precedent and everything, but if you think you can change that in your area have at it.

Thernlund
July 25, 2008, 06:06 PM
http://www.itstheirfault.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/elitist.jpg


-T.

markk
July 25, 2008, 06:13 PM
In any event, it isn't elitist to have an opinion. I happen to think that some kind of age restriction is a good thing. I don't know how it could possibly be lower than 18 or 21, considering the law and precedent and everything, but if you think you can change that in your area have at it.

Once again, I agree with both parts of this statement.
However, how someone choses to express that opinion can be elitist, and that is what the High Road can (IMO) do without...

mbt2001
July 25, 2008, 06:15 PM
However, how someone choses to express that opinion can be elitist, and that is what the High Road can (IMO) do without...

uhhhhhh

:uhoh:

Cosmoline
July 25, 2008, 06:19 PM
The increase in the number of arguments over what constitute reasonable restrictions has nothing to do with a "growing elitism" on THR. It has to do with one thing and one thing only--HELLER. Determining where the line should be drawn is the next front of the movement, so don't be surprised if there are more and more arguments over what constitutes a reasonable restriction.

Gunnerpalace
July 25, 2008, 06:31 PM
the implication often seems to be:
well, i'm qualified to handle a firearm safely, but those people over there, that's another story...

Two words..............Glock .40.

Or Walter? Heck, the thought of Walter with a nerf gun scares me...

MARK IT ZERO! :D

Am I the only one here who cares about the rules?

bogie
July 25, 2008, 06:38 PM
Bottom line: If it pegs my bull**** meter, if it sounds like you're doing something stupid, if it sounds like you're going out of your way to irritate folks who you perceive as "antis" (but who are, in all likelihood, going to be sitting on the fence until you show up...), then I'm going to tell you.

Been there, done that, been involved in gun rights stuff longer than some of y'all have been alive.

The one thing some of us learned EARLY on is that there are some folks who we just don't want to show up at a rally or political event.

Now, step back - are you one of those people?

goon
July 25, 2008, 06:39 PM
I really shouldn't get involved in this thread...
(I say this in honor of The Tourist, who started a thread the other day that made clear to me the error of my ways.)
But...

I don't have proof to back this up - I skim through a lot of threads and don't reply to most of them unless I can contribute something worthwhile so I don't really even know where to start looking. I say this from more of an observational point of view than anything else.
But I kind of agree with the OP.
There is something strange running around on this board in some areas. I don't know if I'd call it elitism, but it is something.

The arguments could look like: "A permit to carry a handgun is reasonable and constitutional. Yes, I know the Constitution says 'shall not be infringed', but the courts get away with it so it must be OK. Besides, I like the fact that the government can restrict regular people from carrying guns, even though criminals prove every day that the government really can't prevent bad people from carrying weapons. It doesn't bother me to know that the little old lady next door can't carry her deceased husband's .32 revolver for protection because she's too frail to sit through a two-day course and she can't afford the $100 cost plus ammo that would be required for the class. And since it doesn't bother me, it's all good. Now run along. I'm right and you're wrong. Really. I'm right and that's final."

It just sort of leaves me scratching my head.
People say they support the RKBA but at the same time, they want to restrict that right. Even if they did want to restrict it, I guess I could understand that under some circumstances.
I mean, even I would support a total ban on WMD's on the grounds that they're more than less totally indiscriminate once they're used. I don't have a problem with people getting knocked off as long as the only people getting knocked off are the ones who need/deserve to get knocked off.
Restricting a weapon like that makes sense because you and I have a right to not be blown to kingdom come or to die from Sarin and our neighbor Ted's right to blow stuff to kingdom come ends right where we begin. I get that.
But why restrict the rights of regular "decent" people without any kind of cause?
There are those who argue that we can be trusted with handguns but should have to go through more government red tape and pay money to carry one for defense. You know, just to make sure that we're "qualified" to defend ourselves.
And there are those who say we can be trusted to own our grand-daddy's Winchester Model 12's for hunting but heaven forbid that anyone should want to buy an AK and a stack of 30-rounders.
I just don't get how that is supposed to add up.

I wouldn't say that this is the prevailing attitude, but it's also not that rare among gun owners and this includes some of the members on this board.

Intune
July 25, 2008, 06:48 PM
As long as it's only white males over 40 with a caliber that begins with .4, I have no problem with gun ownership.

The problem arises when uppity women, minorities, young pups and caliber-challenged individuals begin to think that they have the same rights that I enjoy.












:rolleyes:
:evil:

goon
July 25, 2008, 06:51 PM
Intune - your sarcasm made my point better than my own longwinded rant.
I salute you.

Intune
July 25, 2008, 06:52 PM
I believe it sharpens exponentially as my lung capacity decreases. ;)

jlh26oo
July 25, 2008, 07:00 PM
I think everyone here has their limits. If you keep presenting increasing hypotheticals to even the most stringent literal "SHALL NOT"ers, eventually you find something that would make them say O.K. well yeah THAT should be illegal. We all just have different limits. Doesn't mean anyone's elitist because they disagree with you. I.M.O. only and Y.M.M.V.

B.T.W. regarding "but, I'm not even allowed to have an opinion"- the only way that could possibly be true is if you are getting censored, posts deleted etc. And even in that case, you would still allowed to have your opinion (just maybe not allowed to express it on someone's private site). And I seriously doubt even that is happening. So I think your opinion is safe!

siglite
July 25, 2008, 07:01 PM
After reading through posts and Thernlund's attempts at sh$tting up this thread, I have to say the best response so far has been by ctdonath. He summed things up well.

For Cosmoline and others to say "problem, what problem?" strikes me as ... odd. I'd say if you're not seeing what the OP is talking about, you're not paying attention. The attitude is here. It's been here as long as I've been a member. If you doubt me, go ahead and start an OC thread. Watch how many holier-than-thous will jump in condemning OC for a dozen reasons.

I consider OC a personal choice. I support your right to OC. I will not denounce you for OC. Most of the time, I don't OC myself for personal reasons.

But yeah, the OP isn't seeing boogeymen in the dark. The attitude is here. "Elitism" might be a bit strong as a description, but to deny that condescension exists on the part of a number of members towards OC-ers simply tells me folks haven't been paying attention for the past year or so.

JesseL
July 25, 2008, 07:13 PM
Bottom line: If it pegs my bull**** meter, if it sounds like you're doing something stupid, if it sounds like you're going out of your way to irritate folks who you perceive as "antis" (but who are, in all likelihood, going to be sitting on the fence until you show up...), then I'm going to tell you.

Been there, done that, been involved in gun rights stuff longer than some of y'all have been alive.

The one thing some of us learned EARLY on is that there are some folks who we just don't want to show up at a rally or political event.

Now, step back - are you one of those people?


My own answer:
No, I'm not one of those people.

I open carry. I started doing it 9 years ago because I didn't have a CWP and it was a comfortable and convenient alternative to being unarmed. A few years ago my wife got me a gift certificate to the CWP class for Christmas. Now I can choose to carry concealed or open, and oftentimes I still choose open. It's still a comfortable and convenient way to carry.

I never even knew it was supposed to be such a problem until I saw some peoples reactions to the idea on packing.org and now THR. It's never freaked anybody out or caused me any problems.

I've become a vocal proponent of the right to open carry simply because I have seen so much FUD and misinformation from people that ought to know better. I'm really tired of people saying that "the only reason why someone would open carry" is because they crave attention, or they want to get in people's faces, or they need to prove a point. That might be true for some open carriers, but it's insulting to apply that stereotype to all of us.

It's really strange to hear supposed supporters of the RKBA saying that I shouldn't be exercising a right that I've had forever because "people aren't ready for it":confused:. Better yet are the fears it will suddenly result in some dire consequence that hasn't happened in the past few centuries that people have been open carrying:scrutiny:.

conw
July 25, 2008, 07:49 PM
This thread has brought out some of the elitest elitists I've ever seen.

I've started a few threads like this at various forums (not here) and they really don't ever achieve anything.

If you're really concerned about it, OP and others, just PM anyone who is expressing that type of attitude or expressing their views in a way that displeases you. Nobody reading this thread is thinking "Oh yeah, I must be the elitist he is speaking of," so it probably isn't doing any good.

Dialogue, not monologue.

Wheeler44
July 25, 2008, 08:20 PM
What I particularly hate to see are posts that basically say "Mommy and Daddy won't let me have a gun." Well, maybe there's a reason...

At any rate, if you're gonna live at Mommy and Daddy's, you play by their rules. And if you want to live at Mommy and Daddy's until you're 45, you need a clue...
I quite agree with bogie on this one. When I was 12 or 13 I was given ammo for the pistol I was given at 8 yrs. old. That was a long time ago and in a bush community in Alaska.

I'm pretty sure that my folks would have taken responsibility for anything I did with that old revolver. They trusted me.

I wish that I could do the same for my son, I trust him. I would take responsibility for his actions. But times are different now.

Cosmoline
July 25, 2008, 08:24 PM
If you doubt me, go ahead and start an OC thread. Watch how many holier-than-thous will jump in condemning OC for a dozen reasons.

I've been open about open carrying since I started posting on TFL nearly a decade ago. It has always been a controversial issue, but I'm not sure why that should give rise to cries of "elitism." Are you expecting everyone to agree about the choice of open carry as the next great battle? Different pro-gun cultures around the country have VERY different attitudes about OC. In Texas it's practically criminal brandishment, up here it's common enough I bike around with a long arm and walked into supermarkets with a rifle and nobody batted an eye. I think the Texicans are a might confused about many things, including the comparative size of their homeland to Alaska. But I would not call them "elitist" for disagreeing with me. This is just something we're going to have to keep debating and hash out.

Wheeler44
July 25, 2008, 08:31 PM
up here it's common enough I bike around with a long arm and walked into supermarkets with a rifle and nobody batted an eye.That's why I love Alaska.

Cosmoline
July 25, 2008, 08:33 PM
Is this what people are talking about, I wonder?

A victory in Heller will ironically lead to a much less unified political position. One branch will continue to view the RKBA in absolute terms and view any interpretation as a concession. They are likely to be less and less satisfied as more court opinions come down fleshing out the limits of the Second. Another branch will accept the changes and move on. Indeed for these people the protection of the courts against the worst excesses of the anti-gun groups will cause them to be much less focused on the RKBA. This, in turn, will expose the many grounds for division within RKBA ranks. Political, regional, cultural, etc.

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=350294&highlight=heller+split

markk
July 25, 2008, 08:45 PM
Is this what people are talking about, I wonder?



It's got nothing to do with what I am talking about. What I see as the problem is more of a general attitude than a specific reaction to a topic and it has been here long before the Heller decision.

Ctdonath really did explain it better than I seem to be able to do...
I've noted it too. A growing number of posters accept and promote restrictions on behavior, including (with many vigorous threads thereon)
- don't open carry (ever)
- don't carry in airports (despite GA legislature specifically legalizing it)
- don't carry when drinking (even one glass of wine at a fine restraunt)
- you're too young to carry (barely under 21)
- licensing should be required (to no discernable purpose)
- training should be required (more as restriction than education)
- nobody needs a MG (even if a personal M16 is exactly what the FFs had in mind)
- don't challenge infringing laws
- a felony conviction for merely possessing a standard-capacity AR15 mag in NY is reason to lose one's RKBA
among others.

