OPEN CARRY

[Guest Caveman]

No, in fact, it was not, "just an analogy used in a simple conversation." I have seen the same analogy used...ne, parroted...elsewhere in an attempt to draw such comparisons. Basically, from what I have seen, this has, for some, become a standard, canned argument for use in the firearms rights debate - and it does not work.

I am not playing the 'race card'. Quite the opposite, in fact. The way I see it, folks who attempt to equate limitations on firearms carry rights with racial discrimination are attempting, in an awkward and convoluted manner, to seek out a way in which the 'race card' can be used to their advantage. Also, I am not tiptoeing around anyone nor am I placating anyone. Instead, I am voicing the opinion that using this analogy belittles the struggle of certain racial groups in this country to move from being slaves to the point that they enjoyed the same civil rights as everyone else. I am also saying that, were I a member of said racial group, I just might be offended to see that struggle belittled and used as a 'card' to play in a totally different circumstance.

Further, if you had bothered to pay attention, you would see that I was not using Stalin or Hitler in any way in my argument. Instead, as should be perfectly clear and should require no explanation, I was saying that the use of the 'firearms owners are discriminated against just like Rosa Parks' argument is as ridiculous as some folks' insistance on comparing every, little thing that Obama does to Stalin and Hitler.

Perhaps it would have been more reasonable to ask for such clarification rather than simply attacking me and what you view as my personal motiviations? But, hey, just keep on flying off the handle in such a manner. I'm sure it will make you a wonderful representative for people who wish to advance the cause of firearms ownership rights. You can keep that chill pill for yourself as it sounds as though you need it far worse than I.

Whatever you need to tell yourself to feel better is fine with me.

[Guest Jamie]

[Edited To Add: And Jamie beat me to it. Curse my long-windedness.]

You do tend to go on...

That's okay though, since others here seem to have the same difficulty.

J.

[bockey]

how you gonna sneak attack with all that attention?

I agree

[JAB]

So JAB... you don't think all rights are equal, and should be fought for equally?

I'm not trying to be funny or sarcastic here, I simply want to know where you draw the line, and why.

J.

The short answer is that I am not drawing a line between rights and saying that one right is more important than another. Instead, I am saying that these two, specific situations are not analagous and that attempts to present them as being so are awkward, at best, and harmful to our cause, at worst.

To explain in more detail:

Yes, all rights are equal. Make no mistake that I view my right to own firearms as being every bit as important as my right to sit wherever the heck I please if using public transportation (perhaps even more so as the former can be the last line of defense against violation of the latter.) Further, I am not even talking about fighting for rights or not. The cause of private firearms ownership and firearm carry for self defense is just. I am simply saying that the disparate situations used in that specific analogy are not comparable.

If someone told me, "You're a white man and we don't like white men because people like you have been responsible for a lot of bad things in this world. You can't have a handgun carry permit," or said, "Your accent makes you sound like a hick. We don't want people like you carrying handguns so your permit is denied," then that would be discrimination. However, someone saying, "No private citizen can carry a handgun," is not discrimination. Even saying, "No private citizen can own a firearm," and fully enforcing such a regulation is not discrimination. It is certainly a violation of rights but not every violation of rights is clearly discrimination. In this case, such would not be discrimination because all citizens are [at least in a legal sense] treated equally. Such law does not create a 'better class' of private citizen. Should we fight against such a law? Of course - but it would not be a discriminatory law.

Even the current (ignorant and totally illogical) law prohibiting private citizens - even those with an HCP - from legally carrying in restaurants where alchohol is served is not discriminatory as it applies equally to all private citizens as no private citizen can legally carry there. Yes, common sense tells us that criminals will still carry where they want but that is in violation of the law, not an exception to the law. Therefore, while nonsensical and illogical, the law is not discriminatory. It needs to go away for other reasons but none of them have anything to do with discrimination.

