Posted on 05/24/2008 6:48:33 AM PDT by marktwain
Other gun bloggers (War on Guns and Snowflakes in Hell, to name a couple), have covered the outrageous (and criminal) police harassment of open carry activists in Dickson City, PA. The police thuggery eventually led to the arrest of a man who had broken no laws, and the confiscation of his entirely legal firearm.
As I said, this has already been well covered. The reason I am writing about it today is to respond to this editorial piece, "Big difference in right v. smart."
Police detained one of the armed diners and temporarily confiscated his weapon when he declined to answer their questions. So, the point was made. The Second Amendment provides the right to bear arms, and Pennsylvania has no law precluding citizens from openly brandishing the hardware. Moreover, the police were not quite sure about how to respond.
Yet having a right does not mean that it’s always smart to exercise it. Americans have broad free-speech rights, but it’s often smarter to hold one’s tongue for the sake of civil society — broadly, the accommodation of others. 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. First, and although I might be flogging a dead horse here, the dead S.O.B. has it comin': the Second Amendment does NOT "provide" the right to bear arms--that is a preexisting, fundamental, human right that does not depend on the Second Amendment (or any other document) for its existence. I'm not just being picky here; if things go our way, and the other side finally finds itself unable to sustain the rhetorical gymnastics required to sustain the bizarre assertion that right of the people to keep and bear arms isn't really . . . the right of the people, to keep and bear arms, their next line of attack will be to "repeal the damn thing" altogether. We need to lay the groundwork for making that repeal an empty gesture, even if and when it succeeds.
Secondly, the writer seems to be asserting that "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." Are we to believe that the exercise of a right is . . . wrong, if said exercise makes people uncomfortable? This editor would have been a big help in the desegregation movement in the 60's, eh?
The exercise of rights always upsets people who would deny those rights. I submit that protecting the sensibilities of those who would deny others their rights should be rather low on anyone's list of priorities.
I view rights as much like muscles. Use them or lose them.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.
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.
Make no mistake, the First Amendment is under attack by the left as well as the Second Amendment.
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.
“What has not been properly discussed is the fact that this citizen carrying concealed was careless.”
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.
Open carry is NOT brandishing
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.
“Likewise, any criminal staking the establishment now knows who to kill with his first shots.”
Open carry provides individual deterrence.
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.”
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.
“Strangely cops have guns on their belts. And are not held to same standard of proving their right(s)as ordinary citizens.”
"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'"
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.
ping to link provided by marktwain in post 16
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?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.