Now, most certainly everyone is entitled to their opinion, which many here will defend even if disagreeing therewith.
It does, however, seem to me (and apparently others) that the assortment of accepted restrictions is growing in adherents, who are increasingly adamant about others submitting thereto. I've been following THR and related boards for a very long time, and the density of "but of course that infringement is reasonable" comments seems growing.

It's certainly not THR policy, it's just personal views of a growing number of posters, reflecting a change in the culture - an apparent growing acceptance of long-touted "anti" positions by presumably hardcore "pro-RKBA" types.

Those saying "but what you're pushing for will lose us ground" mirrors the NRA vs. Gura et al conflict regarding Heller (nee Parker): the NRA tried hard to derail Mr. Heller et al because they feared the Big Loss - and suddenly jumped on board when it would clearly become the Big Win. Yes, I want open carry in a grocery store - if people get used to seeing OC everywhere, they'll get used to seeing OC everywhere.

Can I point to proof of the trend? Probably, but the expenditure of effort for it far exceeds the payoff. It's an impression, which apparently I am not alone in achieving.

camslam
July 25, 2008, 09:29 PM
When I first saw the thread topic, I thought to myself, "this should be interesting."

As I have read the posts, I would say I have seen a form of elitism rear its ugly head in Strategy and Tactics on a regular basis.

For as long as I have been a member of THR, I read with interest the different scenarios, real or hypothetical, that people get into and one thing that has really started to bother me for the last while is the elite and sometimes smug attitude of some posters.

When it comes to different scenarios it seems many have one of the following general type of statements:

-I would never be caught off guard and be in that situation.
-I would never be unprepared if I faced that situation.
-I would never have to take that kind of action in that situation.
-I could talk my way out of that situation.
-It is best to not be there in the first place.

Etc...

I guess the elitism that bugs me is the idea that these posters are just so much smarter, more aware, more prepared, and better equipped to handle these types of lethal situations because they would never be put in that situation in the first place.

Do they think the people that do get stuck in these situations were planning on it or looking for a fight? I can understand some situations where it would benefit people to be more aware, but sometimes things happen in such a way that your preparation isn't going to keep you from being involved.

It kind of gets old and I don't have the time or interest to PM each one and debate it personally, but nonetheless, I think it applies to this topic.

Who knows.

bogie
July 25, 2008, 09:33 PM
but, I'm not even allowed to have an opinion

No, you can have an opinion. However, the rest of us are neither required to agree with it, nor, quite necessarily, respect it a great deal.

Keep in mind that some folks here are speaking from experience, whereas others are speaking from theory. There -is- a difference there, folks...

Right now, regarding open carry, we've got an advantage. And we can lose that advantage if we are perceived as a hazard, rather than neutral or a positive. Attitude is seen by many as "hazard." Attitude is what causes "blood in the streets." The first thing, and we've discussed this long and hard on THR, back before a lot of you joined, about CCW is that you need to leave your attitude at the door. Some guy flips you off driving, smile, wave, and disengage. Some guy in a restaurant is looking at your girlfriend, or you, and trying to start something - you do NOT want to escalate it into a deadly weapon confrontation. So disengage.

Attitude scares me. Attitude gets loud and messy situations started.

Remember - we want to reinforce with the Public At Large that we are the good guys, right? So lose the attitudes. Then, maybe, you are qualified to open carry.

Those of you who have already lost the attitudes know what I'm talking about.

torpid
July 25, 2008, 09:39 PM
Attitude scares me. Attitude gets loud and messy situations started.

Remember - we want to reinforce with the Public At Large that we are the good guys, right? So lose the attitudes. Then, maybe, you are qualified to open carry.

Those of you who have already lost the attitudes know what I'm talking about.

Grrr... them's fightin' words!

:D

Ltlabner
July 25, 2008, 09:53 PM
When it comes to different scenarios it seems many have one of the following general type of statements:

-I would never be caught off guard and be in that situation.
-I would never be unprepared if I faced that situation.
-I would never have to take that kind of action in that situation.
-I could talk my way out of that situation.
-It is best to not be there in the first place.

Etc...

I guess the elitism that bugs me is the idea that these posters are just so much smarter, more aware, more prepared, and better equipped to handle these types of lethal situations because they would never be put in that situation in the first place.

Camslam...thank you for actually providing examples that can be discussed rather than amorphous "we's" and "they say...".

When you present it like that, I have to say I agree. I don't know if it's elietism as much as it is internet bravado or just plain ole blow-hardedness. Yours is a far more compelling argument than "I'm not alowed to have an opinion".

Catherine
July 25, 2008, 10:01 PM
I lost my post here on the WWWeb... sigh. Oh well. I will not retype it all over again.

I pushed send but I have NO clue where it went.

Oh well, it was a soap box speech, with my high heels on, about gun rights and all RIGHTS including some attitudes.

GUN CONTROL = CONTROL. Period!

What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do some people not understand?!?

There is an attitude in my NOT so humble opinion. You know what they say about opinions, eh? They are like belly buttons and we all have one! Ha ha.

Catherine - Armed and Female
An Open Carry Lady married to a man who carries BOTH ways. I did NOT have that right according to the 'law' in my former state where I lived for over 30 years with my late husband. Yes, I fought and did many things to change that freaking UNconstitutional law too. Double grin.

Catherine
July 25, 2008, 10:10 PM
PS

We should NOT have to change anyone's opinion on who WE are or what WE stand for when it comes to a basic RIGHT. We ALL (Pro gunners, anti gunners and those middle of the road gunners!) have those basic fundamental RIGHTS whether some of THEM or some of YOU or some of US want to use them in any way. Open or conceal or any type of CARRY!

That means if that RIGHT is God given or natural given or a FILL IN THE BLANK RIGHT no matter on how you want to WORD IT.

A right is a right.

Some people do think and believe that THEIR rights are better than your rights or my rights because of those gun control laws that they worship at the altar of... along with the ones who passed those laws.

Catherine

springmom
July 25, 2008, 10:43 PM
That means if that RIGHT is God given or natural given or a FILL IN THE BLANK RIGHT no matter on how you want to WORD IT.

A right is a right.

In theory, I agree with you 100%. The devil, as it is said, is in the details. I live in the great state of Texas, and open carry is, as of now, illegal. It is *so* illegal that if my shirt rides up and someone sees my gun and has a snit fit, I can lose my right to carry because of a brandishment charge. Sigh. We're working on changing that, and when our next legislative session comes up in January '09, we have some hope of finally seeing it.

That said....

I'd like to turn this debate on its head here. If you want *elitism* charges, let's take a look at the folks for whom open carry is apparently the litmus test of a person's true RKBA identification. Those whose braggadocio leads us to assume that, were they in Texas, by George they'd march right up to the State Capitol with their gun out for all the world to see just to show whoever what real 2A supporters DO.

This, FAR more, than open carry opponents, gets my goat. Because they are looking down their ever-so-pure-2A noses at those of us who have to live with restriction or go to frickin' JAIL.

This is a sword that cuts both ways. For those who feel put upon by OC opponents, go spend some time looking at your side's arguments.

And for the record, I **am** pro-OC, and hope fervently for its legality in Texas next year.

Springmom

Catherine
July 25, 2008, 10:46 PM
QUOTE:

I've noted it too. A growing number of posters accept and promote restrictions on behavior, including (with many vigorous threads thereon)
- don't open carry (ever)

ETC.
~~~~~

This poster and the OP nailed it on the head when it comes to many so called RKBA people. Thank you!

Gun people can be their own worst enemies at times.

As far as saying who you would want to be in your political rally or any pro gun group... when so called RKBA people say we don't want THIS type or THAT type because, God forbid, THEY might be too radical or freedom loving people = liberty minded folks... well to me, NO offense to some of you, that is downright ridiculous too.

Yes, I see it here and all over so called RKBA gun and liberty (?!?) political boards which DO allow, gasp, politics as in GUN politics. You can't sway from the fact that gun issues are gun p o l i t i c s.

Me = I think that ALL gun laws should be abolished along with MOST alphabet agencies. If you are in jail or in an insane asylum - no guns for you. Once you get released, served your time, got healed, etc. - you should have ALL of your RIGHTS restored to YOU including gun rights in my NOT so humble opinion.

Catherine - Armed and Female - Open Carry Lady
PS: Thanks to the ones who stand UP for open carry HERE.

Catherine
July 25, 2008, 10:50 PM
Hello lady - Spring Mom,

Where I used to live in farm/lake country... I could not even have a loaded gun in my vehicle or conceal carry. Many places did not allow open carry - what a joke!

I understand what bs that you have to put up with as what I had to put up with along with my late husband and many others not even counting the east coast and/or his military time.

Thanks for your input.

Blessings to you and yours,

Catherine

bogie
July 25, 2008, 10:56 PM
Gun people can be their own worst enemies at times.

As far as saying who you would want to be in your political rally or any pro gun group... when so called RKBA people say we don't want THIS type or THAT type because, God forbid, THEY might be too radical or freedom loving people = liberty minded folks... well to me, NO offense to some of you, that is downright ridiculous too.

Sigh... Who I -do not- want showing up at the "meet with your congresscritter" day is the guy who'll walk in carrying a .30-30, loaded, and then loudly insist that it's his right. Maybe it is, but it'd also be nice if he'd bathe occasionally, and if his eyes would slow down long enough for you to see them actually look at something, at least before he tells the Honorable Joe Blow about the time he was abducted by aliens, so now he always carries a bayonet strapped to his thigh, at which point he drops trou...

Catherine
July 25, 2008, 11:01 PM
When the 'enforcers' and/or power control freaks in those 'agencies' who are only following the GUN CONTROL book laws and doing their 'jobs' start to realize that they are enforcing an UNconstitutional LAW and stop doing that to people who are NOT in the act of a crime... maybe we would get somewhere.

Unfortunately... I think that too many of them like that 'power' and their TAXPAYER paid special rights, salaries, bennies and that includes the politicos who make/pass those laws. They have THEIR taxpayer paid protection too - even the most RABID ANTI GUNNERS!!!

Good and bad in all people and professions. Another subject matter.

When the law enforcement people become PEACE OFFICERS and upholders of the CONSTITUTION in this Republic along with anyone else in 'power' - it is ONLY at that time when you will see a REAL change for ALL of us in ANY position. Pro gun, moderate gun or anti gun.

It will ONLY happen when some people wake up and smell the coffee and realize what they are doing is wrong... meaning enforcing bs GUN CONTROL laws.

That goes for any profession in ANY state plus in the District of Criminals!

Yours in liberty,

Catherine

Catherine
July 25, 2008, 11:04 PM
QUOTE:


Quote:
Gun people can be their own worst enemies at times.

As far as saying who you would want to be in your political rally or any pro gun group... when so called RKBA people say we don't want THIS type or THAT type because, God forbid, THEY might be too radical or freedom loving people = liberty minded folks... well to me, NO offense to some of you, that is downright ridiculous too.
Sigh... Who I -do not- want showing up at the "meet with your congresscritter" day is the guy who'll walk in carrying a .30-30, loaded, and then loudly insist that it's his right. Maybe it is, but it'd also be nice if he'd bathe occasionally, and if his eyes would slow down long enough for you to see them actually look at something, at least before he tells the Honorable Joe Blow about the time he was abducted by aliens, so now he always carries a bayonet strapped to his thigh, at which point he drops trou...


