A liberal article supporting open carry
- Thread starter weekender823
- Start date
- Status
wally
Member
The "backlash" argument is always made, but I've seen little to no evidence of it actually happening, for "gay rights" or any other movement. Are there examples I've missed where a "backlash" significantly impeded the movement? Perhaps "gay marriage" comes the closest with a lot of State Laws being passed against it, but this is where we are at the moment with a lot of State Laws against gun owners.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
Well, the classic example always mentioned is the Black Panther protests in California that contributed to the clamping down on gun rights for everyone back in 1967.
Armed black men, protesting on the state house steps. Then the Mulford Act.
Last edited:
wally
Member
Thanks, I wasn't aware of the Mulford Act, what specifically did it do?
1966 was when things really started going bad for gun owners, ignoring the NFA of 1934.
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
The Mulford Act made it illegal to possess loaded firearms in public in CA.
Full disclosure: I got the sequence backward, slightly. The act was in reaction to some of the Black Panthers' other armed protests. The state house protest in '67 was a reaction to that law itself.
Full disclosure: I got the sequence backward, slightly. The act was in reaction to some of the Black Panthers' other armed protests. The state house protest in '67 was a reaction to that law itself.
blarby
Member
Few things I have to add :
#1 John Crawford is NOT the recent killing of a "boy with the pellet gun". John crawford was the one in Fairfield. YA, there are a lot of these, I could see how it gets confusing. John was killed IN a walmart, holding the merchandise. A customer called 911 about a "man waving a rifle around in the store, pointing it at people" Police arrived and saw John with what we now know is a pellet pistol, and according to the video of the event dropped him before he had a chance to obey their commands. The one in cleveland, his name was Tamir. His death also involved about 1.5 seconds worth of judgement before fatal bullets were let fly. He actually had an airsoft gun devoid of the orange tip usually supplied on such toys. I'm sure that will be looked in to. Personally, I couldn't even register a command in the amount of time again fully captured on video given to Tamir, let alone actually comply. Especially considering I'd have been on a phone call at the time.
So theres that.
#2
Thats exactly where the mentality of this approach goes. And its a great, if somewhat hard to grasp, and harder to implement, idea.
#3
This is a commonly cited reason as one of the advantages to open-carry by not only many members here, but by the movement at large. Why would it not apply to.... anyone else ? Ah yes, the meat of the argument, its not a white face above that piece. Got it. See how its a perception problem ?
Legal open-carry does tend to lend the weight of "gee, who is the bad guy in this situation" when snap judgements are required. Legal open carry would mean a well defined and visible open-carry holster and firearm. Hard to miss that. A criminal would not strap a 45 to his leg and wave it around at police. Thats not flawed, thats brilliant- and its true.
Nothing "PROVES" you aren't a criminal until I run you. However, that holster might buy you say.... another 1.5 seconds worth of thought. Might make a difference. I'd rather someone think 2-4 seconds than 1-2 seconds about that action, before I'm riddled with bullets.
#4
Considering thats the whole point of THR; responsible firearms ownership, reflected in our words and deeds, and BROADCAST TO THE ENTIRE WORLD I MIGHT ADD - You'd think everyone would be on the same boat right ? Perhaps not, as is evidenced by some of the commentary....
#5
#6
Change the perception, change the results, thats where the thought process is headed.
-done
#1 John Crawford is NOT the recent killing of a "boy with the pellet gun". John crawford was the one in Fairfield. YA, there are a lot of these, I could see how it gets confusing. John was killed IN a walmart, holding the merchandise. A customer called 911 about a "man waving a rifle around in the store, pointing it at people" Police arrived and saw John with what we now know is a pellet pistol, and according to the video of the event dropped him before he had a chance to obey their commands. The one in cleveland, his name was Tamir. His death also involved about 1.5 seconds worth of judgement before fatal bullets were let fly. He actually had an airsoft gun devoid of the orange tip usually supplied on such toys. I'm sure that will be looked in to. Personally, I couldn't even register a command in the amount of time again fully captured on video given to Tamir, let alone actually comply. Especially considering I'd have been on a phone call at the time.
So theres that.
#2
Great way to paraphrase it.
Thats exactly where the mentality of this approach goes. And its a great, if somewhat hard to grasp, and harder to implement, idea.
#3
This is a commonly cited reason as one of the advantages to open-carry by not only many members here, but by the movement at large. Why would it not apply to.... anyone else ? Ah yes, the meat of the argument, its not a white face above that piece. Got it. See how its a perception problem ?