In the case of Rosa Parks and the related civil rights struggle, discrimination was a large - even the main - component. Laws that required certain racial groups to sit at the back of the bus, not eat in certain restaurants, not drink from certain public drinking fountains and even attempt to make it difficult or impossible for certain individuals to vote while allowing other private citizens to do all of those things, unhindered create a 'second class' of citizen. Laws that allow no one to engage in certain actions or conduct do not. As discrimination and being relegated to 'second class' citizenship were so much a part of the struggle for civil rights - and as laws which treat or even opress everyone equally, such as across-the-board firearms laws for private citizens do not create such status - the attempt to draw an analogy between the two is misguided, IMO.

I was certainly not saying that there is no justification in fighting for the rights of private citizens - our rights - to own firearms or even to be best equipped for self defense when in public. I am saying that, in the attempt to do so, we should avoid attempting to drive square peg arguments into round hole debates.

Believe me, we are on the same side. I guess you could say that my objection has more to do with the tactics used than whether or not the battle should be fought.

[Guest jackdm3]

Yeah, that's a really short answer.

[Guest Caveman]

Yeah, that's a really short answer.

[JAB]

Given those simple statements, how is discriminating against one right any different than discriminating against another right?

And therein lies the rub. Discriminating means not recognizing rights and priveledges equally. As a law that applies to all private citizens applies equally, there is no discrimination. Violation, perhaps, or even oppression but not discrimination.

This does not mean that those rights aren't worthy of fighting for in the interests of everyone. It simply means that the situation does not qualify as discrimination.

[As Linoge requests, I will PM this explanation to him.]

[JAB]

Yeah, that's a really short answer.

Um...you might have noticed a distinction, there, as in

The short answer is that I am not drawing a line between rights and saying that one right is more important than another. Instead, I am saying that these two, specific situations are not analagous and that attempts to present them as being so are awkward, at best, and harmful to our cause, at worst.

To explain in more detail:

and so on

[Guest Jamie]

I guess you could say that my objection has more to do with the tactics used than whether or not the battle should be fought.

So in other words, you've done all this typing here on this thread not to voice an opinion on Open Carry, or to attack or defend it... or even to discuss it... but to attack the way others have discussed/argued it, and the example or analogies that they've used in doing so?

Have I got that about right?

Because if I have, I'm not quite sure what to make of it...

J.

[Guest Caveman]

So in other words, you've done all this typing here on this thread not to voice an opinion on Open Carry, or to attack or defend it... or even to discuss it... but to attack the way others have discussed/argued it, and the example or analogies that they've used in doing so?

Have I got that about right?

Because if I have, I'm not quite sure what to make of it...

J.

THANK YOU! + 1000

[JAB]

So in other words, you've done all this typing here on this thread not to voice an opinion on Open Carry, or to attack or defend it... or even to discuss it... but to attack the way others have discussed/argued it, and the example or analogies that they've used in doing so?

Have I got that about right?

Because if I have, I'm not quite sure what to make of it...

J.

I did not bring up the analogy. I simply responded to more than one post using said analogy. Does trying to have a discussion regarding the tactics we use to defend our rights constitute an attack? If so, then I guess I am guilty.

OC if you want. Heck, use erroneous analogies if you want - obviously no one needs my permission nor would I want them to.

I do believe that there is a time and place for OC and not all times and places are appropriate. I further believe that widespread OC might lead to more places posting 'legally worded' signs prohibiting us from carrying, period. Finally, I see no advantage to putting all your cards on the table, so to speak, and letting a possible assailant know they should just go ahead and shoot you rather than risk armed response. I OC at home, around the yard and even if I need to cross the road to get the mail. If I OC in public it is usually because I am only going to be out of my vehicle briefly and don't want to fool with putting my cover garment on (yep, admitted laziness, for the most part.) Otherwise, I am at least wearing a cover garment. That is how I do it and I don't presume to tell others how they should carry.

I am glad for the option of OC, both for the times I am too lazy to put on a cover garment and for those times when there is incidental exposure of my firearm. I'm glad we aren't a CC only state. I further believe that OC, at the very least, should be legal for anyone who can legally purchase or possess a handgun, no permit required. If this were the case, there is a chance that I would simply OC and not fool with a permit.

Edited February 3, 2010 by JAB

[Guest Jamie]

I did not bring up the analogy. I simply responded to more than one post using said analogy. Does trying to have a discussion regarding the tactics we use to defend our rights constitute an attack? If so, then I guess I am guilty.