~~~~~

Here's your sign. I rest my case. Stereotyping.

Sigh...

Catherine

qwert65
July 25, 2008, 11:10 PM
Catherine, Bogie isn't sterotyping there are people like that(in many groups besides gunowners) and you don't want them representing you on any subject

Tom Servo
July 25, 2008, 11:14 PM
Who I -do not- want showing up at the "meet with your congresscritter" day is the guy who'll walk in carrying a .30-30, loaded, and then loudly insist that it's his right. Maybe it is, but it'd also be nice if he'd bathe occasionally, and if his eyes would slow down long enough for you to see them actually look at something, at least before he tells the Honorable Joe Blow about the time he was abducted by aliens, so now he always carries a bayonet strapped to his thigh, at which point he drops trou..
I said I was SORRY...geez! :rolleyes:

I can see both sides of this. I've seen a huge and disproportionate number of new members joining the gun culture over the last 16 months or so.

In and of itself, that's great. The only problem is, many seem to be a little too enthusiastic. Here in GA, we got a bill passed that allows us to carry in restaurants and on public transit. It didn't go through without a great deal of opposition, and when it did pass, us old farts breathed a grateful sigh of relief.

The reaction of the younger/newer crowd was largely, "it's about TIME, #$&*LOLZ0R#$*!!!" Sometimes they act rashly (*), and when we wince, they yell, "what part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?!?"

I'm not saying they're wrong, but let's take a deep breath. Change is slow, and it's been a long time coming. This was a really good year for all of us, but the winds can change, and I've been around to see them do so before.

I don't think that makes me an elitist. It's just that I've seen these battles lost before, and and I don't want us to lose again.

(*) The guy open-carrying at Ikea in Atlantic Station comes to mind. ~22 years old, black fingernail polish, Glock in a nylon holster, lots of folks staring and keeping their distance. Nothing wrong with that mode of dress, but there's a time and place for that.

bogie
July 25, 2008, 11:18 PM
Catherine, sometimes the most vocal, and the most eager, people who will gravitate to an organization are also the people who you don't necessarily want talking to the media... The above "stereotype" is actually a combination of a couple of folks... one of whom I met during an election season, when someone obviously didn't vet him adequately, because after about 30 seconds of stumping for the candidate at hand, the story of the alien abduction emerged, and after that, you a) couldn't shut him up; and b) couldn't get away...

I don't want some people associated - and I want people to know each other. Why? I don't want some klucker to get his 15 seconds in front of a news microphone, allegedly representing the group as a whole. Yeah, the klucker has a right to carry a gun, as long as he hasn't been busted - yet - but that doesn't mean I have to encourage him in it.

Call it censorship, or call it common sense. Fine. Just remember that very few battles are won with frontal assaults - it's the flanking maneuvers which are deadly. But the frontal assaults are real easy for second lieutenants to understand...

Some folks also haven't figured out that we are not here to scare the population at large. That is not our goal. Being ignored by the population at large is fine with me.

qwert65
July 25, 2008, 11:22 PM
I think good example, is Jackie Robinson- there were better players than him and yeah it was wrong for black players not to be allowed to play. But Robinson, had the qualities required to be an ambassador. That is what was needed even if it wasn't right.

We all need to be good ambassadors is it fair? no, is it neccessary? yes

bogie
July 25, 2008, 11:32 PM
Correct... And like it or not, a more mature-appearing lady or gentleman, and not a gothed-out twenty-something kid, is going to make a better impression. I get the feeling that some of the younger folks are trying for the shock value. Mistake. Go do that to your parents - but then again, they probably became immune to it with the third or fourth chunk of hardware you stuffed in your face...

Guys. You have to walk before you can run.

At least we're walking.

dalepres
July 25, 2008, 11:47 PM
For the same reason, young kids' rights to gun ownership are not protected. (Now, there are some exceptional kids, like sm talks about, as well as exceptional incidences - the beauty there is no harm, no foul.) That's a reasonable restriction.

If I am not mistaken, isn't the age restriction for gun ownership and purchases as new as 1968?

Shall not be infringed pretty much means what it says. A restriction is an infringement is a restriction.

While I don't see it as elitism on thehighroad.org, I do commonly see supposed pro-gunners advocating restrictions.

Remember the schoolboy joke about what you might do for a million dollars? Now that we've established that you agree on restrictions, we're just negotiating price... er... restrictions.

dalepres
July 26, 2008, 12:08 AM
The one thing some of us learned EARLY on is that there are some folks who we just don't want to show up at a rally or political event.

Now, step back - are you one of those people?


That's the nice thing about the Constitution - or at least supposed to be. It guarantees the same rights to those we don't want to be seen with as to those we do want to be seen with. :)

goon
July 26, 2008, 12:16 AM
Catherine makes a great point.
We all love to quote the founders when we get into our political arguments but then we get bent out of shape when we see a real, live "extremist" in person.

I got news for you people: If it weren't for the LOUD protests of the extremists none of the rest of us would ever get up off our couches long enough to take a look out the window and see what the hell is actually going on.
They may be loud and they may make you uncomfortable but that doesn't mean we don't need a few of them.

BTW - "Give me liberty or give me death" is not a moderate statement.
It's about as extreme as it gets and at the time that statement was made, saying stuff like that could have very easily gotten your neck stretched.
But it is a statement that still resonates with those who value their liberty even though it's been over two hundred years since those words were spoken.

Besides, "Give me liberty or I'll shout give me liberty again" doesn't sound as cool.

bogie
July 26, 2008, 02:14 AM
Granted, but if he'd been running around the countryside blathering that at anyone within earshot, quite likely someone would have obliged him...

A sense of tact. Of timing. Of theater... That's the sort of thing that goes a long way.

Pick your battles. And pick your battlefields. Or you'll rapidly be known as "that guy who carries the six-shooter when he goes to the diner for breakfast - see how nobody will sit near him - he'll talk at you!"

Stevie-Ray
July 26, 2008, 02:16 AM
If 18 is OK to carry a handgun, why not 17? Or 6 for that matter?I think generally it's because you're able to carry a handgun, an assault rifle, a machine gun, a grenade launcher, etc. and die for your country at 18. You should be able to carry a handgun at home as well. Personally, I've never had a problem with the 21 YO law, even when it pertained to me because I've seen too many 18 year olds less mature than 12 year olds, but why should that affect the truly mature 18 year olds? I guess when push comes to shove I'd vote to change it to 18. And in case anybody is wondering, I'm 52 with no children.

siglite
July 26, 2008, 03:02 AM
Here's your sign. I rest my case. Stereotyping.

:D

My thoughts exactly, except, I like the "here's your sign" twist. That was good for a chuckle. Thanks Catherine.

Ltlabner
July 26, 2008, 09:42 AM
We should NOT have to change anyone's opinion on who WE are or what WE stand for when it comes to a basic RIGHT. We ALL (Pro gunners, anti gunners and those middle of the road gunners!) have those basic fundamental RIGHTS whether some of THEM or some of YOU or some of US want to use them in any way. Open or conceal or any type of CARRY!


I'd like to turn this debate on its head here. If you want *elitism* charges, let's take a look at the folks for whom open carry is apparently the litmus test of a person's true RKBA identification. Those whose braggadocio leads us to assume that, were they in Texas, by George they'd march right up to the State Capitol with their gun out for all the world to see just to show whoever what real 2A supporters DO.

Again, as I posted earlier, I think this difference is the root of the real "elitism" on THR. Most of the other stuff is just people bragging or pretending to be a HSLD operator from their parents basement. That's not being elite...thats just being a blowhard.

But to me, the root of the real eltisim is the devide between aproaches to dealing with advancing the cause of RTBA.

Those who are "any gun, anywhere to anybody" think those suggesting restraint are anti's in wolfs clothing and just trying to "give in to the man".

Those who want to excersize some restriant and prudence with "picking the right battles" think the "no infringement" crowd are wild-eyed raving lunitics who want to bend the planet to their will and put guns in baby cribs.

This manifests itself in open cary vs CCW arugments or discussions about how to deal with the newest goofball legislation.

Most "movements" suffer with the same issue. The Civil Rights movement had Dr. King suggesting restraint and non-violence while the Black Panthers suggested radical overthrow. In the Muslim world you have folks who could care less about Jews/Christians and suggest we should "just all get along" while you also have extremist nuts who think the only way to deal with the West is to blow it up.

In both of those examples one side thinks the other are "sell-outs", while the other thinks the more zellous people are lunatics.

Me personally? I prefer a more tactfull and subtle approach than shoving "my rights" down the throat's of non-belivers. But because I don't find the "in your face" crowd's methods to be as *effective* doesn't mean that I don't support their right to approach the issue as they see fit.

Oh yea, it also doesn't mean I'm an anti either.

Ltlabner
July 26, 2008, 09:48 AM
I got news for you people: If it weren't for the LOUD protests of the extremists none of the rest of us would ever get up off our couches long enough to take a look out the window and see what the hell is actually going on.

You forget your history.

Most successfull movements use a mixture of "in your face" and "behind the sceens".

Our country wasn't founded soley because of Patrick Henry's speach.

For every Patrick Henry, there was a Ben Franklin working behind the sceens. For every John Hancock signing the DoI with the big tricked-out signature, there was a George Washington willing to step aside after his 2nd term to avoid becoming a defacto dictator.

A movement needs both personalities.

We forget that we need the restraint crowd to reign in those who would wear a gun taped to their forehead to make a point. We need the "in your face" folks to kick the "pick your battles" people in the butt and keep them from getting too complacent.

Our energies should go towards remembering this and harnesing our *combined* efforts on protecting 2A issues instead of trying to prove the other group "just doesn't get it".

bogie
July 26, 2008, 10:25 AM
IMHO, an 18 year old soldier should have full rights as 21 year old adult (altho if one has ever talked at length with a first sergeant of an AIT or an infantry company about the overall maturity of his troops, after he just got to go get several out of jail for Being Stupid...), but they should also be held accountable.

As for the -average- 18 year old? Give them the plastic gun from the video game. They won't know the difference.

You can't persuade scared people to approve what scared them. Please don't scare the people. It makes my job harder.

texas bulldog
July 26, 2008, 12:22 PM
the irony here is that this is coming from the guy who makes gun-related stickers. wouldn't that be "in your face" in some people's view?

the problem i see with each of your posts, bogie, is that you've consistently portrayed people who OC as lunatics or people who crave attention. but choosing OC doesn't make you have an attitude or go crazy any more than having 16 rounds in your pistol makes you "spray and pray". you choose that mindset independently of choosing open or concealed.

i live in a state where OC is forbidden, but i still support it. if i were to carry openly rather than concealed, it doesn't mean i'll be any less polite, courteous, and normal than i am every single day. i wouldn't be out to "scare people". when you lump all OC'ers into that class, then you certainly start to sound like an elitist, at least IMHO.

bogie
July 26, 2008, 01:12 PM
I see too many posts from people who are -intending- open carry as a statement.

That isn't what it's there for. It's just there. But when someone tries to make it into something else, then it starts to turn into a possible "situation."

We've got folks who get "caught up" in the mania, and then they strap on a hogleg, and are surprised when their local folks don't completely agree with them. I'm not saying to move backwards, but little steps forward, or even occasionally sideways, are okay.

