OPEN CARRY Front pages of LA Times

[nplant]

I had the same thought, Nate C. We'll have to wait and see what they print. I tried like mad to keep it brief.

 

[LAK]

This article, while at a glance seemingly unbiased, is riddled with prejudicial bits and pieces.

Those who wear their guns in full sight are part of a fledgling movement to make a firearm a common accessory.

Here anyone who openly carries a fiream is pigeonholed. You are now "one of those guys [gals]".

Then one evening he stumbled across a site that urged gun owners to do something revolutionary: Carry your gun openly for the world to see as you go about your business.

As if it is something "new" in modern America.

But he and others who publicly display their guns have a common purpose.

The Jensens are part of a fledgling movement to make a firearm as common an accessory as an iPod. Called "open carry" by its supporters, the movement has attracted grandparents, graduate students and lifelong gun enthusiasts like the Jensens.

Ah yes, a "movement". And there is that pigeonhole again.

Police Chief John Greiner recalled that last year in Ogden, Utah, a man was openly carrying a shotgun on the street. When officers pulled up to ask him about the gun, he started firing. Police killed the man.

Nothing new, and if it had been a pistol under his shirt, he could have done the same thing. Millions of shotguns and rifles have been and are carried all over the country when going hunting, and it is quite legal to carry one around "openly" in states like Texas hunting or not. So in cold analytical terms this amounts to a "so what".

There is no reason to question someone based on the sole premise that "they have a gun". Otherwise, why not question everybody on the street and ask them, "Do you have a gun?".

Greiner tells the story as a lesson for gun owners. "We've changed over the last 200 years from the days of the wild, wild West," Greiner said. "Most people don't openly carry. . . . If [people] truly want to open carry, they ought to expect they'll be challenged more until people become comfortable with it."

"We"? Who is "we"? Rather media has changed peoples' perceptions. The fact is, the "wild west" was not as wild as people have been led to believe. Greiner is capitalizing on a propaganda myth.

Its website, run by two Virginia gun enthusiasts, claims 4,000 members nationwide. It summarizes the varying laws in each state that permit or forbid the practice. People everywhere have the right to prohibit weapons from their property, and firearms are often banned in government buildings such as courthouses.

The "movement" again - and nationally speaking gives the impression that this is an extreme minority of the population. I was carrying openly in Fairbanks, as people have in other parts of the lower 48 for decades, and never heard of opencarry.org or any "movement".

Summary. Don't misunderstand me, people like opencarry.org etc do good work, and the more exposure there is, the greater desensitization in areas where it is indeed not commonly practiced even though it is very legal and a very sensible practice. I am merely pointing out that the article is not without purpose contrary to what it superficially appears to be.

------------------------------------

http://searchronpaul.com
http://ussliberty.org/oldindex.html
http://www.gtr5.com
http://ssunitedstates.org

 

[nplant]

Well, they printed my comments pretty close to how I had written them (except they removed all references to the author), but then they printed two anti-liberty opinions as well. I guess we can't expect a whole lot, can we?

In case anyone's interested in reading the opinions, they are near the bottom of this page. Look for "Happy to bear arms."

 

[scrat]

plant great job

 

[brighamr]

Awesome article, I still think someone poisoned the dns entries for latimes.com though