If you don't think the analogy or example fits, the least you can do is offer up one you think does. Personally, I can see a great number of parallels between gun owners'/carriers' fight, and the fight several different minorities have had over the years.

I can also see where the comparison is not quite so strongly rooted in fear, ignorance, and outright laziness, as is the case with many arguments against O.C.

OC if you want. Heck, use erroneous analogies if you want - obviously no one needs my permission nor would I want them to.

I do believe that there is a time and place for OC and not all times and places are appropriate. I further believe that widespread OC might lead to more places posting 'legally worded' signs prohibiting us from carrying, period. Finally, I see no advantage to putting all your cards on the table, so to speak, and letting a possible assailant know they should just go ahead and shoot you rather than risk armed response. I OC at home, around the yard and even if I need to cross the road to get the mail. If I OC in public it is usually because I am only going to be out of my vehicle briefly and don't want to fool with putting my cover garment on (yep, admitted laziness, for the most part.) Otherwise, I am at least wearing a cover garment. That is how I do it and I don't presume to tell others how they should carry.

I am glad for the option of OC, both for the times I am too lazy to put on a cover garment and for those times when there is incidental exposure of my firearm. I'm glad we aren't a CC only state. I further believe that OC, at the very least, should be legal for anyone who can legally purchase or possess a handgun, no permit required. If this were the case, there is a chance that I would simply OC and not fool with a permit.

Now this part I can fully get behind. You've offered an opinion, and your reasoning behind it... And that gives us something to talk about, rather than just butting head for no real reason at all.

And speaking of that, what's your opinion on more people OCing possibly desensitizing the public to seeing a gun on a civilian's hip? You think there's a chance of that happening, rather than it causing the laws to be clamped down harder on gun owners?

Oh, yeah... and you mentioned OC getting you shot first... In that regard, do you figure OC is any worse than wearing a "shoot me first" vest, "Manpurse", fannypack, or some other item of clothing that's usually associated with a person carrying a gun? I can't really see the difference, myself.

Crap... y'all's "wordiness" seems to be rubbing off on me...

J.

[Guest jackdm3]

Why do I keep checking this thread? I never read long posts and that's all there seems to be now. Keep it concise. Some of us have families!

[Guest Jamie]

Why do I keep checking this thread? I never read long posts and that's all there seems to be now. Keep it concise. Some of us have families!

Doing the best I can here... ;)

J.

[Chucktshoes]

This thread has definitely has a metric buttload of posts that qualify as TLDR.

[Guest jackdm3]

Jamie, I know you're good for that, but the others aren't.

[Guest Jamie]

TLDR?

Oh, and Jack... there's always the three word thread, if you really want short posts.

J.

[Guest jackdm3]

No patience for that one either.

[Guest jackdm3]

TDLR doesn't show up on my explainer.

The Largest List of Text Message Shorthand (IM, SMS) and Internet Acronyms Found of the Web - kept current and up-to-date by NetLingo The Internet Dictionary: Online Dictionary of Computer and Internet Terms, Acronyms, Text Messaging, Smileys ;-)

[JAB]

If you don't think the analogy or example fits, the least you can do is offer up one you think does. Personally, I can see a great number of parallels between gun owners'/carriers' fight, and the fight several different minorities have had over the years.

I will have to think on that one.

And speaking of that, what's your opinion on more people OCing possibly desensitizing the public to seeing a gun on a civilian's hip? You think there's a chance of that happening, rather than it causing the laws to be clamped down harder on gun owners?

As long as people who choose to carry guns are presented as being somehow on the 'fringe' by the news media and popular entertainment (let's face it - in movies even the good guys who carry guns but aren't cops or military are presented as being somehow 'out there' or even vigilantes) then I don't think the attitude of the general public will change all that much. In such circumstance, I believe that more people OC'ing would simply serve to make many, average citizens say, "Wow, I never knew there were so many people walking around with guns. Maybe we do need more restrictions." A polite, responsible OC'er might be able to positively influence the opinions of those with whom he or she has direct contact but, because some people will never have the benefit of a conversation with said individual and will simply see, "some guy walking around with a gun like he thinks he's Jesse James," I believe that increased OC would do more harm than good.