Legal open-carry does tend to lend the weight of "gee, who is the bad guy in this situation" when snap judgements are required. Legal open carry would mean a well defined and visible open-carry holster and firearm. Hard to miss that. A criminal would not strap a 45 to his leg and wave it around at police. Thats not flawed, thats brilliant- and its true.
Nothing "PROVES" you aren't a criminal until I run you. However, that holster might buy you say.... another 1.5 seconds worth of thought. Might make a difference. I'd rather someone think 2-4 seconds than 1-2 seconds about that action, before I'm riddled with bullets.
#4
Considering thats the whole point of THR; responsible firearms ownership, reflected in our words and deeds, and BROADCAST TO THE ENTIRE WORLD I MIGHT ADD - You'd think everyone would be on the same boat right ? Perhaps not, as is evidenced by some of the commentary....
#5
Not really. Not legal open carry, and he certainly didn't look to be of legal handgun bearing age in the video. Lawful carry usually doesn't involve waving it around in the park shooting at leaves and sticks.
#6
The problem appears to be that theres a lot of folks who believe the opposite- that there are a mighty few good po-po eggs in the whole dang egg farm. Seems every time the masses doubt this, another news day rolls around. Like all things, somewhere in the middle the truth lies. Somewhere in the middle is the root of the problem. Perception is a large amount of the cause.
Change the perception, change the results, thats where the thought process is headed.
-done
Last edited:
to be fair, it only means that today. and mostly only to gun owners.
if it did become common, then your average criminal would probably follow suit and get a real holster and OC. unless he was well known to police, he would probably get away with it.
if it did become common, then your average criminal would probably follow suit and get a real holster and OC. unless he was well known to police, he would probably get away with it.
blarby
Member
If everyone owned and OC'd a weapon, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion.
The issue at hand is that dark skin + anything in hand(s) ( not just toy guns ! Keys, cell phone, lighter, a child ... all documented well ) = almost certain shoot on sight in way too many instances. In these last cases, facsimiles of real "threatening" objects. In the Brown altercation, no weapon at all.
But, you are correct in that the best camo is just that- looking like everyone else.
Something non-white America really seems to have a problem with, which strikes to the heart of the issue.
Law enforcement gets a wide swath of "benefit of the doubt".
I don't oppose that in any way, nor should anyone who hasn't worked behind a shield.
Many of these cases however, go far beyond "benefit of the doubt". Most of them never get a great examination of doubt, due to the legal protections offered to law enforcement in the carrying out of their duties.
Citizens are simply trying to get a few crucial moments of the same when the only parameters are snap judgements based on a few seconds of visual input ( and often incredibly poor relaying of critcal sitrep by dispatch, or incredibly poor relaying of sitrep by bystanders also making snap judgements based on a few seconds of visual input- or BOTH) which too often end in the loss of life.
In this case, maybe a "good gun" might actually assist in preventing loss of life when a "? gun" enters the encounter loaded for bear with a full magazine of mis- and pre-conceptions.
Whats the worst that could happen ? People are dying anyway, armed or in the cases causing the most grief- not.
I can guarantee you that the first time an officer with a body camera shoots a lawful OC'er for walking down the street "carrying while black", we'll be having another really interesting national dialogue. (this is actually the worst that could happen)
Boy, this is an incredibly difficult topic to discuss in depth without diving too far into the political reasonings behind any given choice or explanation. I'm out !
The issue at hand is that dark skin + anything in hand(s) ( not just toy guns ! Keys, cell phone, lighter, a child ... all documented well ) = almost certain shoot on sight in way too many instances. In these last cases, facsimiles of real "threatening" objects. In the Brown altercation, no weapon at all.
But, you are correct in that the best camo is just that- looking like everyone else.
Something non-white America really seems to have a problem with, which strikes to the heart of the issue.
Law enforcement gets a wide swath of "benefit of the doubt".
I don't oppose that in any way, nor should anyone who hasn't worked behind a shield.
Many of these cases however, go far beyond "benefit of the doubt". Most of them never get a great examination of doubt, due to the legal protections offered to law enforcement in the carrying out of their duties.
Citizens are simply trying to get a few crucial moments of the same when the only parameters are snap judgements based on a few seconds of visual input ( and often incredibly poor relaying of critcal sitrep by dispatch, or incredibly poor relaying of sitrep by bystanders also making snap judgements based on a few seconds of visual input- or BOTH) which too often end in the loss of life.
In this case, maybe a "good gun" might actually assist in preventing loss of life when a "? gun" enters the encounter loaded for bear with a full magazine of mis- and pre-conceptions.
