View Story | 653 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
If you're going to walk around empowered to shoot people on your own personal decision, then I believe it is my right to have the fact that you are carrying a gun and could use it be made very clear to me.
The 2nd Amendment doesn't say anything about the right to "be secretive" about the arms one is bearing.
by inclusiveheart on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 12:49:00 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
by Mike S on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 12:53:05 PM PDT
Anyone private citizen packing in full view of the public and law enforcement would be viewed immediately as a threat to public safety. In many parts of the country, that person would get one chance to drop the weapon before taking fire. And what sane peace officer would approach a gun-toting individual to ask for his/her permit to carry without first asking that person to drop their weapon?
Concealment (and so, concealment of the threat) is the only way a universal right to carry movement could be sustained. And yet, how is concealing the threat of millions of armed citizens in the public square a reasonable public safety position to take?
Show of hands... who would join Kucinich's effort to impeach VP Cheney?
by Mogolori on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 02:06:46 PM PDT
I am very afraid of guns and therefore unable to understand the inclination to carry them, but if individual citizens are going to be permitted to carry them around for their personal protection and I have to rely on their "good judgment" as to when and if they are used, I feel it is my right to know that they are armed. I know for instance that police are armed. I understand that they could use a deadly weapon at any moment and thus I do not generally hang around them if I can avoid it. I think it is a fair request to make that if someone wants to be armed, we would be allowed to assess that for our personal protection.
by inclusiveheart on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 02:52:35 PM PDT
a couple of decades ago, there was a robbery near Dayton, OH. the person apparently thought it wise to tape his gun to his hand. The cops surrounded the place, and finally talked him into giving himself up. When he came out with his hands over his head and the gun still taped to his hand, every single cop present fired his gun. If they see a gun, it's very likely that cops will shoot. So if they told you to put the gun down, they might well shoot when you took it out of its holster.
by unterhausen on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:37:25 PM PDT
I'm not a huge gun controller, but just as there are "anti-masking" laws that require a person participating in a public event not to conceal their face, it should also be the law that anyone carrying a gun should do so openly, for the same reasons.
A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves. ~Edward R. Murrow
by ActivistGuy on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 01:02:46 PM PDT
Unless they are with a well regulated State militia, like the Constitution limits that "right".
by civil society on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 01:12:25 PM PDT
I was wondering if anyone else had read the Bill of Rights besides me. We have no right to a gun. Only the militia does. Each state has extended the privilege to own a gun under the restrictions of there State Laws. There is NO right for an individual to own a gun. Just as there is no right to drive a car, only the privilege of having a driver's license.
*the blogger formerly known as shirlstars
by Shirl In Idaho on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 01:56:30 PM PDT
The language of the Amendment hardly parses itself, and I happen to believe that EVERY right in the Bill of Rights should be read for the maximum right of the citizen and the minimum power of government to restrict that right. Set the precedent of cutting and trimming on one right in the Bill and by the way legal reasoning works that means you also accept cutting and trimming of other rights. I'm not willing to open that door, it's for the same reason that Bush's "Unitary Executive" doctrine is so offensive & outrageous to me.
by ActivistGuy on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 02:00:37 PM PDT
Read and pay attention to the wording of the First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The operative words: Congress shall make no law. . . Pretty clear and without need to wonder what the intention was.
Now read the Second Amendment, written by the same persons that wrote the first:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Why didn't they say, "Congress shall make no law?"
Why did they begin it with a qualifier, "A well regulated Militia. . .?"
Are you or I a member of our state's "well regulated Militia? I know I am not.
Doesn't sound like the authors intended this to be a blanket. . .every citizen shall keep and bear arms or is a member of the well regulated militia to me.
Just my opinion. Yours apparently differs.
by Shirl In Idaho on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 02:30:34 PM PDT
here:
"There is no evidence in the text of the Second Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution, that the words 'the people' have a different connotation within the Second Amendment than when employed elsewhere in the Constitution."
Mariachi Mama Candidate Bickering Moratorium! Signatory to the Carnacki Petition
by kredwyn on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 02:39:52 PM PDT
But either way, they certainly didn't envision people running around with semi-automatic weapons. If people want a gun, great, but I really don't see how anyone reasonable can think we should be allowed to carry mass-murder weapons.
If so, then why stop there? The Bill Of Rights doesn't specify guns anyway...it says "arms"...might nuclear weapons be rightly considered arms? I want my fucking nukes. Nobody'll fuck with a guy carrying nukes...
by methodishca on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 02:59:00 PM PDT
shall not be infringed.
Sounds pretty clear to me...
-5.12, -5.23
We are men of action; lies do not become us.
by ER Doc on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 02:59:47 PM PDT
as to why there was a need to qualify the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" with the Militia statement then.
Not being snarky or argumentative, just curious.
by Shirl In Idaho on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 03:10:12 PM PDT
The Amendment contains an impersonal universal passive. Note that it is more sweeping then the First Amendment, not less so. The First merely restricts Federal laws. The Second, all laws.