The long-term object is to gain acceptance, right?

Making someone uncomfortable does NOT gain acceptance. And you cannot -take- acceptance.

If someone straps on a .50 deagle in a ubertacticool SWAT assault rig, and goes shopping down at my local supermarket - heck, I've gotta admit, I'm going to perceive that person as a possible threat. Same guy, with a normal piece/rig, I probably wouldn't look twice at.

It's about hearts and minds, guys... Scaring people doesn't win 'em over.

This isn't about making YOU feel good. It's about allowing them to become comfortable. We're ahead of the game right now - let's not blow it.

siglite
July 26, 2008, 01:28 PM
Making someone uncomfortable does NOT gain acceptance. And you cannot -take- acceptance.

When it comes to a right, comfort isn't a big consideration. Bogie, you made me uncomfortable with your post. You should delete it, and refrain from posting on THR, lest you offend my delicate sensibilities.

At one point, it made people unfomfortable when a black woman sat in the front of a bus.

It made people uncomfortable to see black kids going into a white school in Selma Alabama.

It made people uncomfortable to drink from the same water fountain as a black person.

When it comes to liberty, I tend not to give much of a damn about people's comfort.

Acceptance comes from repeated exposure with no ill consequences. This is a simple concept to grasp. The OC folks feel they are furthering everyone's agenda by repeating exposure without negative consequences. To make it "no big deal" similarly to a black woman at he front of the bus being "no big deal."

texas bulldog
July 26, 2008, 01:33 PM
If someone straps on a .50 deagle in a ubertacticool SWAT assault rig, and goes shopping down at my local supermarket - heck, I've gotta admit, I'm going to perceive that person as a possible threat. Same guy, with a normal piece/rig, I probably wouldn't look twice at.


i would probably agree with that. the problem i'm seeing (and it seems others see as well) is that you and others begin to paint every person who chooses OC in that light. considering the lack of notable incidents in OC states, i really have to believe they are the exception rather than the rule. yet so much of our OC discussion focuses on the folks with attitudes, the in-your-face tacti-cool ninjas. and that's not what OC is about for the vast majority of folks who might choose it, just as the same can be said for CCW'ers.

that's my problem, i guess. every argument focuses on the worst example you can think of. we really ought to focus on the rule rather than the exception. the person you describe is not most people.

texas bulldog
July 26, 2008, 01:36 PM
+1 siglite.

(though i'm still awaiting your response in the "take your gun to work" thread :))

Aguila Blanca
July 26, 2008, 01:36 PM
I don't think I'm the only one that's noticed a disturbing trend of elitism sweeping through The High Road.
It isn't a trend. This place has had this schism ever since I first began reading it. And you are correct, it is a form of elitism. It's people saying, "Yes, I support the right to keep and bear arms -- for ME, because I'm adequately trained and qualified, but certainly not for YOU, because you're not trained as well as I am and that makes me nervous about allowing you to have a gun."

The bottom line is, the people who hold that attitude have bought into the notion that "reasonable" regulations are okay. And, in their mind, "reasonable" means "whatever my level of competancy is will be fine, but anything less isn't." They overlook the fact that the 2nd Amendment nowhere uses the word "reasonable" or the word "regulation."

Regulation means restriction means infringement. Those who say "reasonable regulation" is acceptable under the 2nd Amendment are essentially editing the 2A to say, " ... the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be unreasonably infringed."

My copy doesn't read that way.

siglite
July 26, 2008, 01:46 PM
(though i'm still awaiting your response in the "take your gun to work" thread )

Are you? I've completely missed/forgotten it. I'll go see if I can find it.

ETA: A couple of minutes of searching, and I can't find it. I'm lazy. I admit it. If you give me a link I'll go see if I can find what I missed, and respond.

texas bulldog
July 26, 2008, 01:58 PM
siglite,

go here (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=354821&page=2). though we may just have to agree to disagree...

redneckrepairs
July 26, 2008, 02:10 PM
Now i accept OC if one wants to carry that way , some of my friends oc from time to time and in our rural area it does not " scare the public at large " one bit . I oc'd off and on for some years when my job was in LE and i was mandated ( or at least strongly encouraged by the powers that be ) to carry my duty gun even off duty . I found a 4" L frame, and later sig 220 and similar sized autos a bit much to stuff into my ( then ) 32" waistband .
With that being said nowadays i conceal carry . Even around the ranch my pistol is normally worn iwb and covered . I dont feel the need to justify that choice any more than i feel the need to justify why i carry .
As to the " 18 cant get a ccw " ect.. My feelings are that it is a load of crap and My best suggestion is that the young voters bring a vocal movement to their respective state legislators . If a bill to lower the carry age to 18 is introduced i suspect you will find a lot of us " old pharts " would be in support of it , and making calls to inform the legislature of same . I suspect tho there would be tremendous resistance to any such bill due to the fact that an 18 year old cant even legally buy a pistol at a gunstore . Most states imho set the age for a ccw permit at legal age to buy . Colorado does have a provision to licence 18 to 21 year olds with an " emergency ccw " as allowed by CRS 18-12-209 which includes the statement except that the applicant need not demonstrate competence with a handgun and the applicant may be eighteen years of age or older. A temporary emergency permit issued pursuant to this section is valid for a period of ninety days after the date of issuance. Prior to or within ten days after expiration of a temporary emergency permit, the permittee may apply to the issuing sheriff for renewal of the permit. The issuing sheriff may renew a temporary emergency permit once for an additional ninety-day period; except that, if the permittee is younger than twenty-one years of age, the sheriff may renew the temporary emergency permit for subsequent ninety-day periods until the permittee reaches twenty-one years of age.
The info can be found on the C.B.I page at http://cbi.state.co.us/ccw/Statutes/18-12-209.asp

Other Colorado ccw related statutes can easily be referanced at the page http://cbi.state.co.us/ccw/relatedstats.asp So from the period from 18 to 21 colorado more or less defaults to the old May issue under sheriff's discretion. From 21 on its shall issue .
Not to be an " elitist " but that is the state of the law in colorado today , and proving that not all 18 year olds are barred from a ccw as an absolute in all states uniformly . If one were to begin to lobby for change in YOUR state it might not be a bad statute to reference ( for all its faults such as 90 day renewal periods ect.. ) when talking or writing your legislators. There may well be better statutes out there , but i am familiar with colorado so i point it out rather than discuss any other state where i may mis speak completely .
Maby i am an " elitist" since i dont open carry and frankly find the defensiveness and posts of some online who do little short of childish. I have watched some youtube vids of OC proponents and officers which were handled rather poorly on both sides with the " good citizen firmly standing on the right to OC " and frankly for the most part they alienated me to the entire OC movement . If you want to OC well fine by me , If you want to advocate it fine by me . You might however consider two things ....
1. Just like DC V HELLER pick your advocate carefully ... and
2. Get out of my face if i choose not to carry openly . If i post that OC is not for me , and maby even list some reasons why i feel that way , just why is it necessary to either outright , or by tone of a post question my commitment to our 2nd amendment rights . We have OC in colorado today and i am glad we do , however with some of the " advocates " i have seen on the issue i cannot honestly say that if i were say in Texas and it came to a public vote that i would vote for it since IMHO the scope of Heller is covered by TX having a simple easy ccw process .
Just the ramblings of a current gunowner who can carry any dammed way i please .

Thernlund
July 26, 2008, 02:31 PM
Unbelievable. You all are still at it?

:rolleyes:


-T.

bogie
July 26, 2008, 02:40 PM
If you are copping an attitude when you strap on that hogleg, I CAN NOT advocate your actions.

If you are doing it because you think it's cool to make the soccer mommies nervous, I CAN NOT advocate your actions.

Look at your own motivation. And ask if you are doing something that is going to result in a backward step.

NORMAL open carry is something I don't have a problem with - it's the folks who enter into it who seem to be LOOKING for trouble that I have a problem with. Confrontation is not something we want. Think "acceptance," and not "alienation."

I'm tired of "gun rights proponents" who want it all, and they want it NOW. Or the rest of the world can go take a flying leap. They act like they want all or nothing - they look at the world like people are either 100% for them, or they're 100% against them.

Big mistake.

Gun control was enacted in small dribs and drabs, and it's going to go away the same way. In increments. Only this time WE are the ones boiling the frog.

Get some patience.

And as for the Rosa Parks analogy... It's a lot easier to start a movement like that when it is non-threatening... If Rosa had been a large male, the situation likely wouldn't have gotten momentum it did.

Are you looking to be noticed? You may walk through the grocery a dozen times with a holstered 1911 or S&W revolver, and nobody will say anything - and when they do notice it, they'll be more likely to accept it... Walk in packing a deagle in a thigh holster, and the cops will probably get called - why? You just lost ground when you were perceived as a threat. Instead of being Rosa Parks, you were that big fellow causing trouble...

Honey catches a LOT more flies than vinegar.

redneckrepairs
July 26, 2008, 02:40 PM
Hey T i been sick , and had the page up on the puter . In my defense i did read before i posted lol . Give us a kitten pic that decribes your amazement lol .

goon
July 26, 2008, 02:45 PM
You forget your history.

Most successfull movements use a mixture of "in your face" and "behind the sceens".

Our country wasn't founded soley because of Patrick Henry's speach.

For every Patrick Henry, there was a Ben Franklin working behind the sceens. For every John Hancock signing the DoI with the big tricked-out signature, there was a George Washington willing to step aside after his 2nd term to avoid becoming a defacto dictator.

A movement needs both personalities.


Agreed. I didn't say anything to the contrary.
But no one made any remarks to the effect of "we don't need no stinkin' smart people to help us defend our rights" or "we don't need no stinking clever thinkers showing up at our pro-gun gatherings". I didn't feel the need to defend them.
And as you said, the "in your face types" are just as necessary.

When it comes to liberty, I tend not to give much of a damn about people's comfort.

Acceptance comes from repeated exposure with no ill consequences. This is a simple concept to grasp. The OC folks feel they are furthering everyone's agenda by repeating exposure without negative consequences. To make it "no big deal" similarly to a black woman at he front of the bus being "no big deal."


Well said.
I grew up in one of those places where it's common to see people driving around with a hunting rifle and a shotgun in the gun rack of their pick-up. It's also not at all uncommon to see someone carrying a handgun openly or to see a CCW handgun that isn't quite concealed.
Usually, no one freaks out and calls the cops. The one time that someone did, they showed up the next day and advised the gun owner in question to "just try to keep your shirt pulled over it". In my area, guns are just no big deal.
There isn't anything inherently bad about carrying a firearm openly. It doesn't put anyone at any more risk than CCW, and that doesn't harm anyone other than predators (and I totally support harming them).
And if it scares people, so what?
I'm afraid of needles but that doesn't mean needles aren't used to help save lives every single day. That fear is my problem.
The same is true of firearms.
Like me, the people who are afraid of guns are just going to have to put on a fresh pair of skivvies and deal with it.

redneckrepairs
July 26, 2008, 02:49 PM
Honey catches a LOT more flies than vinegar.

nice " common sense " feeling that is both pablem and demonstratableably wrong " Feel free to do tests on your own with both honey and various vinegars up to and including wine . My point is that the OC has been " vinegar" on the gun boards , and as such it has caught more flies ( responses ) then honey . However few think a murder of flies ( borrowed from a group of crows ) is a good thing .