Whats the worst that could happen ? People are dying anyway, armed or in the cases causing the most grief- not.
I can guarantee you that the first time an officer with a body camera shoots a lawful OC'er for walking down the street "carrying while black", we'll be having another really interesting national dialogue. (this is actually the worst that could happen)
Boy, this is an incredibly difficult topic to discuss in depth without diving too far into the political reasonings behind any given choice or explanation. I'm out !
Last edited:
tacxted
Member
We need to encourage this type of idea. It doesn't matter what the underlying reason is. The fact is, this guy is advocating 2nd amendment use.
Get behind it and help push, we stop pushing when "common sense gun laws" start to be talked about.
Get behind it and help push, we stop pushing when "common sense gun laws" start to be talked about.
Captain33036
Member
I do not think the author is a 2A advocate or even cares about the Constitution.
He is merely looking for a tool to use to form a wedge between his community and the police.
Someone is makes statements such as:
"We are seeing an epidemic of shootings of unarmed black people by police"
And
"In America, the perfect crime is for a [cop] to shoot an unarmed black man"
...is not someone whose agenda I would support. I am doubtful they are truly in support of the Second Amendment. If they were, they would not be writing in the Huff post.
He is merely looking for a tool to use to form a wedge between his community and the police.
Someone is makes statements such as:
"We are seeing an epidemic of shootings of unarmed black people by police"
And
"In America, the perfect crime is for a [cop] to shoot an unarmed black man"
...is not someone whose agenda I would support. I am doubtful they are truly in support of the Second Amendment. If they were, they would not be writing in the Huff post.
Impureclient
Member
I only see this as a bluff and nothing else. It was written to bring hits to their website and it's working.
Captain33036
Member
Here is what HuffPost authors really think of 2A supporters:
From an article today on how Anytown is winning:
"Remember the circus in Texas when some dopes showed up at a Target store openly toting their guns?"
From an article today on how Anytown is winning:
"Remember the circus in Texas when some dopes showed up at a Target store openly toting their guns?"
blarby
Member
Remember when some dopes showed up in Chipotle armed to the nines ?
That didn't work out real good, and they were, in hindsight, dopes.
I'm not a big fan of many journalists, but I judge them on their own merits- not the rag they print on.
Lots of great outfits with a few nuts loose behind the keyboard, huff is no exception.
That didn't work out real good, and they were, in hindsight, dopes.
I'm not a big fan of many journalists, but I judge them on their own merits- not the rag they print on.
Lots of great outfits with a few nuts loose behind the keyboard, huff is no exception.
Captain33036
Member
Well, I have never seen a positive article in the Huffpost about gun owners. And not one in support of the 2A.
As for the author, he was factually incorrect, his assumptions were flawed. Thus, my only conclusion can be he has another agenda.
As for the author, he was factually incorrect, his assumptions were flawed. Thus, my only conclusion can be he has another agenda.
JRH6856
Member
taliv said:
Which is exactly what happened after the passage of the Freedmen's Acts in 1865 and their enforcement during Reconstruction resulted in blacks being armed. Almost all of the carry regulations and prohibitions in the South for the past 160+ years are the result of that response.
blarby
Member
OR more recently......
From a somewhat slanted but very well written piece here :
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112322/gun-control-racism-and-nra-history
Which is a decent primer to some of the travails up to and after the freedmens act.
We've seen that , too.
Dang history.
barnbwt
member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2011
- Messages
- 7,340
I gotta say, that article is full of logical/rhetorical conflict. Arguments that there may be a benefit from lawful open carry, but ignoring the obvious road-block of like-minded anti gunners to reaching such a situation; expression of disdain/fear/thinly veiled hatred of the current groups dominating gun owners, yet claiming ownership would not be held against blacks similarly/worse; and lastly that open carry deters police aggression by way of being a "Gold Star*" of the citizen's favored status, rather than the means of self-defense that it is (very telling is the lack of mention of the impact said open carry would have on black men's common predators in poor neighborhoods; gangs and thugs)
I don't agree with folks claiming the author is "getting there" let alone coming to our side. I think he merely had a single inkling about open carry (as opposed to 'emotion' about open carry) and is more or less throwing up all sorts of rationalizing labyrinths in order to resolve the discord with preconceived emotions about guns. Hence the meandering intro, padded introduction of the argument/hypothesis, conflicted supporting arguments, irrelevant facts (what few are offered), and overall lack of structure.
