[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.

[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.

[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

[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'"