Skip to main content

View Diary: Colorado town officials prepare to quit en masse after council votes for guns in hearings (291 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So, the core of this belief is... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Kasoru, FrankRose
    When someone's idea of "freedom" interferes with a peaceful public square - there is a problem.
    Explain it to me. How exactly is this not the very definition of bigotry when no crime is being committed and the only interference is in the minds of observers? Remember, we are not talking about anyone violating the law here. If they are open carrying and open carry is illegal, then yeah, they're breaking the law. If they are threatening or overtly intimidating someone, likewise.

    Officer, that scary nigger, spic, kike, raghead, faggot, gun nut is interfering with my enjoyment of this public place by their offensive and intimidating presence. Please have them removed at once.

    •  Open carry supporters are ignoring people. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coquiero

      Many people feel bullied at the site of a gun. Many people feel threatened at the site of a gun. The planning commission in Castle Rock does not want to have heated exchanges with armed people for obvious reasons.

      I'm not calling you a gun nut. You are making that up out of whole cloth. The gun is the issue - not the person. Guns are not people, my friend.

      Calling me bigoted is similar to "shall not infringe" line - it's meant to shut down debate.

      I am happy to debate open carry on the merit, but please don't hide behind charges of bigotry.

      "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

      by We Shall Overcome on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 09:20:33 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I fail to see your point (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Kasoru, FrankRose

        Just because "many people" feel threatened at the sight of a homosexual african-american gun owner does not seem to be any rational basis for restricting their presence. Just because a bigot says "blacks as a group commit more violent crimes than whites" does not justify singling out blacks in public as a specially restricted group (aka "stop & frisk").

        If someone crosses the street or reflexively locks their car doors when they see a black man coming towards them, you would probably think that person was overreacting and possibly harbors some sort of irrational bias.

        But apparently someone who does the same thing upon seeing a gun owner is being objective and rational? Does not compute.

        Guns are not the issue. Guns are never the issue. Guns don't do anything unless a person is there to do something with it. So, feeling threatened by me because I have a gun is feeling threatened by me because of who I am as a person. I regularly carry a knife. I carry it for utility purposes, but it is long and sharp enough to kill a person. Upon seeing the sheath for my folding knife openly carried on my belt, would you feel the same unease, knowing that many people are stabbed to death by total strangers each year? Probably not.

        You as a liberal either assume trust as a default position, or you do not.

        So, if you want to shut down any accusations or implications of bigotry and engage in rational debate of this important subject, then simply state that your feelings about risk in public and the restrictions on individual conduct that you think should be applied are consistent with the level of risk. In which case your opinion on public carry will be the same as your opinion for everything with that approximate level of risk and we can take the discussion from there.

        Seems easy enough.

        •  Well, that's one way to think of it. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coquiero

          And again - you keep changing the subject. We started out on open carry, then you moved the goalposts to "gun nut" and now you again move the goal posts to "gun owner".

          Not all gun owners open carry nor want to.

          I don't have a problem with gun owners. I have a problem with OC, as do a lot of gun owners, themselves.

          "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

          by We Shall Overcome on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 11:42:34 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I've noticed that when push comes to shove (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FrankRose, Kasoru

            few if any gun control advocates want to be put on the spot when it comes to declaring they have ethical consistency and a rational assessment of risk. Twice in this subthread people have been challenged to do so and absolutely refused to do so.

            There could be any number of reasons for this, but the most likely is that they would not be able to hold their current gun control views if they did. Which says a lot about them, or in this case, you.

            It is hard to have a rational debate when the other party outright refuses to state that their position is rational.

            •  That's a rather vague comment - not sure what (0+ / 0-)

              you are getting at.

              I would venture that a large % of gun owners are against OC - do these people also lack ethical consistency?

              "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

              by We Shall Overcome on Thu Jan 23, 2014 at 01:41:31 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site