I wrote/felt the same way about guns about 20%-30% of the way up the path to Gunnie Enlightenment (more or less at the same time I realized a conceptual handgun ban would be more disastrous than helpful for more reasons than I could count the more I thought about it). Lacking a real, cohesive underlying logic & philosophy to the issue, arguments were mostly ad hoc, and therefore poorly thought through and frequently contradictory. Several dozen lengthy discourses later, these tatters of realization were eventually gathered and knitted into something more orderly. At this point, I clearly understand what I believe and why, so far as gun issues are concerned, and it makes it really easy to analyze various scenarios (like black Americans finally re-embracing gun culture) and discern logically what impact they may have, and even how things must be different than they are presently for us to arrive (for instance, that pressure to get poor minority communities to exercise their right to defense must come from outside the enabling-to-outright-predatory forces currently governing life in these places, at least initially from outside the socio-racial groups residing there --pro-gun evangelism, if you will-- and that resistance will initially be both fierce and vile to our entreaties)
TCB
*the author invoked Godwin first, so I'm just riffing on that
I don't agree with folks claiming the author is "getting there" let alone coming to our side. I think he merely had a single inkling about open carry (as opposed to 'emotion' about open carry) and is more or less throwing up all sorts of rationalizing labyrinths in order to resolve the discord with preconceived emotions about guns. Hence the meandering intro, padded introduction of the argument/hypothesis, conflicted supporting arguments, irrelevant facts (what few are offered), and overall lack of structure.
I wrote/felt the same way about guns about 20%-30% of the way up the path to Gunnie Enlightenment (more or less at the same time I realized a conceptual handgun ban would be more disastrous than helpful for more reasons than I could count the more I thought about it). Lacking a real, cohesive underlying logic & philosophy to the issue, arguments were mostly ad hoc, and therefore poorly thought through and frequently contradictory. Several dozen lengthy discourses later, these tatters of realization were eventually gathered and knitted into something more orderly. At this point, I clearly understand what I believe and why, so far as gun issues are concerned, and it makes it really easy to analyze various scenarios (like black Americans finally re-embracing gun culture) and discern logically what impact they may have, and even how things must be different than they are presently for us to arrive (for instance, that pressure to get poor minority communities to exercise their right to defense must come from outside the enabling-to-outright-predatory forces currently governing life in these places, at least initially from outside the socio-racial groups residing there --pro-gun evangelism, if you will-- and that resistance will initially be both fierce and vile to our entreaties)
TCB
*the author invoked Godwin first, so I'm just riffing on that
CoalTrain49
Member
The article was circulated because it is a radical idea that was meant to shock and generate outrage among conservatives.
Not working here. I think it's a good idea. The more people that OC the better. After all, it's not about guns, it's about the people who use them.
HP supports OC. Well shut my mouth.
Not working here. I think it's a good idea. The more people that OC the better. After all, it's not about guns, it's about the people who use them.
HP supports OC. Well shut my mouth.
Does the writer have an agenda, sure. EVERY writer has an agenda.
Does a small minority of whites oppose Open Carry, yes. We read their posts almost daily here, and their hirelings in office support their views, too, passing laws to restrict the rights of the majority.
In Missouri, tho, we have passed Open Carry, with the caveat that the bearer already have a CCW. I believe it was passed for the same purpose as the Florida Flash law, to absolve an inadvertent display of firearm by someone who never intended it.
But that leaves the CCW requirement exposed as being unconstitutional, and it will likely be challenged in court. Having a CCW is in itself an infringement on our 2A rights. It's just dancing around the anti's arguments and toeing their line of reasoning that only the "competent" can carry.
Which is exactly the problem with the anti Open carry group, they don't see the average citizen as competent to have a firearm. Which they communicate to the police as instructions for enforcement. Along with those sentiments is that young black men cannot be trusted as they aren't competent to be lawful.
It's the same discrimination, if you aren't like us, then you are the problem. Well, the problem is that a small white minority can't handle armed men and won't arm themselves. They force society to not have guns in order for their own quietude.
Who are you to dictate how others live their life, and how they can respond to what they see as a threat to them? It's no better than saying the Sullivan Law should be enacted coast to coast.
If the writer of the article saw police stats reporting that blacks were only stopped in racial parity to whites - about TEN PERCENT OF THE TIME - then maybe his premise would be out of line.
But with young blacks being stopped in the larger majority of cases day to day, what we do have is a small white minority forcing disarmament on blacks and harassing them. The stats don't lie, we do have unequal treatment with the policies exercised now.
And even in areas where the police force matches the racial makeup in that community, it happens.