MechAg94
July 26, 2008, 02:50 PM
I more or less skipped for the first page to here. I think the basic argument is pointless. This sort of arguing and flippant/scarcastic remarks have been going on since I first joined THR a few years back. Nothing new here.

At least one of the examples posted could have been defused if the OP had put just a bit more explanation in his initial post instead of just posting a link only. It took half a page before anyone commented that it was a pro-gun commentary. I know I often cannot view video links depending on where I am when I view the post.

People say all sorts of things on the internet. The mods try to filter out the worst of it, but there is no point getting bent out of shape over snarky comments from someone you don't even know and will likely never even meet.

Thernlund
July 26, 2008, 02:53 PM
Give us a kitten pic that decribes your amazement lol .

Meh. Even though I was posting the best content in this car wreck of a thread, I was told to stop. Ho hum.

So ya'll continue on your downward spiral. I will monitor your drill depth from afar.


-T.


EDIT: Alright. A little one, just this once...

http://tn1-3.pv.deviantart.com/fs18/150/i/2007/222/a/4/Angry_kitten_by_PiaBobacka.jpg

siglite
July 26, 2008, 03:02 PM
If you are copping an attitude when you strap on that hogleg, I CAN NOT advocate your actions.

If you are doing it because you think it's cool to make the soccer mommies nervous, I CAN NOT advocate your actions.

Look at your own motivation. And ask if you are doing something that is going to result in a backward step.

This is hard to disagree with. But the problem comes when folks paint with the broad brush that everyone who OCs is doing it with ... "attitude" as you put it. The inference that EVERYONE who OCs is looking for trouble. I've found that this is rarely the case in reality. I can recall seeing posts that essentially say exactly that. That anyone who OCs is just trying to cause trouble.

That's BS.

Soybomb
July 26, 2008, 03:16 PM
I think its human nature to want to be you're the only one "professional enough" and pass legislation accordingly. I don't like it and it saddens me to see the 2nd amendment rights that so many work hard for to be chiseled away from inside but it is the progression of things. Gun owners will give in to incrementalism in the long run.

I'm tired of "gun rights proponents" who want it all, and they want it NOW. Or the rest of the world can go take a flying leap. They act like they want all or nothing - they look at the world like people are either 100% for them, or they're 100% against them.
Its not rational to expect it to all change at once, but to support useless gun control just because you feel like it is no better. Take restrictions if they'll further our ultimate goal, don't say you like the useless restrictions though.

22-rimfire
July 26, 2008, 03:26 PM
Its not rational to expect it to all change at once, but to support useless gun control just because you feel like it is no better. Take restrictions if they'll further our ultimate goal, don't say you like the useless restrictions though.

What restrictions are you talking about? Open carry is legal in many states. In my state, you are warned that life will be a lot easier for ya if you restrict your open carry to the woods.

Soybomb
July 26, 2008, 03:31 PM
What restrictions are you talking about? Open carry is legal in many states. In my state, you are warned that life will be a lot easier for ya if you restrict your open carry to the woods.
Pick any from a list that I've never seen anyone prove are necessary or beneficial. That list includes:
1.) licensing for open carry
2.) licensing for concealed carry
3.) state mandated training for concealed carry
4.) testing for concealed carry
5.) 21+ restriction on carry

Plenty of people who consider themselves to be pro-gun support these restrictions on grounds that are no different or better than the ones the brady group uses to call for assault weapon bans or not to allow concealed carry in a new state or a certain place we're trying to expand it to like campus.

I would accept training and testing requirements to bring concealed carry to my state. I would never say they're necessary or a good idea as many would.

texas bulldog
July 26, 2008, 03:36 PM
bogie,

i don't necessarily disagree with those sentiments except that i think you're lumping a lot of folks into a category that really only includes a few. neither siglite nor i are trying to cram anything down anyone's throat. hell, i don't even have the right to OC where i live, so it's all just theory to me--discussion of a right i'd like to have. it just seems that you've let a few bad apples lead you to have hostility toward some nice folks who mostly mean well. it seems that most of the folks here who actually do OC are the ones who "walk through the grocery a dozen times with a holstered 1911 or S&W revolver" without incident rather than the folks you obviously have serious distate for.

that's all i'm sayin'...

22-rimfire
July 26, 2008, 04:28 PM
Soybomb, I feel somwhat like you. I do have a CCW permit and I am legally allowed to open carry if I choose. I do not choose.

I held back getting the permit for a couple years until my work forced me to take a look at things from a more practical perspective. My work places me at times in environments that I feel uncomfortable for my safety. I felt that it was my constitutional right to carry if I chose to. The police informed me differently. BUT, they told me informally if I was on the job that they would never enforce a weapons charge on me. Their advice was get the permit.

The practical aspect to that is if you have to use the gun, then law enforcement is involved in a serious matter and no LEO is going to risk his career or job just because it might be a good idea for me personally. That is reality. I got the limited training. Got the background check and paid my money. Now I'm legal in many states and I don't have to be concerned about this issue that if I screwed up would probably eliminate my ability to own a firearm.

I don't think society in urban areas is ready for open carry. Gun owners are a minority and people with permits are an even smaller minority of firearm owners. I don't want to risk my entire right to own firearms to be restricted or eliminated for the rest of my life over an issue like firearm carry. I'd rather not carry at all in that case.

bogie
July 26, 2008, 04:37 PM
Hey, I'm one of the old farts who would like to not have to worry about stuff either... And my 1911 feels a lot better -outside- my jeans...

All I'm saying is that an overaggressive attitude can set us back. I'm just getting a vibe that -some- people are basically looking for a problem. A problem that basically isn't there until they enter the situation.

Think of it as combat - you can follow the 2nd LT, and attack up the middle, and the enemy will use up a whole bunch of ammo, or you can volunteer for the flanking maneuver with the SFC, so you can take out the enemy while they're preoccupied with the butterbar bunch...

The ultimate goal is to have open carry accepted as "normal." An "in your face" attitude is not normal, and could lead a bystander/recipient of the OCer's aggression to lean toward the "omg, there's gonna be blood in the streets" crowd. While a more nonchalant response to "OMG - you have a gun!" might be a disarming "Yup - darn thing's kinda uncomfortable, but I have to wear it like this."

If some soccer mommy comes up to you in the grocery, and starts going off on you, smile. Be nice. If someone gets in your face, smile. Remember - You're the good guy. You want the people around you to see that. And remember that.

Do you want to appear to be a dangerous menace, or do you want folks thinking that maybe soccer mommy's gone off her meds? Remember - the anti-gun folks insist that we're dangerous. They insist on the whole "blood in the streets" bit. And when people do not see that, we gain a LOT. So don't give the antis what they want. Which is us with an aggressive attitude.

texas bulldog
July 26, 2008, 04:47 PM
OK. can we kiss and make up now? can i stop sleeping on the couch?

JackBurtonJr
July 26, 2008, 04:52 PM
Every right has a reasonable restriction, like the "fire in a crowded theater" standard for the first amendment.

No such thing. We shouldn't use bogus examples.

There is no "right" to cause needless panic in a crowded venue no matter how it's done. Speech is not the issue.

And if the theater is on fire it is perfectly legal to shout "fire."

conw
July 26, 2008, 04:55 PM
If I am not mistaken, isn't the age restriction for gun ownership and purchases as new as 1968?

Shall not be infringed pretty much means what it says. A restriction is an infringement is a restriction.

While I don't see it as elitism on thehighroad.org, I do commonly see supposed pro-gunners advocating restrictions.

Remember the schoolboy joke about what you might do for a million dollars? Now that we've established that you agree on restrictions, we're just negotiating price... er... restrictions.

Actually I think you're the one on the slippery slope. If this Wiki is right...

Anyone who is under the age of 18, except with the written permission of their parent or guardian.

Is the lingo used in the 1968 GCA.

Despite the fact that it's part of a larger, more infringing act...

This fits in with the way our country's laws with regard to minors, guardians, and parental responsibility are constructed.

Right or wrong, it's consistent. Children do not have the same "absolute rights" to free speech, or even due process, as adults...the bill of rights does not apply to them in exactly the same way. (I know, in some cases it does, but their parents can restrict 1A, 2A, and other rights legally).

I don't get what you're saying: change the way we structure our families here?

Further, children who use a firearm negligently are less likely to be charged for it. Their parents most likely will be charged for it.

I'm also for higher sentences for firearms crimes than unarmed crimes, because they show a higher degree of premeditation.

To me, these are reasonable restrictions.

Go yell fire in a crowded theater and get back to me on the reasonable restrictions :neener:

conw
July 26, 2008, 05:00 PM
JackBurtonJr wrote:
No such thing. We shouldn't use bogus examples.

There is no "right" to cause needless panic in a crowded venue no matter how it's done. Speech is not the issue.

And if the theater is on fire it is perfectly legal to shout "fire."

What do you mean no such thing?

A reasonable restriction is the point at which the exercising of a right becomes no longer an issue of "this is my right" but becomes something that affects other people or is deemed injurious to the community at large.

I don't give a crap on the grass of fantasyland what you want to call it, but the fact remains that there are certain speech-related activities that are not covered under the First, and certain firearms-related activities not covered under the Second. Namely, activities that harm others or restrict their natural rights in some way.

Whether a "restriction" is the right term, or whether it was intended to be in the purview of the First, is irrelevant. Shouting "fire" is a form of speech, and you can do it all you want as long as it does not hurt or defraud others. You needn't be so literal in interpreting what I meant, because it is a well-known and germane example.

Further, I was using an abbreviated way of describing it...

If you shout "fire" at your computer at home, you are not violating anyone's rights. If you shout "fire" in a crowded office and someone gets trampled to death, you are going to be arrested. Some people argue that at this point, "It's not about speech." Well, it was your speech that directly or indirectly caused someone to be trampled to death, and you are going to get arrested for it. If you hadn't yelled "fire" (and thus exercised a form of speech) you wouldn't have been arrested. If your speech hadn't harmed anyone, you wouldn't have been arrested. And when you are arrested, the first amendment does not make a darn in your arraignment, sentencing, or anything else. Hence, your first amendment right to free speech has a limitation....

BruceRDucer
July 26, 2008, 05:01 PM
/

....but Bogie, everything you just wrote is premised, not upon facts, but upon ...."a vibe" that you get.


I see too many posts from people who are -intending- open carry as a statement.--Bogie


Relies for verification upon a vague reference that you see "statements". This refers back to "attitude".

Now we're going in circles (so to speak), policing "attitudes" and "statements" and "vibes" rather than issues of fact.

Soccer Moms? Is that a better mythological group than the Silent Majority?

/

conw
July 26, 2008, 05:09 PM
Also, some hacks argue that this is a property rights issue. While you can get booted from the office even if no one gets hurt, with no recourse (which would be a property rights issue for the owner), this same sort of thing applies anywhere there is a crowd of people, public or private.

Lonestar49
July 26, 2008, 05:21 PM
...

Bottom line, as like in driving, as in Flying, as in owning guns a/o carrying guns, all 3 carry huge consequences IF proper education does not come first, not putting the cart before the horse, as they all bear huge Responsibilities if mixed with lack of education, booze or drugs, immaturity, curiosity, peer pressures (of like age in some cases).

