OPEN CARRY

[Guest Caveman]

So, in short, no factual examples to provide for your case, and yes, "back of the bus" is your preferred seating location, if you are allowed to sit on the bus at all. After all, we do not want to get all uppity and scare the white folks...

Good to know some people prefer the status of "persecuted minority" (because that is what you are describing, with your very own words), and will militantly and gleefully stab anyone who would do something to try and ameliorate the situation in the back.

And just to clarify the situation, yes, I am fully aware that some people are going to get disturbed at the sight of people like me lawfully, respectfully, and carefully openly carrying our firearms in public. People also still get upset at the view of mixed-race couples, spuds like me having "real" jobs in NYC, dresses that stop above women's ankles, and so forth. In all honesty, I do not care about those people who fly off the handle at the sight of a lawfully-exercised right - like you, nothing I could say, do, or ague is going to make the slightest bit of difference in their narrow, bigoted, intolerant mind. However, if we were to follow their wishes, and the logical extension of your wishes (rights that cause "problems" should not be exercised), the voter rolls in this country would be cut in half, combines would become superfluous, and busses would become monotone.

If you do not want to openly carry, then fine, more power to you - I certainly am not going to force anyone to do so, any more than I would force anyone to carry a firearm in general... or not carry a firearm. But as someone older and wiser than me said on the topic, "Let's not be so stupid as to think the same solution is appropriate for every situation." Sometimes I concealed carry. Sometimes I open carry. Sometimes I do not carry at all. But I would very, very much rather that I lived in a world where law-abiding citizens peaceably carrying firearms on their hips was not only acceptable, it was the norm, and that is simply not going to happen until we start trying to normalize the activity in general, because no one is going to do it for us.

But, hey, if you want to keep riding around in the back of the bus (if you are allowed a seat at all), then have fun with that - you will have to excuse some of us for not sharing your Stockholm-Syndrome-like willingness to be persecuted. And, if you will not excuse us, you are going to have to field far better arguments than Brady-Bunch-like "I do not like that, so do not do it," nonsense - even if I had not already been around the block a few times on this debate, arguments like that have little-to-no bearing with me... so I guess you are absolutely right, neh?

Well said man....well said.

[rentalguy1]

So, in short, no factual examples to provide for your case, and yes, "back of the bus" is your preferred seating location, if you are allowed to sit on the bus at all. After all, we do not want to get all uppity and scare the white folks...

Good to know some people prefer the status of "persecuted minority" (because that is what you are describing, with your very own words), and will militantly and gleefully stab anyone who would do something to try and ameliorate the situation in the back.

And just to clarify the situation, yes, I am fully aware that some people are going to get disturbed at the sight of people like me lawfully, respectfully, and carefully openly carrying our firearms in public. People also still get upset at the view of mixed-race couples, spuds like me having "real" jobs in NYC, dresses that stop above women's ankles, and so forth. In all honesty, I do not care about those people who fly off the handle at the sight of a lawfully-exercised right - like you, nothing I could say, do, or ague is going to make the slightest bit of difference in their narrow, bigoted, intolerant mind. However, if we were to follow their wishes, and the logical extension of your wishes (rights that cause "problems" should not be exercised), the voter rolls in this country would be cut in half, combines would become superfluous, and busses would become monotone.

If you do not want to openly carry, then fine, more power to you - I certainly am not going to force anyone to do so, any more than I would force anyone to carry a firearm in general... or not carry a firearm. But as someone older and wiser than me said on the topic, "Let's not be so stupid as to think the same solution is appropriate for every situation." Sometimes I concealed carry. Sometimes I open carry. Sometimes I do not carry at all. But I would very, very much rather that I lived in a world where law-abiding citizens peaceably carrying firearms on their hips was not only acceptable, it was the norm, and that is simply not going to happen until we start trying to normalize the activity in general, because no one is going to do it for us.

