Wall Street Journal: Calls Open Carriers "Bozos"

[mp510]

Really? I think the record number of gun purchases over the past few years and the mass spreading of knowledge (and dispelling of misinformation) over the wonderful medium of the Internet, would prove otherwise.

The KKK began to (again) fade away before 1930 came along, and was blip on the radar when WWII started. When the civil rights movement gained steam, individuals who likely already had negative sentiments about black people donned robes and organized- using a form of terror that more or less had not existed since late 1800s. The same is why more people are loudly and openly opposed to homosexuality (and gay rigths) even though society is becoming increasingly accepting of homosexuals. Similarly, a bulk of gun buyers fall into one of 2 catagories:
1. Buying cause they fear Obama is going to take them (akin to donning robes in the '60s to prevent black people from ruinning traditional Southern social heirarchy, or, pushing for an anti-gay-marriage referendum that nobody would have thought of 5 years ago- because of overt displays of black and gay rights)
2. Individuals who are stocking deeper for one of several reasons, and individuals who grew up around guns and are coming of age to buy their own.

There are exceptions, but those 2 points reflect the bulk of purchasers. The internet simply gives a minority group (in this case OCers) a place to vocally communicate from a distance to other members of their minority group.

 

[shockwave]

I must confess that I have qualms about climbing aboard the OC Train. A while back, I had a friend who was living in Phoenix and he was open carrying and that made sense to me - out in the desert, wild west, big skies, open spaces. Wouldn't be a problem. But in a dense urban environment, packed into a subway car, etc., I can see that OC isn't appropriate for all times and all climes. For the big city, CCW seems more like the way to go.

Also, we gun owners have seen tremendous gains in the past decade. "Shall issue" is becoming commonplace, and reciprocal acknowledgement is making things much easier. Politicians of all parties have backed away from gun control, and Heller and the DC ruling show that we're gaining momentum. These are all Very Good Things.

And, it is only natural that some of us get caught up in all the excitement and want to press the advantage home, getting all up and in the faces of people who don't carry, trying to desensitize them, making 'em get all cozy and comfortable with firearms. Yet this does risk a backlash and it won't take much - just some hophead somewhere grabbing a gun out of somebody's holster or something and we could lose a lot of our hard-won gains.

While OC in a rural location is a no-brainer, we don't have CCW in places like Manhattan or Chicago or San Francisco or Los Angeles. It might be best to continue to press for CCW as national policy first, and then afterward see how far we want to extend OC. There is a perceptual blind spot people have such that they only envision OC being employed by upstanding members of the Chamber of Commerce, but how about having gang-bangers walking around carrying shotguns, Glocks in open holsters, etc. There's a kind of balance to these things and that's what we're negotiating.

 

[General Geoff]

The KKK began to (again) fade away before 1930 came along, and was blip on the radar when WWII started. When the civil rights movement gained steam, individuals who likely already had negative sentiments about black people donned robes and organized- using a form of terror that more or less had not existed since late 1800s. The same is why more people are loudly and openly opposed to homosexuality (and gay rigths) even though society is becoming increasingly accepting of homosexuals. Similarly, a bulk of gun buyers fall into one of 2 catagories:
1. Buying cause they fear Obama is going to take them (akin to donning robes in the '60s to prevent black people from ruinning traditional Southern social heirarchy, or, pushing for an anti-gay-marriage referendum that nobody would have thought of 5 years ago- because of overt displays of black and gay rights)
2. Individuals who are stocking deeper for one of several reasons, and individuals who grew up around guns and are coming of age to buy their own.

There are exceptions, but those 2 points reflect the bulk of purchasers. The internet simply gives a minority group (in this case OCers) a place to vocally communicate from a distance to other members of their minority group.

I'm repulsed by your comparison of the RKBA movement to the KKK.

That said, as shockwave has pointed out, official policy on carry (both open and concealed) has shifted in our favor tremendously over the past 15 years. The Supreme Court has finally put a lid on the coffin of expanded gun control, with the Heller decision. We need only drive the nails to finish the job. I'm honestly at a loss as to where you're coming from, with this idea that more and more people are against gun owners today than they were, say, 20 years ago. We hold both the moral and the logical high ground; education and understanding invariably favors gun owners. We are no longer fighting an uphill battle; we are indeed routing our enemies very swiftly right now, when you look at the grand scheme of things.

 

[Werewolf]

I must confess that I have qualms about climbing aboard the OC Train. A while back, I had a friend who was living in Phoenix and he was open carrying and that made sense to me - out in the desert, wild west, big skies, open spaces. Wouldn't be a problem. But in a dense urban environment, packed into a subway car, etc., I can see that OC isn't appropriate for all times and all climes...