Let your common sense be your guide.. it's not so much an age issue, as it's a proving-grounds for any to take, be it a short-cut thru it, or the entire road thru it.. Good or bad, as each of our actions, like it or not, reflects on someone, somewhere, sometime, and that mentor-effect, like it or not, good or bad, will spread.

Bearing out the_ truth in Cause and Effect


Ls

JackBurtonJr
July 26, 2008, 06:01 PM
What do you mean no such thing?

Let me try it again in other words. There is no such thing.

Does that help?

A reasonable restriction is the point at which the exercising of a right becomes no longer an issue of "this is my right" but becomes something that affects other people or is deemed injurious to the community at large.

Hmmmm.... two identical actions. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

One you say is illegal because it is "deemed injurious to the community at large" and the other one is considered lifesaving because it allows the people to exit the on-fire theater in a timely fashion.

Obviously the only way to "restrict" someone from yelling anything in a theater is to put a muzzle on him at some time before he enters the theater.

I don't give a crap on the grass of fantasyland what you want to call it,

I'm sure there's supposed to be a point in here somewhere but for the life of me I can't find it.

but the fact remains that there are certain speech-related activities that are not covered under the First,

Then it should be very easy to find a law, any law whether case or statute, any place, at anytime, that says you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

and certain firearms-related activities not covered under the Second.

Find us a law that says "you can't shoot someone".

You can't, can you. Because we all know that we can shoot someone if the right circumstances exist.

So since you would never be sloppy enough to say, "the law says you can't shoot someone" why do you feel comfortable saying "you can't shout fire in a crowded theater" when you know perfectly well that you can do so -- when the "right circumstances exist."

Namely, activities that harm others or restrict their natural rights in some way.

So prove to us that shouting fire in a theater on fire will "harm others or restrict their natural rights in some way."

Whether a "restriction" is the right term, or whether it was intended to be in the purview of the First, is irrelevant. Shouting "fire" is a form of speech, and you can do it all you want as long as it does not hurt or defraud others.

So prove to us that shouting fire in a theater on fire will "hurt or defraud others".

You needn't be so literal in interpreting what I meant, because it is a well-known and germane example.

1) Well known and wrong.

2) Do you point out that people are wrong when they make the statement "it is illegal to shoot people" even though it is well-known that people go to jail everyday for shooting someone.

Further, I was using an abbreviated way of describing it...

No, you were using the standard way the same as everyone else who posts it wrong does.

If you shout "fire" at your computer at home, you are not violating anyone's rights.

Non sequiture.

If you shout "fire" in a crowded office and someone gets trampled to death, you are going to be arrested.

Really? The next time my office is on fire I'll be sure to just whisper it to my neighbor on the right. The guy on the left is on his own since he is deaf and can't hear me unless I shout.

Some people argue that at this point, "It's not about speech." Well, it was your speech that directly or indirectly caused someone to be trampled to death, and you are going to get arrested for it.

So if I set off some firecrackers in a crowded theater and cause a death-filled panic they are going to charge me with a completely different crime?

Or is the real crime "caus[ing] someone to be trampled to death" and the means by which it is acheived immaterial to the charge.

If you hadn't yelled "fire" (and thus exercised a form of speech) you wouldn't have been arrested.

So the firecrackers are okay with you?

If your speech hadn't harmed anyone, you wouldn't have been arrested.

Hmmmm.... so based on that sentence it is okay to yell fire in a theater that is not on fire as long as no one is harmed. A bit inconsistent with your other statements.

And when you are arrested, the first amendment does not make a darn in your arraignment, sentencing, or anything else.

You are the only one here who has brought up the First. I have no clue as to why you keep arguing a point that no one seems to be making but you.

Hence, your first amendment right to free speech has a limitation....

Yes... the very same "limitation" on the RKBA that says, "you can't kill someone."

goon
July 26, 2008, 06:48 PM
I'm just getting a vibe that -some- people are basically looking for a problem. A problem that basically isn't there until they enter the situation.


I beg to differ.
There still are problems.
Most of us, myself included, choose to put up with the problems because that is the most pragmatic way to get by.
You want to carry in my state? Fine. Put up with a little infringement, pay the nominal fee, jump through a hoop, and the state will issue a permit that's good for five years.
All in all, it isn't a bad deal and it's a damn site better than people in many states have it.
But its still an infringement.
It's still unnecessary.
If you passed the background check to buy the gun, you'll pass the check to get the permit. And if you can pass the check to get the permit, you'll get the permit and you'll be able to carry.
So what is the point of issuing the permit in the first place?
There isn't one.
A small problem, and one that can stand to be put off until we deal with the bigger problems associated with our Second Amendment rights, but still something that will need to be addressed eventually.
The open carry situation is another side of this that also raises questions:
Why not just respect the right to carry concealed, open, or otherwise?
What is the difference?
Why restrict this right?

conw
July 26, 2008, 07:39 PM
Hmmmm.... two identical actions. Yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

One you say is illegal because it is "deemed injurious to the community at large" and the other one is considered lifesaving because it allows the people to exit the on-fire theater in a timely fashion.

Obviously the only way to "restrict" someone from yelling anything in a theater is to put a muzzle on him at some time before he enters the theater.

I didn't say it was illegal. I said it was speech that was not protected by the first amendment.

We can define "right," "protection," and "speech" if you like, but show me how yelling fire in a crowded theater, and thus causing harm, is protected by the first amendment.

A restriction on a right does not mean the action itself is restricted, it means that there MAY be legal repercussions due to said speech. This means that the protection of the first amendment is not absolute.

So prove to us that shouting fire in a theater on fire will "hurt or defraud others".

What is with this absolutist thinking? Mine was an example of how the first amendment does not allow us to say anything we want, at any time, with no legal repercussions. You're just putting up straw men. Just because there is no absolute restriction on first amendment rights, and because it is of a fluid and specificistic nature, does not mean that there is no restriction whatever.

Or is the real crime "caus[ing] someone to be trampled to death" and the means by which it is acheived immaterial to the charge.

Speech is always a means to an end. What exactly are you trying to say?

I never said "Any time you yell fire in a crowded theater you will be charged with a crime," nor did I say that was the best example of reasonable restrictions on any one right or on our rights in general. But it is an example. How is it wrong?

Just tell me, if you wish, whether you agree or disagree with the following statement:

No right is absolute under the Bill of Rights. All things being equal, individual rights cover only actions which do not deprive others of their guaranteed rights (namely life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness).

So prove to us that shouting fire in a theater on fire will "hurt or defraud others".

Are you actually saying this scenario is impossible? Unbelievable! Intent is paramount, but it is clearly possible - even if we do not agree as to the legal outcome.

Find us a law that says "you can't shoot someone".

You can't, can you. Because we all know that we can shoot someone if the right circumstances exist.

So since you would never be sloppy enough to say, "the law says you can't shoot someone" why do you feel comfortable saying "you can't shout fire in a crowded theater" when you know perfectly well that you can do so -- when the "right circumstances exist."

Look Jack, I don't know where you're from or whether you've ever taken a use of deadly force class, but it is illegal to shoot someone where I'm from and you have an overwhelming likelihood of being arrested and charged, and at least appearing before a grand jury.

The way the lethal force/self-defense laws work here is that their applicability is determined by a jury. That means you get arrested and charged before you get your day in court. If you did everything right, you might get off, but there is no guarantee.

So we have various levels of law and process at work here...

1) The laws that say "It is illegal to kill another human being" in various ways
2) The seperate law that says "There are some exceptions"
3) The discretion of a jury that determines whether 2) is applicable

It kind of sounds like you're living in La-La land, where nobody goes to jail for a good shoot because "It's not illegal to kill someone."

Police can "let people off," and do so sometimes after running it by their superiors and only in light of overwhelming evidence of 2). But that in no way proves that it "Isn't illegal to kill (or shoot) someone."

bogie
July 26, 2008, 07:49 PM
Well, my broadcasting and journalism law teacher basically said that "yelling fire in a crowded theater is a big no-no, and the whole concept really has nothing at all to do with freedom of speech."

Good enough for me.

As for some of the rest - sounds like the Student Center Debate Society has shown up...

Thernlund
July 26, 2008, 08:08 PM
Well, my broadcasting and journalism law teacher basically said that "yelling fire in a crowded theater is a big no-no, and the whole concept really has nothing at all to do with freedom of speech."

It doesn't take a professor to tell you that it's just not a nice thing to do (unless, of course, there actually is a fire).

Being condescending isn't nice either. It is however very easy to inadvertently come off that way via written media unless some care is taken by all involved parties to a) understand that written/typed communications are lacking in inflection and that the other party may not actually be the way they sound; and b) try to make up for this lack of inflection in their own written/typed communications via generous yet judicious use of "emoticons" (smileys and the like) and "emotitags" (tags like <shurg>, <scratches head>, or <hides under table>) to properly convery a point without inadvertently offending others.

Six pages, and that is the whole point. You guys are silly. :)


-T.

redneckrepairs
July 26, 2008, 09:13 PM
Meh. Even though I was posting the best content in this car wreck of a thread, I was told to stop. Ho hum.


shame , your pics made more sense than any post here including mine lol .

publiuss
July 26, 2008, 10:01 PM
Just admit, I'm better than you.:neener:

JackBurtonJr
July 26, 2008, 10:26 PM
I didn't say it was illegal. I said it was speech that was not protected by the first amendment.

Oh... I'm sorry... someone said "If you shout "fire" in a crowded office and someone gets trampled to death, you are going to be arrested." and I assumed that "being arrested" meant "illegal."

Wait... that was you who said that, wasn't it?

We can define "right," "protection," and "speech" if you like, but show me how yelling fire in a crowded theater, and thus causing harm, is protected by the first amendment.

I am not sure why you keep fixating on the First Amendment. Do you always chew on imaginary bones until there is nothing there.

And please explain to us how it could be possible that "shooting someone in a crowded theater, and thus causing harm, is protected by the second amendment.

A restriction on a right does not mean the action itself is restricted, it means that there MAY be legal repercussions due to said speech. This means that the protection of the first amendment is not absolute.

1) You've yet to cite a single law from any court or legislative body to back you up.

2) You're fixating (all by yourself in this thread) on the First again.

What is with this absolutist thinking? Mine was an example of how the first amendment does not allow us to say anything we want, at any time, with no legal repercussions.

It was a poor example since it was a false one. One can shout fire in a crowded theater. And one can do it with total lack of negative consequences. Deny that if you will.

You, son, are the one with "absoutist thinking" since you are the one stating that it cannot be done - period.

You're just putting up straw men.

You're welcome to explain just why and how any of my postings were "strawman". Give detail. Step up to the plate.

Just because there is no absolute restriction on first amendment rights, and because it is of a fluid and specificistic nature, does not mean that there is no restriction whatever.

:-)

Since no one was arguing that point in any way, shape, or fashion then that quickly tells us just who the "strawman" poster really is.

:-)

Do you know what a strawman argument is?

Look Jack, I don't know where you're from or whether you've ever taken a use of deadly force class, but it is illegal to shoot someone where I'm from and you have an overwhelming likelihood of being arrested and charged, and at least appearing before a grand jury.

The way the lethal force/self-defense laws work here is that their applicability is determined by a jury. That means you get arrested and charged before you get your day in court. If you did everything right, you might get off, but there is no guarantee.

Really?

Read a couple dozen of these stories (http://claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html) and please tell us just in how many of them the shooter was judged prior to any "court procedings" to be not culpable.