Oh, yeah... and you mentioned OC getting you shot first... In that regard, do you figure OC is any worse than wearing a "shoot me first" vest, "Manpurse", fannypack, or some other item of clothing that's usually associated with a person carrying a gun? I can't really see the difference, myself.

J.

That is a good question. It would kind of depend on whether or not your average, petty thief is as aware of the various concealment options as are those of us who explore those options. My own feeling - nothing more than a hunch - is that they are not. Professional criminals probably are and I think that a 'tactical vest' or even a 'photographer's vest' might arouse suspicion with anyone but I'm just not all that convinced that your average thug sees a fanny pack and thinks, "Gun." More likely, he thinks, "What a geek!" or even, "Hey, a tourist," neither of which would necessarily be a good thing as they could make one a more likely target. A 'manpurse' probably has a similar effect. Laptop bags and messenger bags, however, have become nearly as ubiquitous as were fanny packs in the 1990s.

Personally, the only 'outer wear' vest I have is a zip-up fleece one like I see worn by many guys in this area and that I don't believe indicate, "Gun." I sometimes carry in a fanny pack at home when wearing sleep pants, etc. but never in public. Otherwise, I carry my firearms on my person when I am walking around, even at home. I don't like off-body carry. I'd hate to have my 'manpurse' snatched and give the thief a nice 'bonus' firearm. I use everyday shirts and jackets for cover garments because, regardless of whether or not they scream, "Gun," I think those tactical vests, etc. simply draw too much attention to the wearer.

Sorry if my posts seem, "Wordy." Just trying to make sure I get my whole point across.

Edited February 3, 2010 by JAB

[Guest db99wj]

TLDR: Too long; Didn't Read

[Guest 270win]

The main problem I have with openly carrying a handgun in Tennessee is the fact that a permit/license does not cover you everywhere, like in some states. You can technically be arrested over a 'proper' sign at the county clerk when you get your license plate, charged with a weapons offense if a pizza place happens to sell beer, or possibly get a felony conviction for carrying at a 'school event' whether it is at McDonald's or University of Tennessee in Knoxville. It is unacceptable that after paying money and getting the card that shows to the law that I'm clean that I can still be treated like a common criminal. To avoid these problems, I prefer to conceal my handgun in this state....i look at it as kind of like the 5th Amendment.

About the only time I openly carry is going to and from the range, hunting, outdoor type stuff where I know I'm totally legal. Day to day I conceal it and avoid the worry of looking for signs and liquor at hole in the wall restaurants and the police being called.

I have no problem with folks openly carrying. It is just not for me until this state's legislature seriously changes some laws for those with permits and treats us more like the good guys instead of we're good at Wal Mart but a crazy felon at a 'school function'.

[Currently]

The main problem I have with openly carrying a handgun in Tennessee is the fact that a permit/license does not cover you everywhere, like in some states. You can technically be arrested over a 'proper' sign at the county clerk when you get your license plate, charged with a weapons offense if a pizza place happens to sell beer, or possibly get a felony conviction for carrying at a 'school event' whether it is at McDonald's or University of Tennessee in Knoxville. It is unacceptable that after paying money and getting the card that shows to the law that I'm clean that I can still be treated like a common criminal. To avoid these problems, I prefer to conceal my handgun in this state....i look at it as kind of like the 5th Amendment.

About the only time I openly carry is going to and from the range, hunting, outdoor type stuff where I know I'm totally legal. Day to day I conceal it and avoid the worry of looking for signs and liquor at hole in the wall restaurants and the police being called.

I have no problem with folks openly carrying. It is just not for me until this state's legislature seriously changes some laws for those with permits and treats us more like the good guys instead of we're good at Wal Mart but a crazy felon at a 'school function'.

A most excellent point! As for the ability to disagree with those that just see black and white, the longer I am here, the more shades of gray I see.

There is a time and place for everything.