If OC is OK for the cops then it is OK for the citizens who pay their salaries. Unless of course you are one of those who believe that the cops are an elite class of citizen. Is that what you believe?

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

I've noticed how these antigun guys always make it seem like we are prepared for war. Same firepower of a SWAT Team, being armed like at the OK Corral, blah blah blah. Its getting old.

 

[JR47]

This from a publication that purports to understand Wall Street. If people carrying guns openly are "bozos", then what should they call the bankers who ruined the economy?

 

[230therapy]

It's my right under my state's constitution.

 

[rfurtkamp]

It's funny, the column isn't far removed from most of the threads on OC I've seen here.

 

[sonick808]

ad hom, the indelible mark of the simple-minded bigot


as an aside, i consider this a part of the cumulative death rattle being given off by the sick and waning anti-gun movement

 

[TexasBill]

This from a publication that purports to understand Wall Street. If people carrying guns openly are "bozos", then what should they call the bankers who ruined the economy?

Convicts.

The gun control gang realize they have lost ground. In those few areas where they hold sway (California, Northern Illinois), their measures are becoming nearly pathological. Look at the legislation passed and being considered in California in the time Ahnold has been Governator. Chicago, the poster child for the failure of gun control now wants the National Guard to come in.

Let's be honest: Even though gay rights and civil rights are now fairly well established, I would imagine there are some members of this group who do not approve of one or the other (or both). But you still have to deal with it. The fact that Second Amendment rights are being supported more now than anytime in the past half-century or more is something the antis are going to have to deal with. Open carry to them is especially troubling because it's a statement that more Americans are carrying sidearms. Concealed weapons they can pretend don't exist, a holstered .45 in a real holster on a real gun belt is a slap in the face, no matter what the person carrying the gun intended for it to be.

If you want to carry concealed, don't disparage your fellow RKBA supporters by putting down their choice of carry. I am pretty hefty and IWB, even with a slim automatic, is nowhere near as comfortable as wearing a decent rig. Plus, I live in a hot and humid climate where jackets are only credible a few months out of the year.

As far as the potential for gun grabs goes, I have no problem with with a Blackhawk Serpa or Safariland holster other than the fact I don't want people to think I am a cop.

 

[ejfalvo]

I fully support the 2ndAmendment and own a numer of firearms. I also have a CCW allowing me to open carry if I decide - I choose to carry concealed> IMHO, as long as there are people who irrationally fear "people with guns, decked out like a SWAT team", I prefer to be much more lower key. My firearm is there, ready should I need it - thats enough for me.

 

[mp510]

I'm repulsed by your comparison of the RKBA movement to the KKK.

I'm not likening the OC movement to the KKK. I am simply demonstrating how two different movements (which were impacted similarly) were impacted by changing social dynamics in society. I am not saying the KKK and RKBA supporters are the same- just that they waxe and waned similarly,.

You are reading me a little too literally. You need to read the abstract meaning of what I write

 

[hso]

Many of the comments in the WSJ are pointing out that the if the article were against former civil rights demonstrations the author would be considered a racist or sexist or some other form of bigot. The very fact that the op/ed author missed the point that OC activists are using their right to free speech and assembly to confront prejudice and denial of 2A rights is indicative of her bigotry.

 

[lonegunman]

I've always felt open carry is more hassle than it is worth unless I'm on my property or some other wide open space. I've always felt that in town you are begging to get hit in the back of the head and robbed or shot first.

Unlike the PD, nobody is there to back you up, nobody is going to jump in to assist you and some needy person may mistake you for the PD and put you in a jam where you have ZERO authority to act.

So while you might have the right to carry openly and you enjoy doing it, it might not be the best idea in many situtations. CCW is fun because the suprise of a gun suddenly getting added to the fight where there was no gun before is to good to pass up.

This is just my opinion, not intended to upset people who are extreme in their desire to open carry and make a scene.

 

[Lastmohecken]

I wish I had a choice. I have a CCW, and my state only allows CCW, for the most part.

I don't really have a big disire to open carry with a big flashy gun, completely out in the open, but to completely carry always totally concealed, and have to worry about inadvertantly flashing the gun, if the wind blows your long tailed shirt open, a little too much, plus it's just plain unconfortable to always carry inside the waste band, or having to wear a coat or shirt hanging way done extra long and looking sloppy like a bum.

I like to carry a decent sized gun, in a strong side holster, but I don't like the dress code much, so what I call semi-open carry, attracts me, where you can carry a gun, more or less concealed but not have to be so dammed careful about always keeping it completely covered.