So we have various levels of law and process at work here...

1) The laws that say "It is illegal to kill another human being" in various ways
2) The seperate law that says "There are some exceptions"
3) The discretion of a jury that determines whether 2) is applicable

Well...just in case you don't bother reading the above cite let me quote to you from just one story...

"Tacoma Police spokesperson Mark Fulghum says the armed doctor acted within the law, defending himself and others during a crime."

Imagine that! The police spokesman taking on the role all by himself of the judge and jury. Or perhaps he's just repeating the info given him by the powers that be that determine whether or not to take it to the court system?

Perhaps?

It kind of sounds like you're living in La-La land, where nobody goes to jail for a good shoot because "It's not illegal to kill someone."

I give cites. You give your opinion. I think the readers can tell the difference, eh.

Police can "let people off," and do so sometimes after running it by their superiors and only in light of overwhelming evidence of 2). But that in no way proves that it "Isn't illegal to kill (or shoot) someone."

Most poster eventually contradict themselves given enough time, say... months or years. But it takes a very special talent to do it within one single post.

:-)

JohnBT
July 26, 2008, 10:33 PM
"What's up with the elitist attitude?"

It's a free country, isn't it? Do we all have to agree with you?

John

JackBurtonJr
July 26, 2008, 10:39 PM
Speech is always a means to an end. What exactly are you trying to say?

Sigh...

If I (knowingly with a lie) tell someone his pants are on fire and in an effort to put them out he runs into the path of a car... or I set a firecracker off underneath his feet and he runs into the path of the very same car... is the law really going to be worried about the the mechanism I used?

I never said "Any time you yell fire in a crowded theater you will be charged with a crime," nor did I say that was the best example of reasonable restrictions on any one right or on our rights in general. But it is an example. How is it wrong?

Well, the "any time" is a given in what you did say. And it's wrong because it's not true.

Please explain to us why I can't yell "fire" in a theater that is on fire.

Just tell me, if you wish, whether you agree or disagree with the following statement:

No right is absolute under the Bill of Rights. All things being equal, individual rights cover only actions which do not deprive others of their guaranteed rights (namely life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness).

1) Since no one is arguing any of those points it is a rabbit trail that leads no where in this discussion.

2) And if Fred, in his very strong desire and effort to have money to live a longer life, to have the liberty to do as he pleases, and because it gives him happiness, decides to stick a knife in my ribs and take my money I certainly have a "right" to object to it and shoot him dead on the street, therefore denying him any and all of those rights you just posted.

But perhaps you think differently.

and I posted...

"So prove to us that shouting fire in a theater on fire will 'hurt or defraud others'".

You replied...

"Are you actually saying this scenario is impossible? Unbelievable! Intent is paramount, but it is clearly possible - even if we do not agree as to the legal outcome."

My answer:

Waxing indignent is not the "proof" that I asked for. Again, PROVE that shouting fire in a crowded theater will 'hurt or defraud others'".

Put up or shut up.

JackBurtonJr
July 26, 2008, 10:43 PM
Well, my broadcasting and journalism law teacher basically said that "yelling fire in a crowded theater is a big no-no, and the whole concept really has nothing at all to do with freedom of speech."

Good enough for me.

My broadcasting and journalism professor read us the whole quote from Justice Holmes which reads "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic."

siglite
July 27, 2008, 12:22 AM
Boy is this thread off the rails.

Let's talk about that other issue that seems to be kind of prevalent on THR. People who argue for the sake of argument.

I can't for the life of me figure out how this "fire in a theater stuff" relates to the OP's premise that there are some elitist (or at least condescending) attitudes on THR. Unless you're intending to exemplify his point.
:rolleyes:

JackBurtonJr
July 27, 2008, 12:42 AM
"I can't for the life of me figure out how this "fire in a theater stuff" relates to the OP's premise that there are some elitist (or at least condescending) attitudes on THR."

1) The carnard that one cannot shout fire in a crowded theater is almost always used by those who are seeking an excuse to limit rights.

2) It is a virtual requirement that a gun bigot eventually use the phrase in a thread, along with comparing guns to male genetalia, and misquoting the Kellerman study.

3) We who defend freedom need to know how those who limit freedom get it wrong... and be able to correct them when they do.

4) And when we get it equally wrong... then one of us should step in and provide corrective action.

5) And some people just naturally get very defensive when corrected.

bogie
July 27, 2008, 01:26 AM
Okay. I won't say that -some- folks are essentially doing the equivalent of walking into a theater and waving around a can of gasoline and a railroad flare, and then expecting everyone to love them...

Or at least they are encouraging others to behave in a similar fashion.

Remember, campers - not everyone you meet on the interwebz has your, or our, best interests in mind. Maybe some of these folks WANT you to go out and make Suzy Sokkermommie nervous... Not because they want her to become more used to people with "those guns," but because they want her to be more likely to vote to make them go away.

clarence222
July 27, 2008, 02:57 AM
I've seen plenty of it both here on THR as well as many gunstores and gun gatherings. Read one thread here a few weeks ago, some older guys were bragging about all their accompishments in life and all they had done in the fight for the 2A. Hothey wever while doing this they were degrading a younger member about what he had not done because he was simply not old enough yet to have had as many accomplishments.

To me that is elitist. To tell someone to worry about school and grades is also being elitist. I know many people who were very successful without ever going to any school after high school.

I certainly don't have a problem with some one disagreeing with my opinion, in fact my wife does it on a daily sometimes a hourly basis and we have been together almost 13 years. However telling me or any one else you dont agree with in a condescending manner or with blatant sarcasm leads one to believe that you might be an elitist.

THR isn't the only placed I have noticed this, there are many gunstore I no longer do business with because of attitudes like this. They might not mind losing my business, or not having coming in to ask questions. I will guarantee that they have lost out on a lost of business, not only from myself but the other 10 or more people that I tell about my bad experiences.

While at the NRA meetings in Louisville this past May, a friend and I stopped to look at a replica rifle. Not knowing anything about either one of us the wner of the company that produced was a total jerk. We asked what the replica cost and how soon we could get it. This company is located less than an hoursx drive from me and my friend has shopped there many times. Plus he introduced himself as the owner. I wont say the sompany name but I would imagine many of you have heard of it and quite possibly purchased from them.

The problem I have with his attitude is this. He doesn't know whether or not I have the money to buy the rifle we were looking simply by the way we were dressed. Yet the attitude he had was if we had to ask how much it cost we couldn't afford the price of the gun.

To me that is elitist or snobbish or what ever you want to call it.

This man like all of you on this board as well as other boards on the net, have no idea how much money I have and what I can or can't afford. I do have that kind of money, readily available, meaning I go to the bank and get it. From our personal account, not from a loan. Now don't get me wrong I'm not trying to brag, there once was a time when I had no money to spend on guns or anything else. I remember those times vividly.

My point is simply that you can't judge a book by its cover. Nor should you degrade someone that has a different opinion than you, or are younger than you. Yet I have noticed this alot lately especially on THR. That being said I visit here several times daily and happen to enjoy all the posts and inforation available.

conw
July 27, 2008, 01:10 PM
Jack, the reference was necessary in my discourse because it is in some ways analagous to the rights certain posters feel are granted through the second amendment.

If you'll recall, my first post mentioning limitations (or restrictions on rights) had to do with age limits on gun possession.

My point was that minors have restricted rights, and adults are often held responsible for their actions, and for the circumstances surrounding their actions.

To some people, and not necessarily to myself, giving a child a gun without any kind of guidance is like " [falsely] yelling fire in a crowded theater" (I thought the false part was obvious, by the way) - it is an action that may be prosecuted, and is not necessarily protected under the BOR because it may cause harm.

I, personally, think it is an error in logic to prosecute someone for a crime they have not yet committed, or to assume that possession of certain items (guns, drugs, etc) makes them a criminal, but I was not previously expressing this sentiment. In my ideal legal system it would not be a crime to give children guns, but the parent could/would be charged with negligence if the child had an accident.

I do feel that you were off base, Jack, because I did not express my entire position, I merely defended a point that you fixated on. At least, that's how I see it. I still don't understand why the burden of proof is on me to show how falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater is potentially injurious, but if you don't at all understand the use of the example I guess I can't help.

My apologies for coming across as arrogant; I think it was the "crap on the grass of fantasyland" that must have set you off. I should have emoted using a smiley. That was actually a humorous reference to a post a while back by, I believe, bogie.

Best
conwict

bogie
July 27, 2008, 01:20 PM
Well, I'm guilty of profiling... If you're not acting mature enough, the vast majority of the time, to play with a boomstick, then you need to stick with video games and nerf.

JohnBT
July 27, 2008, 02:46 PM
"My point is simply that you can't judge a book by its cover."

Not always; the phrase is 'You can't always judge a book by its' cover.' Frequently you can - for instance, if it says Dictionary on the cover that's exactly what it is. Same for the Yellow Pages and the Blue Book of Gun Values.

"This man like all of you on this board as well as other boards on the net, have no idea how much money I have and what I can or can't afford."

Want to learn how to play poker? :)

John

dalepres
July 27, 2008, 03:14 PM
Shouting fire in a theater that is not burning has no more to do with the 1st Amendment than hunting and target shooting have to do with the 2nd Amendment. The 1st Amendment was about being able to speak out against government not about shouting fire or about creating pornography.

A better analogy between the abuses of the two Constitutional Amendments is the restrictions on the 1st Amendment by requiring protesters to get the permission of the government, in the form of a permit, in order to protest against the government. Or requiring that protests be staged in a fenced off area far from an event and out of sight from cameras or the public. Or restricting political advertisements against a candidate within 60 days of an election. Compare these restrictions on the 1st Amendment to licensing and registration of guns, limiting your ability to carry your gun on a college campus or government building, or owning any weapon that might conceivably be able to injur a government official in body armor.

I think it is these kinds of ideas that the OP was trying to convey. You can't pick and choose among the rights protected in the Constitution. You can't pick and choose what are acceptable violations of those rights. Well, obviously you can but, if I understand the OP's intent as saying making those choices is elitist, then I agree with the OP.

.cheese.
July 27, 2008, 03:19 PM
I don't think I'm the only one that's noticed a disturbing trend of elitism sweeping through The High Road.

pffffft. I fart in your general direction.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
:neener:


in seriousness, there is some elitism here, but not nearly as much as I've found at some other boards. (that's why I like this board enough to have stuck around for a little while)

Bottom line, there are jerks everywhere. It's sad, but impossible to avoid. Just do what I do and get into an all out flame war with them. (jk, don't do that. Ignore them).

dalepres
July 27, 2008, 03:25 PM
for instance, if it says Dictionary on the cover that's exactly what it is. Same for the Yellow Pages and the Blue Book of Gun Values.


Except when it's hollowed out as a CCW device. :D

JackBurtonJr
July 27, 2008, 04:59 PM
To some people, and not necessarily to myself, giving a child a gun without any kind of guidance is like " [falsely] yelling fire in a crowded theater" (I thought the false part was obvious, by the way) -

Here's why I believe this is so important to get right. And it's based on the way the anti-freedom gun bigots use it.

They say "you can't yell fire in a crowded theater" as proof that rights can be "restricted."

But what they purposefully neglect in their argument is that you CAN yell fire if the theater is on fire.

