Posted on 12/12/2017 2:40:17 PM PST by jazusamo
I apologize for the format of my reply. Posted from my cellphone, and it has limits.
No, just telling projection. What she’s really afraid of is that violent criminals, abusers and convicted stalkers would be shot and killed by their law abiding intended victims thereby depriving her of critical members of her voting base and costing the Democratic Party one of their ostensible reasons people should vote Dem.
Don’t forget crazy people.. GOP wants mentally ill people to have guns too.
/s
Why not four?
On what principle do you oppose conceal carry?
Please see 21 & 22.
It’s a long story, but I can’t type it all out from my phone.
It’s not the carry, it’s the concealment.
Legitimately, I don't think it can be, although the tortured renderings that the courts have dreamed up might say otherwise. "Bearing arms" says nothing about "how" the arms are carried.
"2. Concealment reduces access to your firearm."
Not necessarily. And concealment offers the strong tactical advantage of surprise.
"3. Nobody shoots up a firing range."
"If" open carry were widespread this would be a legit point of view. But it isn't. Note...I would LOVE to see open carry on the part of a majority of the population.
"4. We didn’t win the cold war by hiding our capability from the Soviets."
Behavior of nations is different from that of individuals.
"5. Honesty."
But we're not dealing with honest people, but folk who already plan to deal dishonestly with others. This surrenders the tactical advantage to them.
My preference is "constitutional carry". You wanna "pack heat", pack it however you damned well please.
Yer formatting was fine.
Not going to argue about any of that, except that concealing will always be less accessable than a holster on your hip. There are no cloaking devices.
And tactical advantage to whom? I’d prefer the “bad guys” to look elsewhere for a target, than rely on surprise to save me after the situation has escalated.
Now that I’m comfortably behind a keyboard again...
Concealment isn’t addressed at all in the Constitution. “Bearing” and “Concealing” are clearly different issues, and no plain-language reading of the constitution will support any other interpretation. That’s in evidence by the fact that laws concerning the carry of handguns have traditionally been far more restrictive than those applicable to long arms. Even in places where handgun carry is heavily regulated, those restrictions rarely transfer to rifles... Quite simply because rifles do not lend themselves to concealment.
Concealment NECESSARILY reduces your access to your firearm. That’s what concealment is.
As to the imagined “tactical advantage” concealment conveys; what is that exactly? A visible firearm is a deterrent. If you’re counting on the element of surprise, you’ve already forfeited deterrence.
“”If” open carry were widespread this would be a legit point of view.””
What, exactly, is it that you think I’m advocating for? That’s my point. Open carry encourages open carry.
Nations are groups of individuals: See DETERRENCE above.
Honesty: Maybe the world isn’t honest, I’ll grant you that... but an openly carried firearm does say something about the cost you may incur if you attempt to rob, beat or rape this person. I’m only responsible for my own honesty, after all.
My phone limits my ability to post detailed explanations. I wasn’t concerned about the readability of what I posted, just it’s perceived tone, and the fact that terse replies offer the opportunity for nit-picking.
Undeniably true. But a practiced CC is probably faster than an unpracticed thug.
"And tactical advantage to whom? I’d prefer the “bad guys” to look elsewhere for a target, than rely on surprise to save me after the situation has escalated."
Tactical advantage to the CC holder. Most of the CC defenses I have read about, the CC holder is a bystander, and the thug's attention is focused on the liquor store/convenience store clerk. The CC holder has plenty of time to access his/her weapon. Open carry loses that. The thug is going to focus on the guy with the visible weapon first, and "might" just shoot said weapon bearer to eliminate the visible threat.
Where open carry is widely practiced, there would likely be more than one visible carrier, and the perp will likely just recede into the sunset w.o. following through on his original purpose.
It’s just an opinion.
My theory holds that CC defenses is a category that can only support one conclusion.
There are no stats on how many aspiring perps just walked away upon seeing a an open carrier.
More guns = less crime.
And what conclusion is that? You've voiced several different ideas on CC (unconstitutional, tactical disadvantage, somehow dishonest).
"My theory holds that CC defenses is a category that can only support one conclusion."
"And what conclusion is that?"
A plain language reading of the Constitution doesn't touch on "how" weaponry is carried AT ALL...open OR concealed. When the Constitution is silent on a subject, the assumption must be that the subject IS protected. This "was" the clear understanding of those who wrote the Constitution (Federalist papers...who considered the Bill of Rights as un-necessary for that very reason).
"I've clearly explained why I think concealment places the carrier at a tactical disadvantage. It forfeits deterrence, and delays deployment of your defensive reaction.
Tactical advantage depends on the specific situation, which is why I provided two different scenarios illustrating one of each.
""Somehow dishonest": No. Less honest and direct than openly carrying, and preferred (historically) by thieves and card cheats.
Which situation "is" historical, and no longer exists. The ASSUMPTION of the law at the time was that open carry was so wide-spread, that anyone carrying concealed obviously had nefarious intentions.
Society has changed, and open carry is now very rare, and in many locales, actively discouraged. Unless and until that changes, concealed carry is the preferred option. Open carry basically paints a target on your chest (or back) that says to the thug carrying concealed "shoot me first".
"So... Why don't you stop wasting your valuable time trying to redefine my positions for me, and instead support your position with reason."
Wrong assumption. I was putting forth my understanding of your comments and seeking clarification. English is a very slippery language, as lawyers regularly prove.
"Supporting CC with anecdotal statements that only apply to CC situations isn't hauling the freight."
Sorry, but those are not "anecdotal statements", they are synopses of many, many real situations....mostly from the NRA "American Rifleman" mag monthly collections of successful civilian self-defense. I suspect a search of YouTube would yield many videos where the tactical advantage was favored by CCW. I've seen quite a few.
My position is simply to leave it up to the person who carries to decide where the tactical advantage lies in his or her specific life situation.
"A plain language reading of the Constitution doesn't touch on "how" weaponry is carried AT ALL...open OR concealed. When the Constitution is silent on a subject, the assumption must be that the subject IS protected. This "was" the clear understanding of those who wrote the Constitution (Federalist papers...who considered the Bill of Rights as un-necessary for that very reason).:
"Society has changed, and open carry is now very rare, and in many locales, actively discouraged."
That's exactly the principle I'm referring to. Licensure schemes, fingerprinting and paying for a Constitutionally protected right... And you appear to have bought-in. Nevermind that the lack of people exercising their right to carry openly is EXACTLY the thing that allows this.
By your own words:" The ASSUMPTION of the law at the time was that open carry was so wide-spread, that anyone carrying concealed obviously had nefarious intentions."
You must have missed my stated preference for "constitutional carry"....carry however you wish whenever you wish, concealed or open, with no licenses, payments or anything else. So I could hardly have "bought in". "On principle" is great, but this is the world we have to live in today. The antigun types would ban ALL carry if they could get away with it.
Well, I'm not all that interested in "all man's rights"...but in the RKBA for self-defense.
Fortunately, the movement on that particular right has been toward wider and freer exercise despite all that the gun-grabbers and their progressive allies have been able to do.
Not so long ago, there were NO states that allowed "constitutional carry", and most states were "may issue". Now, virtually all states are "shall issue" and there are several "constitutional carry" states.
Since I live in a "shall-issue" state, I choose to obey the law in order to carry concealed. If that option were not available to me, I would likely make the same choice you have until I could move to another and freer state.
Overall, I don't think our positions are all that far apart.
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.