A Militia may have been the impetus for the absolute* clause, but it provides no limiting factor whatsoever.
*Grammar: term for a phrase or clause not connected grammatically to the main clause.
So long as men die, Liberty will never perish. -- Charlie Chaplin, "The Great Dictator"
by khereva on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:24:47 PM PDT
to the DC Circuit.
John McCain - all aboard the lobbyist express!
by jrooth on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 02:21:08 PM PDT
The idea of defending oneself is fundemental to the concept of life itself.
How then can a government "of the people and for the people" deprive some of its members access to the tools needed for defense? There's the rub.
Before guns were common, swords were the trump card in the personal defense department. Sword ownership was restricted to the nobility and the elite. This 'right to bear arms' stuff didn't start with guns.
So long as mankind is in its current imperfect state a true democratic government will not absolutely deny its citizens some form of gun ownership. For reasons why an armed citizenry is a good hedge against unacceptable governmental behavior, see 'Iraq'.
Psst! Don't panic
by Quicklund on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 02:51:26 PM PDT
For reasons why an armed citizenry is a good hedge against unacceptable governmental behavior, see 'Iraq'.
Just about every citizen in Iraq is armed to the teeth and Baghdad is now a bloodbath.
You think you're safer there because of all the weapons all the different factions own for protection?
I don't think I could come up with a worse example for why we need to own guns if I tried.
by DelicateMonster on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 05:55:59 PM PDT
Like it or not, Iraqi guns are currently encouraging an occupying foreign army to depart.
Before this army arrived, they were partially successful in encouraging the local despot to leave the Kurdish minority somewhat alone.
I can't think of a better example of how detached from the grim realities of life is the American experience.
But then again. We could take your advice that no President would ever come along to subvert the Constitution, install corrupt cronies in power, pack the judicial system with religious zealots, transfor the Executive Branch into a quasi-monarchy, and conspire with party members in Congress and teh Supreme Court to rig America's very electoral system.
You're right. We can just trust our leaders. The 1% that owns a third of the nation will always have our best interests at heart, especially after they own all the guns too. After all, this is America. And It Can't Happen Here.
by Quicklund on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 11:16:42 PM PDT
respect for democracy is the best thing....
"It's a race to decide who the British goverment will follow blindly for the next 4 years" Kennedy/Kerry '08
by Salo on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 06:32:40 PM PDT
Here's a punch line.
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776. The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United[10] States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United[10] States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
by Quicklund on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 11:22:23 PM PDT
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Now the well regulated part is debateable.
"No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government. Always hopeful yet discontent, he knows changes aren't permanent. But change is." -Neil Peart
by Boisepoet on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 02:01:02 PM PDT
would pass the "well-regulated" test...I know the NRA is worried that limiting guns AT ALL would be a slippery slope to abolishing all rights to own any guns, but I just don't believe it. Can anyone legitimately argue that more lives are saved by people owning guns than would be saved by making possession of an semi-automatic weapon punishable by say...I don't know...life in prison and seizure of assets?
by methodishca on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 03:05:34 PM PDT
it's "well regulated militia." And my 6th great grandfather was part of one of those militias yer talking about. Indeed, he was a sniper in Morgan's rifles when not being well...my great grandmother claimed that when he wasn't part of the militia...fighting in the AR, he was a horse thief.
But since she's a few generations younger, I'm not sure if she wasn't just being snarky.
Have you read the opinion on the Emerson case? It's got some interesting stuff on the rights of the individual not being any different in the 2nd Amendment than it is in any of the other amendments.
by kredwyn on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 02:01:15 PM PDT
Thanks for the link.
by Boisepoet on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 02:15:07 PM PDT
by alba on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 02:46:36 PM PDT
and when there was an appeal to the Supremes, SCOTUS rejected the appeal. Until SCOTUS takes it up, the 5th is the final say on that particular case.
by kredwyn on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 03:01:15 PM PDT
by alba on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 10:07:04 PM PDT
Note the 'until' at the beginning of the sentence:
Until SCOTUS takes it up, the 5th is the final say on that particular case.
by kredwyn on Tue Apr 17, 2007 at 06:58:37 AM PDT
when I was 16, a state trooper taught the class one day of the course and besides showing the slides of wrecks, spent a couple of hours explaining what to do if you're stopped with a gun in your car. He explained that in NC you can carry a pistol in a holster anywhere except a bank or a convenience store (a recent innovation at the time).
He instructed us to always carry a towel or a newspaper in the car to cover the pistol on the car seat when we used one of these businesses, to reduce the chance it will be stolen. There was no registration requirement but they would record the serial number if you asked them to, to aid in recovery if it was stolen.
Concealed carry permits were pretty much restricted to law enforcement related people (bail bondsmen, tow truck drivers, business owners who carried cash in urban areas (vending machine etc...)by convention rather than law and the local sheriff had to approve any permits.
But the rest of us could carry a 45 in a quick draw western holster if we wished.