Because they phrase it the way they do, they are trying a "prior restraint" argument on speech, which they then attempt to move over to the gun side.

Prior restraint simply means that BEFORE you can take action it has already been judged as wrong action.

So... to them the yelling of fire is already judged as wrong before any facts become available.

This is the very same way they argue that ownership of a gun is "wrong". The citizen is already judged prior to any connection with a gun and declared unfit, or wrong, regardless of circumstances.

What they won't admit to, though, is that the highest courts have consistently ruled for two centuries that prior restraint is wrong on the First -- it's simply not allowed except under the very most dire straites. That is why the NY Times got away with publishing the Pentagon Papers in the 70s.

Following the same logic on the 2nd the mere possession of a gun would never be "wrong" -- no more than the mere possession of a tongue, or pen and paper. One would first have to be judged to have used it wrongly to be punished.

They say, you can't yell fire in a theater and you can't have a gun with no restrictions.

If they are forced to say, you can't falsely yell fire in a theater, the rest of their argument simply falls apart because now they are comparing an action causing harm to people with just mere possession.
Their anology breaks down at that point.

So when we use the same exact phrase as they use (which is misquoting the phase) two not so good things can happen...

1) We subtely fall into their way of thinking

2) We give them the ability to say, see, even the gunowners agree with us.

I, personally, think it is an error in logic to prosecute someone for a crime they have not yet committed, or to assume that possession of certain items (guns, drugs, etc) makes them a criminal, but I was not previously expressing this sentiment.

Unfortunatly, and almost certainly unknowingly, you were. Leaving out that word "falsely" changes the whole statement into one of prior restraint.

I do feel that you were off base, Jack, because I did not express my entire position, I merely defended a point that you fixated on. At least, that's how I see it.

I "fixated" on it because it is one of the prime arguments set forth by gun-banners.

They purposefully twist it. If we use the same exact verbage as they do, in the same exact way, who can tell the difference?

I still don't understand why the burden of proof is on me to show how falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater is potentially injurious, but if you don't at all understand the use of the example I guess I can't help.

Ahh... see... you changed my question.

Neither of us used the word "falsely" in the question... but I wanted you to prove that shouting fire was going to hurt someone.

The moment you attempted to do so you would have fallen into the trap of then trying to defend why someone couldn't shout it if the theater was on fire.

It's kind of like this. A cop cannot walk up to a three year old girl and shoot her. There are no circumstances that I can think of that would justify this.

But if a cop shoots a bank robber holding a gun to a lady's head... and he gets a through and throuh bullet that winds up in a three year old girl on the other side of the room that is still a tragedy, but the cop is not going to be prosecuted for murder.

If I falsely yell fire and someone gets trampled I am screwed big time.

If I yell fire because the theater is on fire, and someone gets trampled it is still the same tragedy... but I am not going to be prosecuted.

But... and this is the ultimate argument point... the mere possession of my tongue and the ability to yell fire in that theater will not, in any way, cause the government to take action against me.

Again... the fixation is making sure that we don't use language that helps the gun banners do their job. We have it hard enough already without us giving them our ammo to put in their guns.

Cosmoline
July 27, 2008, 05:06 PM
My point is simply that you can't judge a book by its cover.

Well you can judge some books by their covers. If you're a young 'un with your pants riding low you can expect anyone selling alcohol , tobacco or firearms to get edgy about selling to you. The reasons should be pretty obvious. Maybe you can call it paranoia, but it's not "elitist."

I doubt you'd find one in a hundred gun owners in favor of abolishing all age restrictions on small arms. You can rightly observe that the line is arbitrary, but the wisdom of ages and extensive experience tells us that the very young need to be using firearms only when supervised and overseen. They ought not to be securing their own firearms independent of family judgments. There are two strong competing interests here. On the one hand the right of families to raise children as they see fit, and on the other hand the rights of the children to be armed. The current scheme which prohibits direct sales but allows gifts is a way of ensuring that the will of the family controls rather than the will of the minor. The solution is of course to learn and wait.

.

conw
July 27, 2008, 05:20 PM
Because they phrase it the way they do, they are trying a "prior restraint" argument on speech, which they then attempt to move over to the gun side.

Thanks for the concise phrase to sum up what I (and you) meant, I will have to remember that. Prior restraint. I am not generally for that, although it can turn into a "slippery slope" argument with drunk driving and the like. I am not at all for prior restraint with personal use and possession of drugs or guns (not lumping drugs and guns into the same category, BTW) but with negligence - such as operating heavy machinery under the influence - I start to waver.

Again... the fixation is making sure that we don't use language that helps the gun banners do their job. We have it hard enough already without us giving them our ammo to put in their guns.

Thank you for explaining that. In fact, I did not understand why you took issue with the example. Now I do. It would have been much easier if I had not taken what for all purposes was a nasty attitude. Sorry about that.

I only bring it up because it seems to me sometimes that, when posters here talk about "2A rights," they are discussing protection they'd like to have outside the purview of the 2A. I was merely trying to say "Not anything you do with a gun is covered by 2A, just like not everything you could say, should it cause harm, is covered by the 1A."

This may seem like an obvious point, but when people here get rambunctious about "overthrowing the government," or shooting a criminal for stealing from their car in the middle of the night, it seems like a good reminder.

So we're clear now. And I'm sorry again for seeming so overzealous and, well, rude. Lesson learned.

Have a good day.

JackBurtonJr
July 27, 2008, 05:37 PM
Have a good day.

And you and yours also.

SoCalShooter
July 27, 2008, 07:01 PM
I don't deny anyone the right. But my opinion is that concealed is a better option. *Element of surprise and such*

def4pos8
July 28, 2008, 03:45 PM
I am elitist.

Prey or predator: choose.

FEG
July 28, 2008, 05:39 PM
At the risk of sounding elitist, here is the problem.

Far too many people in this country feel that they are entitled to have other people respect their opinions, merely because they are drawing oxygen. I'll defend your right to free speech to the death, but that doesn't mean I have to listen to your garbage, either.

For example, I don't feel the need to respect someone's opinion on Christianity (the actual faith, not Christendom, its institutions) who has never even read the New Testament. Elitist? Maybe. On the other hand, why should I waste time out of my short life to listen to someone who has no idea what they are talking about? By the same token, I am not talking about denigrating or dismissing that individual as a person, nor am I maintaining that they don't have the right to hold an uninformed opinion. I do think it is my right to discern and distinguish informed opinions from uninformed opinions.

Let's take this further. I am a former UMC minister and a graduate of Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary. In contrast, I am not that skilled or knowledgable concerning automotive repair. Most people wouldn't have a problem with agreeing that an ASE certified mechanic's opinion is worth more than mine when we are discussing an automobile. However, people would be very uncomfortable with the notion that my opinions concerning the Christian faith are more informed than their own. What's the difference? Either I can read koine Greek and Hebrew, or I can't. They represent a body of knowledge, no different than any other.

A key distinction here would be the understanding that knowledge does not equal wisdom. You don't need to have memorized the minutes of the Second Lateran Council to possess wisdom. I'm not claiming any monopoly on wisdom, at all. However, I don't understand why the average American has a problem acknowledging that people who spent several years and good money to study religion may have more knowledge and insight on the subject.

I apologize if anyone finds this inflammatory. I'm not trying to force religion into the discussion. In my personal case, it can't be helped as this was my vocation for the majority of my adult life.

Thernlund
July 28, 2008, 05:53 PM
Most people wouldn't have a problem with agreeing that an ASE certified mechanic's opinion is worth more than mine when we are discussing an automobile. However, people would be very uncomfortable with the notion that my opinions concerning the Christian faith are more informed than their own. What's the difference?

Respectfully, I think your example is flawed. There isn't much room for interpretation on how an internal combustion engine works. Religion, on the other hand, is ALL up for interpretation.

If you can read Greek and Hebrew, that can't really be disputed, eh? But as to the interpretation of the translated text, well... ;)

Again, respectfully, your opinions regarding faith do not outweigh mine by any stretch, education or no.

I do, however, get the gist of your point. I think religion was just a bad way to get it across, yeah?


-T.

The Unknown User
July 28, 2008, 05:59 PM
Most of "us" are conservative. Most of "them" are liberal. No matter how you look at it, each side is just as bat**** crazy as the other.

One side wants to edit out entire sections of the Constitution. The other wants to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies. I could go on, but the point should be obvious by now.

"We" are not better than "them." Well, except me, as I'm a Libertarian, and so I say "more power to you" to both sides, even if I dont' agree with them.

FEG
July 28, 2008, 06:40 PM
If you can read Greek and Hebrew, that can't really be disputed, eh? But as to the interpretation of the translated text, well...

I think you missed my point somewhat.

Just for example, let us assume that most fundamentalists (meant here as people who interpret the Bible literally) use the King James text.

Just for example, Luke 14:26 is translated completely incorrectly in the KJV. KJV has the unfortunate translation of the Greek word miseo, as "hate", when it should be rendered "love less by comparison." Obviously, Christ does not want people to hate their parents and family!

It's just like computers: Garbage In = Garbage Out. If someone's opinion is based on incorrect information (or less charitably, ignorance), then it is at best problematic.

In other words, my interpretation of the text, which is presumably based on a correct translation, is then "better" than an interpretation based on an incorrect translation. While we might argue that translation is itself a matter of interpretation, which is a valid point, there is no question that the KJV has Luke 14:26 wrong.

Another example: A class is assigned a book report on The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe. Gallant reads the book and writes his report. Goofus reads the Cliff Notes to Out of the Silent Planet and writes his report. Who will get the higher grade, assuming equal analytical and writing skills, etc.?

Again, I'm not claiming a monopoly on wisdom. I do agree this was a rotten example to communicate my point. It's too controversial for most Americans.

dalepres
July 28, 2008, 11:24 PM
Well, this thread has taken a sharp turn to starboard.

bogie
July 28, 2008, 11:26 PM
Oh, who the heck cares.

As a proponent of Existential Buddhism, I feel elite, but humble in my knowledge of my eliteness.

springmom
July 29, 2008, 12:09 AM
SOMEBODY come put this thread out of our misery......
:barf::barf::barf:

Springmom

exar
July 29, 2008, 12:13 AM
SOMEBODY come put this thread out of our misery......

Another vote here to lock it. I don't even like to see the title on the Gen. Dis. page because this is one of the most informative, low noise to signal ratio sites on the webz.

Thernlund
July 29, 2008, 12:17 AM
Hey man... I tried to get it iced early on. But all these folks just stepped right around me and kept up the slap fighting. Ultimately I only got myself reprimanded. Pfff.

:rolleyes:


-T.

FEG
July 29, 2008, 01:06 AM
Hey man... I tried to get it iced early on. But all these folks just stepped right around me and kept up the slap fighting. Ultimately I only got myself reprimanded. Pfff.

The dry humor approach seemed to earn some flack too. I was going to use the 2nd Amendment in my analogy, and I mistakenly thought religion would be LESS controversial. Won't make that mistake again.

(I wasn't full of b.s., though. I used to be a minister, etc.)

In all seriousness, it seems like a lot of Americans can't stand the notion that someone else may actually know something they don't. YMMV.

Justin
July 29, 2008, 01:15 AM
Sorry folks, but this one's pretty much gone sideways.

If you enjoyed reading about "What's up with the elitist attitude?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!