GBExpat
Member
Now, -1903 with 2089 votes ...
Just to get the blood pressure up a wee bit...
- Thread starter Shadowwolf80
- Start date
- Status
Vern Humphrey
Member
If burning the flag is protected by the First Amendment as a form of political speech, why should not open carry be subject to similar protection?
ArcherandShooter
Member
2106 down votes
202 up votes
as of 1817 CT today
202 up votes
as of 1817 CT today
Well, predictably Rebecca Walsh has "written" a follow-up by simply quoting the reader feedback she got over this article.
http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_9692463
http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_9692463
mewachee
Member
I can believe she gets paid for her writing. She obviously was more interested in promoting her agenda than demonstrating the general nature of the comments she received. Those who write opinion's for a living usually don't care for the opinions of others. It is sad that there is a population that will write idiotic mail to people like this, but she knows they are the extreme. That was her agenda, to make us look extreme.
Her thought process was convoluted anyway.
Her thought process was convoluted anyway.
Big45
member
-2333
Haha that is hilarious, maybe they will fire her. At the very least I hope they tell her not to write about guns anymore.
Haha that is hilarious, maybe they will fire her. At the very least I hope they tell her not to write about guns anymore.
MikeG
Member
voted thumbs down on the follow-up too.
Bones11b
Member
-2359, 2579 votes 
Guess we got our point across 
Follow up is at +3
Guess we got our point across Follow up is at +3
Last edited:
Seancass
Member
follow up now -24
PennsyPlinker
Member
I was -2365.
LongRider
Member
Set aside the tactical advantage / disadvantage portion of the open carry debate. IMO the negative perceptions of open carry are ones we helped create by not open carrying
My thought is that open carry is not about gaining favor some new mode of carry or establishing a new tradition. Rather it is about taking back ground we have lost. There was a time not so long ago when open carry was not frowned upon any more than we frown upon giggling pubescent girls and testosterone driven males operating two ton weapons of mass destruction because open carry was just as common as teenage drivers are today. It was a given that most people open carrying were average normal law abiding citizens because they were. My thought is because out of politeness and consideration for the sensibilities of others, less gun owners carried openly two things have resulted. One the antis have taken a kindness as a weakness and now expect that we bow down to their unreasonable fears. What was once a courtesy is an expectation. Even though the courts have ruled that the irrational Hoplophile fear reaction is unreasonable. Two because it is now an uncommon sight many including those of us who carry misinterpret the motives of those that open carry. Often alarmed by what was once a commonly accepted practice. In effect by not openly carrying we encourage some of the negative fear responses to all gun carry. So, my thought is if more people openly carried it would once again become a common sight and in time generate more acceptance of all kinds of carry. I fully agree with trying to "naturalize the presence of guns, which means that guns become ordinary, omnipresent and expected. Over time, the gun becomes a symbol of ordinary personhood." It was once that way in rural and urban areas. During that time there was less violent crime. We often talk about the unintended consequence of gun laws. Especially in liberal urban areas like Seattle we should also look at the unintended costs of bowing down to the unfounded irrational fears of the Hoplophile. The most recent being the mayor banning guns from all public parks that is a direct result of our not asserting our rights and showing the population that we are rational law abiding citizens
My thought is that open carry is not about gaining favor some new mode of carry or establishing a new tradition. Rather it is about taking back ground we have lost. There was a time not so long ago when open carry was not frowned upon any more than we frown upon giggling pubescent girls and testosterone driven males operating two ton weapons of mass destruction because open carry was just as common as teenage drivers are today. It was a given that most people open carrying were average normal law abiding citizens because they were. My thought is because out of politeness and consideration for the sensibilities of others, less gun owners carried openly two things have resulted. One the antis have taken a kindness as a weakness and now expect that we bow down to their unreasonable fears. What was once a courtesy is an expectation. Even though the courts have ruled that the irrational Hoplophile fear reaction is unreasonable. Two because it is now an uncommon sight many including those of us who carry misinterpret the motives of those that open carry. Often alarmed by what was once a commonly accepted practice. In effect by not openly carrying we encourage some of the negative fear responses to all gun carry. So, my thought is if more people openly carried it would once again become a common sight and in time generate more acceptance of all kinds of carry. I fully agree with trying to "naturalize the presence of guns, which means that guns become ordinary, omnipresent and expected. Over time, the gun becomes a symbol of ordinary personhood." It was once that way in rural and urban areas. During that time there was less violent crime. We often talk about the unintended consequence of gun laws. Especially in liberal urban areas like Seattle we should also look at the unintended costs of bowing down to the unfounded irrational fears of the Hoplophile. The most recent being the mayor banning guns from all public parks that is a direct result of our not asserting our rights and showing the population that we are rational law abiding citizens
Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 13,146
Amen, longrider, +1!
- Status
Similar threads