And I did occasionally when I supervised a chain of convenience stores later on.
But in college, the thought never crossed my mind even though occasionally black bears were seen crossing the Western NC campus.
Times have changed in both NC and VA but I don't think locals in both states have the ingrained terror of guns that seems to be rampant among urban Dems and Repubs.
The biggest threat to America is not communism, it's moving America toward a fascist theocracy... -- Frank Zappa
by NCrefugee on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 01:19:50 PM PDT
I agree with your point.
seriously, if you want guns to deter crime then it makes more sense to show you're carrying.
I don't actually understand the whole concealed gun thing...
Livin on the road my friend, is gonna keep you free and clean Now you wear your skin like iron Your breath as hard as kerosene You weren't your momma's only boy, but her favorite one it seems She began to cry when you said goodbye And sank into your dreams Pancho was a bandit boy, his horse was fast as polished steel He wore his gun outside his pants For all the honest world to feel Pancho met his match you know on the deserts down in Mexico Nobody heard his dyin words, ah but that's the way it goes
by pitbullEmily on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 01:52:10 PM PDT
. . . who carried a (fully licensed and permitted) concealed gun.
He was an older gentleman, who ran a downtown lunch counter located in the back of a gem and jewelry mall. The folks who ran the stalls were happy that he was there. He claimed it was because of the gun, but I think it was also because he gave free lunches to policemen, which seriously upped the amount of "patrols" they got.
Carrying the gun concealed made sense in this case - I think it might have put off some of the customers to see that the guy making their sandwich had a gun on him. . .
"Have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be useful or believe to be beautiful." -William Morris
by Robespierrette on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 02:14:17 PM PDT
and the late Townes van Zandt. I play that song at least once a week, and I'm not a professional musician...
"red hair and black leather, my favorite colour scheme" - Richard Thompson
by blindcynic on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 02:17:08 PM PDT
"The president was writing checks to the Georgians without knowing what he had in the bank," said a senior administration official.
by perro amarillo on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 03:04:53 PM PDT
got ugly. There were soon biker gangs riding the roads with shotguns strapped across their backs. The legislature was called into emergency session and quickly changed the law to require concealed carry.
by perro amarillo on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 03:03:32 PM PDT
the weapons that other people are carrying, doesn't mean that it is the right thing to do. It should scare people when they see gangs of people running around in their neighborhoods with guns. They might as well get used to the fact that every second person they pass at the grocery store is packing a semi automatic pistol that can blow them to bits in a matter of seconds.
by inclusiveheart on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 07:11:21 PM PDT
Unconcealed it makes some people nervous. I carry openly on hiking trails here, but conceal at campgrounds and trailheads where more people are. They are there to enjoy just like me and don't need to be worrying about anything just because I have a sidearm.
by Boisepoet on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 01:52:50 PM PDT
Isn't that the point of the "deterrance" argument for gun ownership? That your gun will make someone less likely to commit a crime? So if these right-wingers actually meant what they say, they'd oppose concealed carry and demand open display.
by ActivistGuy on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 01:57:00 PM PDT
wild animals, I'm sensitive to the nervousness of the out of state visitors who might fear for their children, so I like the concealed part. I understand both sides of the coin.
by Boisepoet on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 02:06:01 PM PDT
you are carrying one, I will steer clear of you. But that is my right and that is for my personal protection - each of us has our own meathod of survival - mine happens to be to avoid conflict where and when it is possible.
I don't know if this analogy will make any sense at all, but I sail and I have crewed on a number of boats over my lifetime. I am very careful about what kind of person the captain is because I am putting my life in his or her hands when I sail with them. I view the person in the room with the gun as having similar power over a situation. I want to be able to know that someone has staked out that territory and have the opportunity to assess for myself who they are and if I am comfortable with their clear upper hand in a situation.
by inclusiveheart on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 02:57:54 PM PDT
I respect that which is why I conceal when in the 'populated' areas (and am permitted to do so). I'm sure Mr and Mrs Jones and their kids don't need to be worrying about the stranger in the parking lot with a pistol on his belt. But I like to have one with me just in case a big cat comes after my boys or me.
by Boisepoet on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 03:08:27 PM PDT
I understand the need for weapons if people are hunting or out where there may be threats from animals, but I don't go to a classroom or a bar or the grocery store with the expectation that a big cat might jump out and attack me.
by inclusiveheart on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 03:22:37 PM PDT
But I sure enjoying hitting center mass on a target at the range, and knowing how to use the weapon just in case there ever was need.
by Boisepoet on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 04:24:39 PM PDT
but strangely, the law is the other way around here in Florida: even people with a concealed carry permit cannot openly carry a weapon in public.
Very strange.
by jrooth on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 02:17:30 PM PDT
by perro amarillo on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 03:07:39 PM PDT
Hypocrisy is so battered and wellworn it barely makes an impact anymore. BTW "god" is a strawman.
by MzAnnThrope on Mon Apr 16, 2007 at 03:28:11 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 653 comments