But, hey, if you want to keep riding around in the back of the bus (if you are allowed a seat at all), then have fun with that - you will have to excuse some of us for not sharing your Stockholm-Syndrome-like willingness to be persecuted. And, if you will not excuse us, you are going to have to field far better arguments than Brady-Bunch-like "I do not like that, so do not do it," nonsense - even if I had not already been around the block a few times on this debate, arguments like that have little-to-no bearing with me... so I guess you are absolutely right, neh?

Buddy, I already told you; if you want to OC, then by all means do so. You went through the class, you paid the money, you waited on the permit to show in the mail, so it is well within your rights. I still think it's stupid. Kind of like the dude with a little member needing to drive a lifted Hummer. It don't make you any badder, and quicker, or any more prepared to defend yourself. You just want people to notice you, and nothing more. There is no other reason to OC than to be noticed. So, hey, do your thing.

BTW..what's up with the back of the bus talk? You totally lost me on that...I don't get the analogy. Are you a racist or something?

[Guest Jamie]

BTW..what's up with the back of the bus talk? You totally lost me on that...I don't get the analogy. Are you a racist or something?

The analogy seemed pretty clear to me: If you want to be a silent minority, and not draw attention to yourself, and take whatever is handed you... fine. If not, then go all "Rosa Parks" and tell the rest of the world to piss off, it's your right and you're not giving it up even if they don't like it.

Here, look at it this way:

Not allowed on the bus = Can't carry at all.

Back of the bus = Concealed carry. You hide the fact you're armed so as not to offend anyone. ( You can ride the bus, but you have to sit where you're told. )

Open carry = It's your right and you'll carry how you please no matter who likes it. ( You sit where ever you please, you don't give up your seat because you're told to. )

That about cover it, Linoge?

J.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Jamie

[rentalguy1]

The analogy seemed pretty clear to me: If you want to be a silent minority, and not draw attention to yourself, and take whatever is handed you... fine. If not, then go all "Rosa Parks" and tell the rest of the world to piss off, it's your right and you're not giving it up even if they don't like it.

Here, look at it this way:

Not allowed on the bus = Can't carry at all.

Back of the bus = Concealed carry. You hide the fact you're armed so as not to offend anyone. ( You can ride the bus, but you have to sit where you're told. )

Open carry = It's your right and you'll carry how you please no matter who likes it. ( You sit where ever you please, you don't give up your seat because you're told to. )

That about cover it, Linoge?

J.

That makes sense. I don't CC so I don't offend anyone. I CC so no one knows I am carrying....PERIOD!!

I guess open carry is ok, even if it is in a park and you are carrying a AK-47 pistol, also? I remember a big huff about that not too long ago. It was legal, but everyone seemed to get their panties in a wad about that, so I guess it's good to go, unless someone who OC's has a problem with it, then it's stupid. I really don't get some of the folks on here sometimes. It is my opinion that OC is stupid, unless you are in the woods hunting. That is my opinion, nothing more, nothing less. Some would have me believe that my opinion is worth less than that of their own, though, since I dissent.

[Guest Jamie]

I guess open carry is ok, even if it is in a park and you are carrying a AK-47 pistol, also?

As with anything else, a little common sense goes a long way.

Kwikernu's little act was designed solely to provoke a response and gain attention ( and possibly a lawsuit ), and it was obvious to everybody who heard anything about it. And it's exactly that fact that caused all the commotion... not the fact that he was OCing.

If he'd been strolling through the park with a "normal" gun and holster rig, I doubt he'd have gotten more than a footnote in the paper, and little more than a "Dumbass!" from a few people on the forums. His last shenanigans with the 1851 Navy revolver seem to bear this out.

I am struck by one thing though, with all these arguments about OC/CC and scaring the sheeple: It's generally agreed that people become alarmed because they're not used to seeing non-LEOs carrying a gun.

What never seems to be agreed on is how you get 'em used to seeing it. And getting them used to it would be a good thing, wouldn't it? Good for gun owners in general, and not just the OCers?

Any suggestions?

Edit: One other thing that's been bugging me...

I CC so no one knows I am carrying....PERIOD!!

I'll bet that most "gun people" can probably spot the fact that you're carrying, even though you have the gun "concealed".

So it's really only the non-gun people that you're actually fooling.