My preferred carry would allow the gun to hardly be noticed at all, but probably noticed by someone who was watching closely. It would just make it so much eaiser, IMHO.

 

[hirundo82]

People who open carry to "make a statement" are bozos.

So you shouldn't exercise your First and Second Amendment rights at the same time?

 

[22-rimfire]

I don't care much for the tone of the article. I am generally not interested in OC unless I'm out in the country or tramping around the woods where I feel concealed carry is way too much trouble in that environment. But I don't fault others that want to OC. It's their business and they aren't pinheads necessarily.

Most of us have done certain things to make a statement from time to time. It is just part of life's journey. I'll let others make their journey.

 

[THE DARK KNIGHT]

I mean what do you say to that? They simply do not get it. They won't. If you use rational discussion they will just make more crap up. They are losing. They have been losing for the last decade and they are mad and desperate because of it.

This guy said it best.

Here in NJ no one at all can get a CCW, we have "assault weapons" ban outright, no such thing as pre ban, one gun a month, full handgun registration, require a gun permit to buy ANY long gun, takes almost 3 months to get involves fingerprints, fees, references, every single handgun needs an individual permit, transport restrictions, no more CMP sales, everything.

And this week, Ceasefire NJ sent out a press release stating that we have gun rights extremists endangering the "safety" of NJ's "communities"

 

[Cosmoline]

I'm repulsed by your comparison of the RKBA movement to the KKK.

It's the same comparison none other than Michael Moore used to great effect in Bowling for Columbine. And it's just as big of a lie here. The poster's failed attempt to back track also mirror's Michael Moore's caveat that he wasn't *REALLY* trying to say the KKK had roots in the NRA.

THIS seems pretty clear to me:

(akin to donning robes in the '60s to prevent black people from ruinning traditional Southern social heirarchy, or, pushing for an anti-gay-marriage referendum that nobody would have thought of 5 years ago- because of overt displays of black and gay rights)

There has been a surge of purchases after the Democratic sweep, based on fears that the same regulations will hit this time that hit back in 1992. Thankfully they haven't. But to paint anyone worried about anti-gun legislation as a klansman fearing blacks and gays is insulting anti-gun bravo sierra. I find it extremely offensive.

The more people open carry in a law abiding manner, the more other people begin to get over their irrational fear of the sight of a firearm. The prospect that firearms may become normalized strikes deep, deep terror into the mainstream media, and they will continue to do what they can to demonize and marginalize the practice. Much as they have tried to do with concealed carry, "assault weapons," saturday night specials, and so on going back generations. The good news is the MSM is literally dying, with newspapers folding up faster than law chairs in a rain storm. The cable outfits fight over a shrinking pool, and FOX gets most of that audience. The influence of a WSJ editorial in 2010 is not what it was in 2000, let alone 1980. We're about the only ones paying any attention to this one, so it's particularly sad to see so many in our own ranks eager to attack people who open carry. One can accuse the post-Obama buyers of paranoia, but I think it's the anti-OC gun owners who are paranoid. They believe the powers that be will only let us keep firearms if we keep them hidden from view. But this is not the time to cower in fear. The wind is very much in our sails right now. This is the time to raise more canvas.

 

[TexasBill]

Some years ago, a couple of friends and I went to Arizona to visit a friend who had recently moved to Tucson. At that time, Texas still had the absolute prohibition on carrying a firearm it had enjoyed since 1871. While out in Tucson, and later, up in the Phoenix area, we were able to open carry legally. It was an incredible freedom.

Understand that, at that time, in Texas there was no unequivocal, you-can't-be-arrested-if-you-transport-it-in-this-fashion, method of carrying or transporting a firearm except in your own home or place of business. Yes, if the handgun was unloaded and locked in your trunk, chances were good the district attorney would decline the case or even that the officer's superiors would drop the charges, but it wasn't a prima facie defense against arrest.

Things have improved; now, if you can pass a background check that's tougher than that required to become a police officer and a waiting period that can legally be up to nine months, you can carry a concealed weapon provided it is so concealed, there is no way anyone can detect that it's there. There's even a stipulation that if you qualify with a revolver, you can only carry a revolver. You must qualify with an automatic pistol to be allowed the choice.

Oddly, enough, since the 2007 passage of HB1815, Texans are allowed to carry a concealed weapon while in their cars or going to and from their cars to their home, business or accommodations while traveling. No CHL required. No blood flowing in the streets yet; guess maybe it's not going to happen.

