What's the point of a right that we're not supposed to use?

Armed and Safe ^ | 23 May, 2008 | 45Superman

[marktwain]

Excellent observations on the anti-freedom types attempts to delegitimize the exercise of rights.

I view rights as much like muscles. Use them or lose them.

[Beckwith]

sure, you have the right to keep and bear arms (whether openly or concealed--it makes no difference), but you oughtn't do it, because it upsets people."

Does this apply to the 1st Amendment, as well? I get much more upset at what people say, than watching a responsible citizen walk down the street armed.

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

[tcostell]

That argument (against open carry) is based on the underlying presumption that people have a right to not be offended. Obviously that’s not the case. By the same logic if I were to walk down the street carrying a stick, and someone got it into their head that they were intimidated by it, I could be arrested.

Silly.

[marktwain]

“Does this apply to the 1st Amendment, as well? I get much more upset at what people say, than watching a responsible citizen walk down the street armed.”

---

It certainly does on most college campi, and in Canada and most of Europe. It is what the left is trying to get passed in this country.

Make no mistake, the First Amendment is under attack by the left as well as the Second Amendment.

[Erik Latranyi]

Look, the reaction by grasseaters is acceptable. Seeing someone armed should cause concern. It was the reaction by the police that is unacceptable, and that part of this issue has been thoroughly discussed.

What has not been properly discussed is the fact that this citizen carrying concealed was careless.

Yes, careless.

Not only do we have the right to bear arms, we also have a duty to mix with a sometimes impolite society. We have a duty to conceal our weapons properly.

Careless concealment may offend some. So what.

Careless concealment may leave the carrying citizen a target...a more important error. It would be easy to mass 2-3 men with the intent of overpowering and disarming the citizen who carelessly and unknowingly reveals his concealed weapon.

Likewise, any criminal staking the establishment now knows who to kill with his first shots.

If we are to carry concealed, then we must ensure our concealment is thorough enough.

With rights comes responsibility.

[marktwain]

“What has not been properly discussed is the fact that this citizen carrying concealed was careless.”

---

Unfortunately, you missed a main point of the story. These citizens were not carrying concealed. They were carrying openly.

Open carry has its advantages, just as concealed carry does. They are not exactly the same, but a good case can be made for each. I carry both ways at different times and for different reasons.

One of the reasons for open carry is proudly exercise your rights, and to make people aware of your rights, as these patriots did.

[conservativeharleyguy]

"...The gun-toters don’t seem to understand that not brandishing their weapons in public would not diminish their right while also not intimidating other diners..."

There's a huge difference (both legally and functionally) between "carrying" and "brandishing" a firearm. Sitting in a diner eating your meal, minding your own business with a pistol on your hip is in no means "brandishing".

Pulling it out to intimidate or coerce someone is, and that's expressly prohibited legally. If you have to draw it, you'd better be able to defend your decision by the proving the existence of a deadly or gravely injurious threat to you or a nearby person. You can't just draw it to scare someone.

It sounds to me that the guy was just minding his own business, albeit with a pistol on his belt, and someone got scared by the mere presence of a visible gun and called the police. They should be worried about the ones they don't see.

That's a point the author should make.

[Domandred]

Pennsylvania has no law precluding citizens from openly brandishing the hardware

Open carry is NOT brandishing

[Cicero]

"but you oughtn't do it, because it upsets people."

That's annoying enough, but if you parse it, it's even worse. "Upsetting" people is on the verge of becoming a legalized hate crime. But the unwritten rule is that it only counts if a liberal or a member of a designated victim group claims that he is upset.

If a conservative is upset, for instance by watching or reading about the spectacle of police harrassing someone peacefully carrying a legal weapon, he can go pound sand. If a liberal is upset by someone asserting a constitutional right, then it's a hate crime, and some activist judge is all too likely to convict this upstart.

[marktwain]

“Likewise, any criminal staking the establishment now knows who to kill with his first shots.”

---

A counterpoint to this argument, which is valid in some cases, is that most criminals, if they see an armed customer, are going to go elsewhere.

Open carry provides individual deterrence.

[marktwain]

“That's annoying enough, but if you parse it, it's even worse. “Upsetting” people is on the verge of becoming a legalized hate crime. But the unwritten rule is that it only counts if a liberal or a member of a designated victim group claims that he is upset.

If a conservative is upset, for instance by watching or reading about the spectacle of police harrassing someone peacefully carrying a legal weapon, he can go pound sand. If a liberal is upset by someone asserting a constitutional right, then it's a hate crime, and some activist judge is all too likely to convict this upstart.”

---

I applaud your writing skills and analysis. Well stated.

[Nailbiter]

It sounds to me that the guy was just minding his own business, albeit with a pistol on his belt, and someone got scared by the mere presence of a visible gun and called the police.

that is the I read this also.

Strangely cops have guns on their belts. And are not held to same standard of proving their right(s)as ordinary citizens.

[marktwain]

“Strangely cops have guns on their belts. And are not held to same standard of proving their right(s)as ordinary citizens.”

---

This cannot be repeated strongly enough, or often enough. The people who claim they fear guns, often want to have armed police around. What they really fear is freedom. Their god is the State.

[budwiesest]

Police detained one of the armed diners and temporarily confiscated his weapon when he declined to answer their questions.

"Have you ever been to the Grand Canyon?"
"Not answerin'."

How many pidgeons can you stuff in a suitcase?"
"Don't know, don't care (proceeds to take a bite of meat)."

"If one cop is traveling east at 100 mph and another is traveling west at 100 mph, which one will wreck first?"
"I said, I ain't answerin'"

[marktwain]

I think that you will find this address by Alan Korwin to be informative. It deals a bit with the anti-gun types contradictions.

http://www.gunlaws.com/DuquesneSpeech.htm

[Nailbiter]

State as their God.

Strangely I was thinking along these same lines last night.

In relation to speaking to young people about Obama and his Godlike rise to greatness.

I would point out that most young folk of voting age believe they know more than thir parents.

So what do they do , go vote for Obama becasue he is about change.

In reality they are exchanging their parents telling them what to do, for the state telling them what to do.

A little simplistic but I hope you see my point.

[Beckwith]

Make no mistake, the First Amendment is under attack by the left as well as the Second Amendment.

The entire Constitution is under attack by these Marxists.

[Nailbiter]

ping to link provided by marktwain in post 16

[Cicero]

I wonder if the police remembered to tell him “You have a right to remain silent” before taking him in for remaining silent? Or does that rule only apply to criminals?