J.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Jamie

[Guest Muttling]

I'll bet that most "gun people" can probably spot the fact that you're carrying, even though you have the gun "concealed".

So it's really only the non-gun people that you're actually fooling.

If gun people can spot it, you're not putting much effort into the concealment. Especially in this weather. I could carry an MP5 and you'd never know it in this weather.

[Guest Jamie]

If gun people can spot it, you're not putting much effort into the concealment. Especially in this weather. I could carry an MP5 and you'd never know it in this weather.

If you're carrying in such a way that the gun is relatively easy to get to, it can be spotted by anyone who knows where to look and what to look for.

Here's an example:

You see a fellow in the local wal-mart... He's wearing kakis, a tucked-in button-down shirt, and a jacket that's open. He has a buldge in is right back pocket that's probably a wallet. His left back pocket has a pocket knife clipped to the top edge, or possibly even just showing an oblong print, if it's completely down in his pocket.

He turns around, and you notice a small lumpy bulge in his left front pocket that looks like it's probably a set of keys and maybe some change. Over that, hanging on his belt, is a cell phone case. Right front pocket looks like it holds another wallet. He's also wearing his watch on his left wrist, so you know he's likely right handed.

Keeping in mind that none of the things this person is carrying can be 100% identified, what do you think? Does he likely have a gun or not?

The above is just one example of people I've seen out and about. I've lost count of the number of folks I've spotted with odd clips showing on their belts, or shirts that don't behave quite right when they move, or an uneven belt line, like maybe they have a colostomy bag or insulin pump stuck in their waistband.

And none of that even begins to cover the number of "newbies" that give themselves away with all sorts of body language and such.

And I don't care who you are or what kind of holster you use, if you move around at all, sooner or later the gun is going to print to some degree. It's just a matter of watching for it.

My point here is that a gun doesn't have to leave an obvious print to be identified as such.

( BTW... If you carry an MP-5 on a sling under your coat, are you gonna clamp your elbow down on it to hold it still while you walk, or are you gonna just let it knock around under your coat like a 'possum trying to get out of a sack? )

J.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Jamie

[rentalguy1]

I CC a Taurus PT92 (M9) IWB at 3:00. I wear pants that are two sizes larger than normal, and long, loose Carhartt shirts, or a button down shirt. I wear a tucked t-shirt underneath and never tuck the outer shirt. Even with this large of a gun (4.92" barrel), you cannot see any lumps or bulges. I can get to it quick, too. I just bought a Fobus paddle holster today so I can change out and wear my regular pants every now and then. I've never CC'd OWB, so I don't know how well it will conceal. If it prints too bad, I'll take the holster back and get one for my XD40 instead. All that said, I usually can pick out a CC'er just by the way they are dressed.

[JReedEsq]

If you're carrying in such a way that the gun is relatively easy to get to, it can be spotted by anyone who knows where to look and what to look for.

Here's an example:

You see a fellow in the local wal-mart... He's wearing kakis, a tucked-in button-down shirt, and a jacket that's open. He has a buldge in is right back pocket that's probably a wallet. His left back pocket has a pocket knife clipped to the top edge, or possibly even just showing an oblong print, if it's completely down in his pocket.

He turns around, and you notice a small lumpy bulge in his left front pocket that looks like it's probably a set of keys and maybe some change. Over that, hanging on his belt, is a cell phone case. Right front pocket looks like it holds another wallet. He's also wearing his watch on his left wrist, so you know he's likely right handed.

Keeping in mind that none of the things this person is carrying can be 100% identified, what do you think? Does he likely have a gun or not?

The above is just one example of people I've seen out and about. I've lost count of the number of folks I've spotted with odd clips showing on their belts, or shirts that don't behave quite right when they move, or an uneven belt line, like maybe they have a colostomy bag or insulin pump stuck in their waistband.

And none of that even begins to cover the number of "newbies" that give themselves away with all sorts of body language and such.

And I don't care who you are or what kind of holster you use, if you move around at all, sooner or later the gun is going to print to some degree. It's just a matter of watching for it.

