NH: Open carry topless protest (guns, breasts, Keene)

[DadaOrwell2]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISHXdGKKDZw

Cute Keene, New Hampshire teen arrested for refusing to wear shirt. The pistol strapped to her waist, however, is not an issue in this New England gun mecca.

 

[bear71]

So it's OK for us to see "shock and awe", a thousand slasher flicks, police beating Rodney King forty times a day, 350 pound dudes in speedos at the beach but....

...a pair of a-cups is banned and offensive.

?????

 

[meytind]

So it's OK for us to see "shock and awe", a thousand slasher flicks, police beating Rodney King forty times a day, 350 pound dudes in speedos at the beach but....

...a pair of a-cups is banned and offensive.

No one ever said America wasn't a nation of hypocrites.

 

[Yellowfin]

Ok, to bring this thread back to topic and forum relevancy, when you think about it open carry really is a lot like nudism. Not everyone agrees with it and some people are shocked and offended, but really it's just being open and honest with people and being free. I'm no nudist but I can see where they're coming from on that.

What I think is the best part about this is to see young women involved in firearms rights activism. Do you realize that our biggest problem is that we are a scarce portion of the population and can take any boost we can get? We have a serious problem on our hands in competing for the attention of the current generation. Advertising and pop culture flood attention spans so much that we need more people and more means of spreading our message just to keep up, let alone reverse the decades of damage done.

We can and should talk about this constructively, guys.

 

[bear71]

"We can and should talk about this constructively, guys."

Yep, agreed.

"I'm no nudist but I can see where they're coming from on that."

If she hadn't been carrying my impression would have been, "just put your shirt on". But given she was carrying, it opened my eyes. "Just put your shirt on" to a nudist or female bent on equality is like saying "just take your gun off" to a carrier.

 

[Nicodemus38]

actually we live in a world thats focused on looking pretty and hence a topless female with the goods flapping in the breeze should be a normal acceptable thing, but alas, its a no- no these days. even in france public nudity is no longer considered good.

public nudity cannot be considered the same as open carrying. with public nudity its considered a low end civil infraction for women. for a man, public nudity is usually at least a few years probation and 20 years on a sexual deviant list.

carrying a gun in open sight in most jurisdictions gets you a few hours inside a police station while they try to determine if your a nutjob on a shooting spree, going to rob stores, or trying to to intimidation, etc. depending on how they feel that day, you could end up with a civil infraction or a few years in jail.

cant really call it equal from the legal standpoint, at least not if you go by gender.

 

[2RCO]

The big difference as I see it is there is No 2nd Amendment guarantee for being a topless female. But wait I guess this could be a 1st Amendment issue.

I am in no way offended by topless females but I don't know about everyone walking around in the buff. As a big dude I'll keep my clothes on!

 

[Yellowfin]

How many times have we heard in reference to those who don't like open carry or guns in general for that matter "I just don't want that around my kids"? ALL THE TIME! Is it really hurting anyone? NO! Something I gained a lot of appreciation for when I was in California is just how aware we should be of how we treat other people who enjoy other freedoms we may not ourselves exercise ourselves either out of preference or approval. We have zero credibility asking someone else to support our rights if we don't support theirs, if we try to draw lines and play games with what they can and can't do and not expect them to do the same to us.

public nudity cannot be considered the same as open carrying. with public nudity its considered a low end civil infraction for women. for a man, public nudity is usually at least a few years probation and 20 years on a sexual deviant list.

Open carry is punished as a crime in Texas, Florida (at least one of which I know to have nude beaches, ironically), New York, Maryland, Illinois, California (for all practical purposes...unloaded open carry is almost unpracticable in total for most of the population and isn't true open carry) and I think New Jersey, all in considerable excess of public nudity. If you read the wording of the laws, it's written almost identically as if it were in fact nudity, treated as if it were indecent more than anything else. In fact that applies to darn near every law written against guns at all, that they're a "public menace" or a "threat to our children" or "disruption of our community" or "have no place among people." They're usually inspired by wanting to spite a specific group of people, too.