The law says I can OC, yet the law has a long list of places where I can't carry. I remember once watching this clown ride up on a motorcycle dressed in cammies, getting off and strutting all over the place. I quietly went up to him and told him that one side of the road is national park territory and the other side was TVA property. Both ban possession on their property. He loudly proclaimed he had the right to OC and no one was going to stop him. Then he steps on a stone wall and takes his finger like a pistol and aims at those orange balls that are on power lines.

I shook my head and walked away. <shrug> Both are federal raps.

I walk into a bank and see an armed guard, don't even give it a second glance.

Walk into a gunshop and see employees OC and CC, don't give it a second glance.

Walk into a pawnshop ... the kind where there are bars in the windows and you don't go there at night. Don't give it a second glance.

What I am saying if I strap on and OC to a wedding, public function, a non-posted park or any other place where one stands out like a sore thumb ... look in the mirror and ask yourself just why are you doing it?

Cause the law says you can?

CC in any of those places and no one gives you a second glance.

There is a time and a place for everything.

Common sense is anything but common.

Some people just have this NEED to be right. Or noticed!

Edited February 3, 2010 by Currently

[mcurrier]

Didn't miss it, got it. I agree that I'd always rather have a gun in any situation than not, even if it could only be taped to my forehead with duct tape. But your analogy is still bad and not helping make your point. It needs tweaking.

You have a guy getting out of his car and walking into a store only to be confronted by a mugger midway. The GG is open carrying. I'd have to say that it's almost 100% certain that he has been made by the mugger already and can do nothing about it at that point because the mugger has the drop on him. Now if you had said the guy was walking up to the store from his car and an armed robber was coming out and the GG had time to see the bad guy first, maybe that's plausible, but what's the benefit of having a gun and OC'ing in the other scenario where the BG gets to you first? None. He gets your wallet and your gun. And you may live, or you may not. Can't beat an already drawn gun. The element of surprise would have been a good advantage to have here. Tweak the scenario up a bit and it may then support your position, but that story just doesn't.

You're missing the point I'm trying to make.. it's almost always better to open carry than to be unarmed... If you can CC then it's the best choice, but there are many times I'm not able to CC but choose to OC really quick rather than go unarmed, there are disadvantages to doing this, but fewer than just going completely unarmed.

As for the claim by many that OC puts you at greater risk, I've not seen any statistical information that backs up that argument... Many will argue common sense, but if it was a serious problem there would be some factual evidence of the increased risk by this point in time.

(Also keep in mind that common sense isn't a very good, for example common sense says that children booster seats protect kids in car wrecks, but the fact is that booster seats have a slightly high rate of injury than not using them)

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcurrier

Bad analogy. If a mugger were to approach you in this case, and you've only made it a few feet between your car and the store door:

1. The "mugger" has pretty much already made you carrying and is approaching because of it, wanting your gun, not necessarily your wallet.

2. He is armed and already has his weapon out.

3. It's almost impossible to draw and beat a weapon that's already on you. He's got the drop on you.

Sure, better to have a gun than not in just about any situation, but the analogy is flawed. A guy coming up to you just from your car to the door of the store has probably seen more of you than you have of him.

[mcurrier]

The main problem I have with openly carrying a handgun in Tennessee is the fact that a permit/license does not cover you everywhere, like in some states. You can technically be arrested over a 'proper' sign at the county clerk when you get your license plate, charged with a weapons offense if a pizza place happens to sell beer, or possibly get a felony conviction for carrying at a 'school event' whether it is at McDonald's or University of Tennessee in Knoxville. It is unacceptable that after paying money and getting the card that shows to the law that I'm clean that I can still be treated like a common criminal. To avoid these problems, I prefer to conceal my handgun in this state....i look at it as kind of like the 5th Amendment.

About the only time I openly carry is going to and from the range, hunting, outdoor type stuff where I know I'm totally legal. Day to day I conceal it and avoid the worry of looking for signs and liquor at hole in the wall restaurants and the police being called.

I have no problem with folks openly carrying. It is just not for me until this state's legislature seriously changes some laws for those with permits and treats us more like the good guys instead of we're good at Wal Mart but a crazy felon at a 'school function'.

+ 1,000,000!