My point here is that a gun doesn't have to leave an obvious print to be identified as such.

( BTW... If you carry an MP-5 on a sling under your coat, are you gonna clamp your elbow down on it to hold it still while you walk, or are you gonna just let it knock around under your coat like a 'possum trying to get out of a sack? )

J.

This is precisely why I'm glad OC is legal even though I have no intention of OCing. I wear suits and I've been carrying my G19 IWB so if I wear a suit jacket it's not really an issue.

While this debate is entertaining, unless someone is carrying an AK pistol in the park with an orange tip, or otherwise behaving in a way to get a place posted, then I have no problem with OC. If we don't protect rights of folks different than us, we won't have many rights. I will always attempt to conceal but I'm a skinny guy and my profession and style of dress requires that I tuck my shirt in. I've already decided I'll risk looking like I've got a wallet and my blackberry in my front pocket over carrying something smaller than my G26 or sweating my tail off when summer rolls around. I'm convinced that if you're not drawing attention to yourself most people don't look that closely.

I can understand getting upset about someone intentionally drawing attention to themselves, but you guys that are getting really upset about this issue are just silly.

Why can't we just encourage folks to act responsibly instead of bashing each other?

[Guest Linoge]

I still think it's stupid. Kind of like the dude with a little member needing to drive a lifted Hummer. It don't make you any badder, and quicker, or any more prepared to defend yourself.

And now you break out the dick jokes. Really? I mean, seriously? I expect that kind of infantile stupidity from halfwitted anti-rights jerks like the Brady Bunch, but from someone who, I would assume, is supposedly annoyed at those kind of tactics being used against all firearm-owners and -carriers (and, by extension, him), I would expect significantly better.

However, since you are unwilling to live up to those expectations, off to the ignore bin with you - I have the time to deal with childish people like you, but hardly the patience.

There is no other reason to OC than to be noticed.

100%, Grade-A, no substitutes permitted, no artificial flavoring or coloring added bulldren. I already outlined my reasonings in this thread for openly carrying, and "being noticed" was only one of the four. As I initially figured, you did not even bother to read my comment outlining those reasons - I guess it was just too long for you. That, or it simply conflicted too much with your narrow-minded, intolerant viewpoint.

Not allowed on the bus = Can't carry at all.

Back of the bus = Concealed carry. You hide the fact you're armed so as not to offend anyone. ( You can ride the bus, but you have to sit where you're told. )

Open carry = It's your right and you'll carry how you please no matter who likes it. ( You sit where ever you please, you don't give up your seat because you're told to. )

That about cover it, Linoge?

Got it in one.

For me, the biggest problem with the "back of the bus" mentality is that you have already marginalized yourself, which, in turn, gives permission to everyone else to marginalize you as well. And, as we all know, humans love to marginalize minorities, "unsavory" groups, groups that get in the way, groups that "cause trouble", and so forth... And if we are already amenable and agreeable to just hanging out in the back of the bus, then the step to "oh, they should just have a bus of their own... or no bus at all" is not that great.

To dispense with the analogies, firearm carriers are easy to marginalize, play down, and ignore, because no one really knows how many of them are out there. Oh, sure, states publish the numbers, and people make a big fuss about them, but there is a gigantic logical step between reading some numbers on a computer screen and seeing law-abiding citizens carrying in public.

With the former, they can be dismissed as "Oh, I will never meet one of them," but with the latter, the reality of the situation is right there, in your face, and you cannot really ignore it any more. ... Which brings me, 'round-about-like, to this:

What never seems to be agreed on is how you get 'em used to seeing it. And getting them used to it would be a good thing, wouldn't it? Good for gun owners in general, and not just the OCers?

History has proven that acclimatization is one of the best ways to get humans used to the concept of something outside of their accepted norms. For example, passing the laws criminalizing the discrimination against black people was a necessary and good start, but it took forced integration to really make the first significant step towards universal de-segregation. To be certain, we still have quite a few steps to make in that particular cause, but Tennessee shares some similarities - the laws are on the books allowing for open carry (which, coming from Florida (by way of Kalifornistan) as I am, I am quite thankful for - even printing was illegal there, which, in the summers, is a bear), but it is not yet even close to being an accepted practice.

