I have not expressed an opinion on open carry.
All I've said is that if open carry advocates do not understand that open carry scares most people, then their thinking process needs a close evaluation.
One does not convince people by scareing them.
One other thing. If you advocate completely Open Carry, then you are defending the “rights” of a convicted child molester to follow your 8 year old daughter or granddaughter home from her school bus stop, with a pistol in his hand, as long as he stays on public property, such as a sidewalk, and there is NOTHING you can do about it.
Go for it.
>One other thing. If you advocate completely Open Carry, then you are defending the “rights” of a convicted child molester to follow your 8 year old daughter or granddaughter home from her school bus stop, with a pistol in his hand, as long as he stays on public property, such as a sidewalk, and there is NOTHING you can do about it.
Interesting position; I reject it. A child molester who has served their sentence should have ALL rights and privileges restored, period. {Whether or not the sentence is just is another, separate matter.} So, in that sense I _MUST_ be for the ex-convict being allowed to be armed, true.
HOWEVER, stalking IS illegal; and you have attached that into your scenario. Why should my advocacy of human rights, such as self defense, be linked to the condoning of a crime?
I have not expressed an opinion on open carry.
Oh, you didn't? I must be illiterate then. I'm sure you didn't here either. Where did we get the idea that you want to force others to give up their right to openly carry? I don't know, how about your outrageous comparison to the pro-life movement?
One does not convince people by scareing them.
As I've said countless times, but you choose to ignore, my job is complete when I can go anywhere with my Glock on my hip and I don't scare them. That doesn't happen by hiding it. It happens by openly carrying to the point that it's an everyday thing.
And as for your "if the people have rights, they will abuse them, therefore they shouldn't have rights" crap, OneWingedShark did a phenomenal job of debunking it in post #125, so I'll defer to him.
You sound like a totalitarian. If you don't like it, no one should be able to. And before you snidely dismiss me as "wrong," let's take a look at your phrasing, shall we?
If you advocate completely Open Carry
What's the opposite of "completely Open Carry"? Open Carry for cops only? For the privileged? Or for a ban on open carry?