 

[Mags]

Don't see how that video was gun related. More of a 1st Amendment type of thing. And a dumb one at that.

 

[bear71]

Good post, fin.

We have many laws on our books that are written specifically to appeal to the lowest common denominator. I think the woman in the video makes a good case.

If one in a hundred men is offended by an open carry or a shirtless woman a law is written to protect the "rights" of the one out of the hundred. This is a democracy we live in which means that for a law to pass, it should have atleast 51% approval. I fail to believe 51 out of every 100 citizens are going to be offended enough by carry or female toplessness to support such a law banning either.

The minority have the power simply by crying "I'm offended". That's not right.

 

[Lovesbeer99]

I think this is great. A young person taking a stand. Also a young female is not usually considered a threat like a young man. Had a man committed civil disobedience, the cops would have been more forceful and called for back up with the crowd. In this case the cops were very civil, I"m guessing cause they were not threatened, even with the gun.

There are a lot of thing to say or disagree about this, but either way I like it. It was a good protest, and no one got hurt, the city didn't loose millions of dollars and no new laws will be created overnight because of this. Almost seams impossible these days.

 

[Larry Ashcraft]

OK, I moved this out of view for a bit, and then after looking at it, I put it back.

Let's see if we can discuss it as adults.

If we can't, it will go away again.

 

[bear71]

"And a dumb one at that."

Why?

 

[ArmedBear]

Requiring women to cover their nipples and some area around them is a clear violation of equal protection under the law.

Men have nipples, too, but are not required to cover them.

There's simply no way around this fact.

There is no threat to anyone, if this woman walks around on a hot day, dressed just like the man next to her. It hurts nobody.

Neither does open carry of a firearm.

If you've ever been to a nude beach, you recognize something quickly: the only reason that we consider nudity to be anything significant at all is that we have constructed a set of beliefs about it. There's no intrinsic reason for these beliefs. Soon, when you're surrounded by nude people, you stop considering this to have any significance. It's just NO BIG DEAL.

...a lot like what opencarry.org is working to do with firearms.

 

[leadcounsel]

I've never given it much thought, but frankly I have to agree with the topless woman that it's a clear violation of equal protection under the law. The law is different for men and woman and there is no rational basis for it.

Funny, the woman can dress like a man and act like a man, but the moment she removes her shirt she breaks the law. The police are dolts for not using discretion and allowing her to go about her day.

Shame she'll be arrested and end up with a record. And maybe lose her gun too.

I also see the parrallels with concealed/open carry. Weird. Makes me change my perspective.

 

[Eightball]

Quite probably one of the most awkward threads I've seen on THR.

 

[meytind]

Actually, in NYC, I believe it is completely legal for women to walk around topless because of the "equal protection under the law thing," I am assuming that more places actually have a law permitting topless women on the books than people think.

 

[Dannix]

IIRC from a social science class long ago, there was a "men and women are the same" bill that was in the making, before my time. If I'm not mistaken it was the men behind it, and the women against it -- apparently it was the obvious differences and resulting issues like maternity leave et al.

It brings up a more fundamental question though -- what do you base your morals on. What's to say a woman should wear a shirt. What's to say it's not moral for a thug to rape your daughter. Something you got to consider sometime or another.

 

[coloradokevin]

Personally, I think this video actually made one point in our favor:

The police were not worried about the woman open carrying her gun, rather they were worried about her openly exposing her breasts. As such, I think we can rejoice just a little bit as gun owners, now that we realize that owning a gun is apparently NOT the most offensive thing we can do in our society! Moroever, if you don't want to draw attention to yourself for carrying your gun openly, I suggest that you just get naked and then carry your gun openly... You may draw attention, but at least it won't be gun related

I agree with what someone else said earlier in this thread... This issue really seemed to be more 1st ammendment related than 2nd. Although it is slightly off-topic, I'll add that I personally feel that a woman should be able to expose their breasts if a man is allowed to do the same. I don't like to see a gender bias on these sorts of things, though I'll freely admit that there are plent of men and women who I'd just prefer to see FULLY clothed!