To those amongst our ranks who would lose their figurative gos-se at the thought of a law-abiding, background-checked, polite, respectful individual openly carrying his firearm in a safe and reaosnable manner, I ask how we are to achieve that common acceptance, short of <em>making it common ourselves</em>? Because, I will say this much - there are people who are working against us, and they sure as hell are not going to help. Likewise, average non-gun-owning Americans do not exactly care about our little cause celebres, so who exactly are we going to turn to?

Why can't we just encourage folks to act responsibly instead of bashing each other?

Hear frickin' hear.

[JayC]

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)

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.

[timcalhoun]

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)

I think if you asked this marine what would have happened if he was OCing I think you would get an ear full.

The retired marine and the robbers | American Handgunner | Find Articles at BNET

And then there is this....Just reading through the odmp pages you will see time and time again the known was at a complete disadvantage to the unknown.

Police Officer John Pawlowski, Philadelphia Police Department

And remember when Sgt. Mark Chesnut was shot this summer? He watched as the BG walked up to the car and had a cc gun under his shirt and the known once again suffered at the hands of the unknown. If Mark could have seen he had a gun things would have been different.

The bottom line is that CC is a tactical advantage for either side.

[Guest ljc3]

Just received my HCP. It was like Christmas all over again. At my age I was surprised at how excited I was. This forum has taught me one particular fact: open carry is a flashing beacon that catches peoples attention, makes them nervous as all get out and should be avoided whenever possible. I know, I know, it is our right to do so but the more people we frighten unneccessarily, the better the chance that some anit-gun politician in TN will have the justification to reverse the current legislation. Just my thoughts and observations.

[Currently]

Great post!

I have watched OC people walking around in public armed and for the most part, it seems they revel in making people around them uncomfortable. Seeing children point out the firearm and the parents getting flustered and moving them away. Why? Just because the law says you can really does not validate this. Ego is a much more realistic reason.

It is like watching some maladjusted goth teenager that has metal and tattoos all over their body and getting upset that people stare at them.

There are places where OC is acceptable. Out in the field, on your land working, hunting, on the range, part of your job duties as an armed guard ... even riding in a vehicle are some examples that have legitimacy.

The need to go out in public and feed the perception that one is armed and dangerous ... don't mess with me is a state of mind that needs to be questioned.

Just because the law says I can does not cut it ... one is no better off than that idiot with the orange tipped AK47 pistol in a public park.

[rentalguy1]

Linoge

Please pull your head out of your rectum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Just because I do not quote every word in your post does not mean that I did not read it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It means that I am posting MY OPINION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's not all about YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited February 3, 2010 by rentalguy1
sp.

[Guest Linoge]

So I guess all those people who arbitrarily say very similar things about firearm-owners in general and private firearm-carriers in general (they would not own guns if they were not compensating for deficient anatomy/psychology/etc.; there are times and places for firearm ownership, and big cities/residential neighborhoods/etc. are not good ones; just because they can own guns does not mean they should; scary guns should not be owned by anyone; you have to question the psychological stability of anyone owning guns; etc.) are right, too, Currently?

Or are you just being a blazingly disgusting hypocrite for the fun of it?

Of course, all that said, I guess I should thank you, Currently - you provided the inspiration my latest post. I have to get my ideas where I can, after all.

Edited February 3, 2010 by Linoge

[rentalguy1]

Great post!

I have watched OC people walking around in public armed and for the most part, it seems they revel in making people around them uncomfortable. Seeing children point out the firearm and the parents getting flustered and moving them away. Why? Just because the law says you can really does not validate this. Ego is a much more realistic reason.

It is like watching some maladjusted goth teenager that has metal and tattoos all over their body and getting upset that people stare at them.

There are places where OC is acceptable. Out in the field, on your land working, hunting, on the range, part of your job duties as an armed guard ... even riding in a vehicle are some examples that have legitimacy.