Why can't anyone Open Carry if they are doing so legally? Because the police are tasked to presume them Guilty of something and suspect on sight. Regardless. Why? Because a small minority of whites are afraid of them. They exercise independence and power that would require respecting them as equals, and the small white minority would find that threatening to their social position. They would be less powerful and that would only lead to total anarchy! should they not be calling the shots.
It very much is a "racist" situation, and the small white minority exercises it against other whites, too, because they are not part of the social elite. Those who don't conform are called neckbeards, dope, idiots, and whatever other term of denigration they can come up with to distinguish them as a lower class of human being.
It's not becoming and not High Road. The more I listen and read, the more the anti Open Carry is just another group of segregationists demanding we be disarmed because we dare to exercise our Constitutional Rights. And in so doing we dare to question their control over our lives.
I see the author may not have my best self interest in mind, but I do see the greater benefit of what he proposes. It would also put certain people on notice they need to do their own dirty work protecting themselves instead of insisting every one else be disarmed and the police do it for them.
Anti Open Carry IS anti gun. That IS what is happening in our cities right now.
Does a small minority of whites oppose Open Carry, yes. We read their posts almost daily here, and their hirelings in office support their views, too, passing laws to restrict the rights of the majority.
In Missouri, tho, we have passed Open Carry, with the caveat that the bearer already have a CCW. I believe it was passed for the same purpose as the Florida Flash law, to absolve an inadvertent display of firearm by someone who never intended it.
But that leaves the CCW requirement exposed as being unconstitutional, and it will likely be challenged in court. Having a CCW is in itself an infringement on our 2A rights. It's just dancing around the anti's arguments and toeing their line of reasoning that only the "competent" can carry.
Which is exactly the problem with the anti Open carry group, they don't see the average citizen as competent to have a firearm. Which they communicate to the police as instructions for enforcement. Along with those sentiments is that young black men cannot be trusted as they aren't competent to be lawful.
It's the same discrimination, if you aren't like us, then you are the problem. Well, the problem is that a small white minority can't handle armed men and won't arm themselves. They force society to not have guns in order for their own quietude.
Who are you to dictate how others live their life, and how they can respond to what they see as a threat to them? It's no better than saying the Sullivan Law should be enacted coast to coast.
If the writer of the article saw police stats reporting that blacks were only stopped in racial parity to whites - about TEN PERCENT OF THE TIME - then maybe his premise would be out of line.
But with young blacks being stopped in the larger majority of cases day to day, what we do have is a small white minority forcing disarmament on blacks and harassing them. The stats don't lie, we do have unequal treatment with the policies exercised now.
And even in areas where the police force matches the racial makeup in that community, it happens.
Why can't anyone Open Carry if they are doing so legally? Because the police are tasked to presume them Guilty of something and suspect on sight. Regardless. Why? Because a small minority of whites are afraid of them. They exercise independence and power that would require respecting them as equals, and the small white minority would find that threatening to their social position. They would be less powerful and that would only lead to total anarchy! should they not be calling the shots.
It very much is a "racist" situation, and the small white minority exercises it against other whites, too, because they are not part of the social elite. Those who don't conform are called neckbeards, dope, idiots, and whatever other term of denigration they can come up with to distinguish them as a lower class of human being.
It's not becoming and not High Road. The more I listen and read, the more the anti Open Carry is just another group of segregationists demanding we be disarmed because we dare to exercise our Constitutional Rights. And in so doing we dare to question their control over our lives.
I see the author may not have my best self interest in mind, but I do see the greater benefit of what he proposes. It would also put certain people on notice they need to do their own dirty work protecting themselves instead of insisting every one else be disarmed and the police do it for them.
Anti Open Carry IS anti gun. That IS what is happening in our cities right now.
Last edited:
GoWolfpack
Member
- Joined
- May 13, 2009
- Messages
- 522
AlexanderA
Member
The article referenced in the OP misses the mark, because the problem (as shown in recent events) involves black juveniles, who wouldn't be eligible to open carry anyway. Older people -- black or white -- rarely get into this kind of trouble. Even the criminals among them are smarter than to confront police on the street.
blarby
Member
Tirod :
[/url][/IMG]
Sam1911
Moderator Emeritus
So if 21-30 year old black men did this more often there wouldn't be a net positive?
The problem he seems to be confronting is that of police profiling and harassing black men, and he's offering the idea of those who legally can choosing to open carry firearms as a way of influencing that reality.
I don't think he's saying it would stop rioting, arson, etc. by juveniles or adults under 21.
- Status