 

[jakemccoy]

Women should be required to cover up. Their tits are a vital part of their sexual organs, unlike men. A woman who walks around with her shirt off should be arrested. The analogy to open carrying is a bit out there. By the way, I'm heterosexual. I would not like to see the vast majority of women with their tops off. It wouldn't be like walking around the Playboy mansion, guys.

 

[jakemccoy]

The police were not worried about the woman open carrying her gun, rather they were worried about her openly exposing her breasts.

I doubt the cops were worried or offended about the topless woman. I bet they were thinking, "Cool, now this is the type of break from the norm that we need." Those cops were not going anywhere.

 

[General Geoff]

Women should be required to cover up. Their tits are a vital part of their sexual organs, unlike men. A woman who walks around with her shirt off should be arrested. The analogy to open carrying is a bit out there. By the way, I'm heterosexual. I would not like to see the vast majority of women with their tops off. It wouldn't be like walking around the Playboy mansion, guys.

Being topless or even nude would not really be much different than what women often walk around in nowadays anyway. And you're right, the majority of women are not models, and many of them would be considered unattractive to the point where them being nude in public would be an eyesore.

To this, I counter that it's the same with men, and Joe 6-rolls who weighs 400lbs does not have to wear a shirt, despite being an eyesore.

Frankly, as far as toplessness for women goes, I'm all for it. I would imagine that well-endowed ladies might find it uncomfortable, especially while jogging or doing other strenuous activity (the sports bra was invented for a reason). And keep in mind that most businesses already have a "no shoes, no shirt, no service" policy, which would not change.



As for the parallels between open carry and toplessness, the logic is roughly similar in the vein of personal liberty (it's not hurting anyone, therefore why should it be banned?). The difference in lawfulness extends back to antiquity and English common law as well as traditional christian values, which demonized the exposure of women in public. Keep in mind this was also back when women were considered little more than possessions of their fathers or husbands. I contend that it is a mere throwback from that period, which just never went away.

 

[Col. Plink]

Texas is STILL an "open carry" state where breasts are concerned. Woohoo!

That said, I understand the "I'd prefer not to be subjected to all shapes and sizes" argument; as anyone who's spent time on a French beach can attest, it's not necessarily about beauty but freedom. I say, unsling 'em and let the chips fall where they may.

 

[ArmedBear]

Women should be required to cover up. Their tits are a vital part of their sexual organs, unlike men. A woman who walks around with her shirt off should be arrested.

Cool.

Someone came along and proved leadcounsel's statement that there's no rational basis for the law.

It brings up a more fundamental question though -- what do you base your morals on. What's to say a woman should wear a shirt. What's to say it's not moral for a thug to rape your daughter. Something you got to consider sometime or another.

And once again.

If we let women walk around dressed just as a man would on a hot day at the park or beach, we'll have rampant rape, because nobody will know that forcing someone to have sex is wrong any more. Makes sense, really.

I don't want the government using handcuffs, guns and jails to enforce "morals." I want the government to punish those who initiate force, i.e. coerce or defraud people into doing something against their wills. A rapist OBVIOUSLY initiates force, and coerces someone to do something against her (or his) will.

The only force initiated in this case was when the police officer put handcuffs on the woman and drove her to the police station. She never forced anyone to do anything.

 

[DHJenkins]

Women should be required to cover up. Their tits are a vital part of their sexual organs, unlike men.

That's just ludicrous. If a woman with a double mastectomy can still have children, and there are plenty of women out there right now who do NOT breast feed their children, please explain how breasts are a 'vital part of their sexual organs'.

Sure, they may provide added sexual pleasure during intercourse (as can many other parts of the body), but they are not in any way involved in the actual reproductive process. They are considered 'sexual organs' by society, not by the medical community.