The need to go out in public and feed the perception that one is armed and dangerous ... don't mess with me is a state of mind that needs to be questioned.

Just because the law says I can does not cut it ... one is no better off than that idiot with the orange tipped AK47 pistol in a public park.

Thank you. This is EXACTLY what I have been saying.

[rentalguy1]

So I guess all those people who arbitrarily say very similar things about firearm-owners in general and private firearm-carriers in general (they would not own guns if they were not compensating for deficient anatomy/psychology/etc.; there are times and places for firearm ownership, and big cities/residential neighborhoods/etc. are not good ones; just because they can own guns does not mean they should; scary guns should not be owned by anyone; you have to question the psychological stability of anyone owning guns; etc.) are right, too, Currently?

Or are you just being a blazingly disgusting hypocrite for the fun of it?

The great thing about this forum is the ignore function. You are acting like a little child because someone has a differing opinion. You can respond to this, or not. I really don care, since I will not be able to see it.

[oldogy]

I have watched OC people walking around in public armed and for the most part, it seems they revel in making people around them uncomfortable. Seeing children point out the firearm and the parents getting flustered and moving them away. Why? Just because the law says you can really does not validate this. Ego is a much more realistic reason.

It is like watching some maladjusted goth teenager that has metal and tattoos all over their body and getting upset that people stare at them.

There are places where OC is acceptable. Out in the field, on your land working, hunting, on the range, part of your job duties as an armed guard ... even riding in a vehicle are some examples that have legitimacy.

The need to go out in public and feed the perception that one is armed and dangerous ... don't mess with me is a state of mind that needs to be questioned.

Just because the law says I can does not cut it ... one is no better off than that idiot with the orange tipped AK47 pistol in a public park.

Very well said. There are places for O C but not many.

oldogy

[Guest Jamie]

I have watched OC people walking around in public armed and for the most part, it seems they revel in making people around them uncomfortable. Seeing children point out the firearm and the parents getting flustered and moving them away.

Seems to me that the people getting flustered without good cause are the ones with a problem. It would be justifiable if the armed person's behavior were threatening or suspicious, but hardly so if all they happen to be doing is going about their business with a holstered gun.

I know quite a few people who's size and/or appearance make most people nervous without there being any weapon present at all. ( I probably fall into this category myself )

Should we also force them to dress in a manner, and carry themselves in some unnatural way that makes them look less intimidating?

Oh, and most of the people I know that OC do not do so to intimidate anyone, or to inflate their own egos. They do it because it's convenient and a lot less trouble than dressing around the gun.

None of 'em run around in cammo with an AK slung over their shoulder either though...

J.

[JAB]

OC is legal and within the rights of an HCP holder. That said, since others brought it up, I believe that the comparison with Rosa Parks and sitting at the back of the bus is a fallacious analogy and one more likely to be a cause of consternation with the general public than to get a point across and win support. In fact, some members of so-called minority races might be downright insulted by the analogy and I am not convinced that they should not be.

First, a firearm is a tool - a piece of equipment - that one can choose to carry. It is not generally a part of an individual's genetic makeup nor does it reflect upon an individual's worth as a person or status as an equal citizen. Generally, one does not choose one's race as one chooses whether or not to carry a firearm. Likewise, one cannot leave one's race or ethnicity in the car when one wishes to dine at a particular establishment. Further, one is not being relegated to 'second class citizenship' simply because one is asked to conceal their firearm or even not allowed to carry a firearm, at all, as long as other private citizens must do likewise or have the same criteria for exercising a particular right. See, Rosa Parks and other black people were forced to sit at the back of the bus while others - so-called 'white' people were allowed to sit at the front of the bus. That was the disparity and that disparity created discrimination. In order for the analogy to work, there would have to be an uneven standard that allowed some law-abiding private citizens to obtain a permit legally to carry guns or to legally carry sans permit while other law-abiding citizens could not. In other words, the analogy might work if the comparison were to private citizens under the age of 21 who are legally adults and have the legal responsibilities of adults but are not allowed to obtain an HCP simply because of their age (this is age discrimination - you can technically be drafted and forced to go to war, you will be prosecuted as an adult for any crimes you commit but you can't legally carry a firearm or even buy a Budweiser.) The analogy might also work with regard to law-abiding citizens without a criminal conviction of a type that would legally prohibit firearms ownership or carry who can't afford to pay the fees to take the required class or to pay for the permit as this is discrimination based on financial resources. However, as long as the same criteria for legal carry exists for every private citizen regardless of race, creed, religion, sexual preference, regional origin, family origin or ethnic background I believe the comparison of carry rights to the struggle of blacks and other 'minorities' for basic, civil rights to be an exaggeration much like comparing every, little thing that Barry O does to Stalin or Hitler. This analogy, to my thinking, is simply a red herring and we would be better to argue for our rights on their own merits and not borrow trouble and sound like we have a persecution complex by making such comparisons. I honestly wish the analogy could be made to work as it would certainly be a strong argument in our favor. However, under scrutiny, the analogy falls apart, comes across as flippant and just makes us sound ridiculous.