Texas is one of just a handful of states that prohibit open carrying of a handgun by anyone other than a law enforcement officer, corrections officer or certain other state employees and licensed security officers while on duty and in uniform (oddly enough, plainclothes security officers can't carry a firearm even if they have a CHL).

In reality, it is likely that a large number of Texans still carry guns without a CHL. Less than 2% of the state's residents have a CHL and the majority of Texans own guns. I have difficulty believing just 2% of Texans carry handguns. But I have no difficulty believing that UCA is the only law these people are violating.

It seems like we are so close to being finally able to open carry, perhaps even without a license. I am not a supporter of Gov. Rick Perry, but if he can be persuaded to push for adoption of the law that was just passed in Arizona, he's got my vote come November.

For those who are fond of reciting the line from Robert Heinlein's "Beyond This Horizon," it should be remembered that the armed and polite society carried its weapons openly. Read the book; it's a good tale. Heinlein was a firm believer in personal possession of weapons and individual rights and responsibilities.

 

[mp510]

There has been a surge of purchases after the Democratic sweep, based on fears that the same regulations will hit this time that hit back in 1992. Thankfully they haven't. But to paint anyone worried about anti-gun legislation as a klansman fearing blacks and gays is insulting anti-gun bravo sierra. I find it extremely offensive.

I never suggested that they were Klansman. Let me explain what I was trying to suggest, I think that my wording should have been more clear:

In the 50's and 60's, the Klan resurged because white southerners believed that their social heirarchy was going to be destroyed legislatively and judicially (which, it more or less was).

Similarly, when people became concerned that legislative road blocks would prevent them from buying guns (or types of guns), they stocked up guns and ammo.

The key that you can take out of both is that the reactionary behavior.

It's the same comparison none other than Michael Moore used to great effect in Bowling for Columbine. And it's just as big of a lie here. The poster's failed attempt to back track also mirror's Michael Moore's caveat that he wasn't *REALLY* trying to say the KKK had roots in the NRA.

THIS seems pretty clear to me:

The primary difference is that MIchael Moore's film more or less came out and connected the 2. I was describing yees and yaws in people's thinking, in a manner that was misinterpreted. I was showing that the sudden rise in vocal support for a traditional idea is (and in the past has been) evidence that the old idea was not supported by social norms anymore.

 

[woad_yurt]

Some of us get your comparison. In society, when something different wells up, it's often followed reaction from those who'd like it to stay the same. As the "something different" gains steam, the reactionary types get more energetic.

 

[Caliper_Mi]

Gun owners have been increasingly disfavored. Normalization works when a societey's underlying values are willing to accept it, even if a loud group opposes it.

The spread of shall-issue CCW laws says otherwise.

 

[mp510]

The spread of shall-issue CCW laws says otherwise.

I think it shows the exact opposite. While society recognizes guns value for personal protection, there is a social taboo about them. That is why society prefers that guns be concealed now, instead of worn in plain sight- where in the past, concealment would have been an indicitor of mal-intentions.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Here was my comment:

Nancy,

5 or 6 decades ago, you would likely be writing about black people standing up for their rights. 3 or 4 decades ago you would likely be writing about homosexuals and gay rights. But today you are writing about gun rights.

Let me ask you this. As a "journalist", what you do if the government required you to pay them to obtain a license to write/speak publicly? What would you do if the government told you that the only way you could write/speak publicly was if it was via a method and contents that was comfortable to everyone and no one was offended by what you said? What if you were told to shut up by the government and by law enforcement officers because there were people who didn't like what you had to say? In those circumstances, what would YOU do about YOUR First Amendment rights?

And then, let's say that you actually had any kind of courage at all to stand up for your First Amendment rights and speak out... I guess that would make you a bozo, wouldn't it? But, in that case, you would be in good company, because there have been a lot of bozos in America. A few that come to mind are George Washington and the founding fathers standing up and speaking against the British tyranny. Abraham Lincoln speaking out against slavery. Rosa Parks standing up and not going to the back of the bus. Martin Luther King standing up for civil rights. Thank God (yes, I said God!) that we have had bozos in the past who have stood up for their rights.

The Second Amendment is no different or less important than the First Amendment or any other in the Bill of Rights.

Very Respectfully,
Bozo the Clown


Oh heck, I should have put something in there about women's suffrage.

Fixed it:

Oh, I left a few bozos out, Nancy and to be fair I feel I must mention them:

Susan B. Anthony, Alice Stone Blackwell, Carrie Chapman Catt, Paulina Wright Davis, Julia Ward Howe, Sojourner Truth. All of them... bozos extraordinaire!