I, as much as anyone, would like for society and the general public to realize that HCP holders and legal firearms owners are not the boogie-man nor are we [well, most of us, anyway] walking around in a state of mall ninja delusion hoping for an opportunity to 'save the world' or 'take out the bad guys' with our carry weapon. Further, I do of course believe that recognition of our rights is important. However, once again we must argue for those rights on their own merits and not try to draw analogies that do not work and that, in the end, could damage our image in the court of public opinion and lose valuable support both from the general citizenry and from politicians who do not want voters to think they believe such analogies.

Edited February 3, 2010 by JAB

[Guest Caveman]

OC is legal and within the rights of an HCP holder. That said, since others brought it up, I believe that the comparison with Rosa Parks and sitting at the back of the bus is a fallacious analogy and one more likely to be a cause of consternation with the general public than to get a point across and win support. In fact, some members of so-called minority races might be downright insulted by the analogy and I am not convinced that they should not be.

First, a firearm is a tool - a piece of equipment - that one can choose to carry. It is not generally a part of an individual's genetic makeup nor does it reflect upon an individual's worth as a person or status as an equal citizen. Generally, one does not choose one's race as one chooses whether or not to carry a firearm. Likewise, one cannot leave one's race or ethnicity in the car when one wishes to dine at a particular establishment. Further, one is not being relegated to 'second class citizenship' simply because one is asked to conceal their firearm or even not allowed to carry a firearm, at all, as long as other private citizens do not also have that right or have the same criteria for exercising said right. See, Rosa Parks and other black people were forced to sit at the back of the bus while others - so-called 'white' people were allowed to sit at the front of the bus. That was the disparity and that disparity created discrimination. In order for the analogy to work, there would have to be an uneven standard that allowed some law-abiding private citizens to obtain a permit legally carry guns while other law-abiding citizens could not. In other words, the analogy might work if the comparison were to private citizens under the age of 21 who are legally adults and have the legal responsibilities of adults but are not allowed to obtain an HCP simply because of their age (this is age discrimination - you can technically be drafted and forced to go to war, you will be prosecuted as an adult for any crimes you commit but you can't legally carry a firearm or even buy a Budweiser.) The analogy might also work with regard to law-abiding citizens without a criminal conviction of a type that would legally prohibit firearms ownership or carry who can't afford to pay the fees to take the required class or to pay for the permit as this is discrimination based on financial resources. However, as long as the same criteria for legal carry exists for every private citizen regardless of race, creed, religion, sexual preference, regional origin, family origin or ethnic background I believe the comparison of carry rights to the struggle of blacks and other 'minorities' for basic, civil rights to be an exaggeration much like comparing every, little thing that Barry O does to Stalin or Hitler. This analogy, to my thinking, is simply a red herring and we would be better to argue for our rights on their own merits and not borrow trouble and sound like we have a persecution complex by making such comparisons. I honestly wish the analogy could be made to work as it would certainly be a strong argument in our favor. However, under scrutiny, the analogy falls apart, comes across as flippant and just makes us sound ridiculous.

You are taking this way too far. It was just an analogy used in a simple conversation. Why are you trying to play the race card? Anyone who is offended by that is just looking for a reason to get offended. Why is it people like you think we have to tiptoe around minorites and placate them to the point we can't even make a simple innocent comment without act of god? Persecution complex? Hitler? Stalin? Are you kidding me here? I'll tell you what, take a big and see what that does for you.

[JAB]

You are taking this way too far. It was just an analogy used in a simple conversation. Why are you trying to play the race card? Anyone who is offended by that is just looking for a reason to get offended. Why is it people like you think we have to tiptoe around minorites and placate them to the point we can't even make a simple innocent comment without act of god? Persecution complex? Hitler? Stalin? Are you kidding me here? I'll tell you what, take a big and see what that does for you.

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.

[Guest Jamie]

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.

[Guest Linoge]

JAB, you are completely and entirely missing the point - as if that was not clear from your somewhat disjointed rantings.

1. All humans have an inherent and absolute right to self-preservation and self-defense - we have the right to continue our lives, and we have the right to protect those lives from those who would deprive us of them.

2. All humans likewise have a right to equal treatment, both under the law, and in society.

3. Both of those rights are inherent aspects of being human, and we inherit them simply by existing. We can choose to simply not exercise them, if we so see fit, as we have the choice with any right we possess, but they exist, a part of us, regardless of whether we exercise them or not (also regardless of whether a governmental entity identifies them and/or protects them or not).

Given those simple statements, how is discriminating against one right any different than discriminating against another right? No, the analogy is not perfect - I never claimed it was, and, by the way, no analogy is ever perfect... That is kind of one of the drawbacks of the idea. However, they do serve to provide conversational and colorful comparisons to how other ideas dovetail into the ones we are currently discussing.

However, in reference to the discussion at hand, a right is a right is a right, whether that right is the ability to be treated like everyone else in the eyes of society and the law, or whether that right is to ensure my safety and the safety of my family. Given your position, perhaps you can explain to all of us how discriminating against one particular right is any different than discriminating against another? Where is the line drawn? What rational, objective, logical elements do you use to determine that discrimination against one right is acceptable, but discrimination against another right is not? This is a question I have been asking for a while, and no one has yet been able to provide a satisfactory answer... or an answer at all. You would be the first, so knock yourself out.

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

Yes, carrying a firearm is a choice, and being of a certain ethnic background is not. However, demanding equal treatment under the law is a choice, and that is where the analogy holds true. As the saying goes, "Y'all got on this boat for different reasons, but y'all come to the same place," - those individuals who worked so hard, and sacrificed so much, to help ensure that people of a certain skintone were treated the same as everyone else had the choice to pack up their bags, go back home, and accept the status quo. They did not have to fight. They did not have to sit outside of their proscribed area. And so, too, do we have the choice to simply abandon our rights, abandon our firearms, abandon our permits, and be good little disarmed American victims. Likewise, we have the choice to simply ride around in the back of the bus, accept that for what little it is worth, and keep going, knowing that we are being treated as second-class citizens, knowing that we are being ruled by the fears and intolerance of those around us.

Yes, the element of choice is tremendously different between the two separate situations, but that, in no way, invalidates the analogy - it simply exposes that no analogy, ever, is a 100% accurate representation of the situation it is analoguous for. If you are unwilling to accept that, fine, but the fault is yours, not mine.

And with that, I am retiring from this thread - every time this topic comes up, even before I started openly carrying a firearm myself, I am constantly saddened and disappointed by the willingness of people, nominally on the same side, to throw each other under the bus (oh, darn, there is that oh-so-awkward bus again) simply because they are not doing something THE RIGHT WAY ©®!! Sometimes I seriously doubt how pro-freedom the average American is any more, and really wonder if the Brady Bunch's best tactic would be to simply step back and watch us tear ourselves apart from the inside out. JAB, if you can answer my question, feel free to PM it to me, but the rest of you all, have fun with your circular firing squad. Best of luck with that.

Edited February 3, 2010 by Linoge