Open Carry

[Sir Codin]

I'd like to chime in and say that the AR-15 and AK-47 aren't even the same gun and don't even function the same way. The AK-47 isn't even legal, you can't get one except on the Black Market or by making your own. The AR-15 is not an assault weapon or assault rifle, it's a semi-automatic, just like a handgun. The only difference between an AR-15 and a Glock 40 is length. I don't know everything about guns because I don't own one, but I'm not going to sit here and demand guns of any kind be taken away from civilians because I'm not in favor of forcing people to change lifestyles, except when it comes to eating spicy food. Seriously, eat more spicy food.

AR doesn't stand for "assault rifle"; it stands for ArmaLite, the company that makes the AR-15.

I'd also like to say that handguns are responsible for most homicides and the rate of homicides with rifles, including public-enemy-number-one AR-15, aren't even comparable to handguns.

Source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20

Damn, I was gonna stay in self-imposed exile from PC longer than this, but these points were just being completely glossed over and it was seriously bugging me.

 

[twocows]

I'd like to chime in and say that the AR-15 and AK-47 aren't even the same gun and don't even function the same way. The AK-47 isn't even legal, you can't get one except on the Black Market or by making your own. The AR-15 is not an assault weapon or assault rifle, it's a semi-automatic, just like a handgun. The only difference between an AR-15 and a Glock 40 is length. I don't know everything about guns because I don't own one, but I'm not going to sit here and demand guns of any kind be taken away from civilians because I'm not in favor of forcing people to change lifestyles, except when it comes to eating spicy food. Seriously, eat more spicy food.

AR doesn't stand for "assault rifle"; it stands for ArmaLite, the company that makes the AR-15.

I'd also like to say that handguns are responsible for most homicides and the rate of homicides with rifles, including public-enemy-number-one AR-15, aren't even comparable to handguns.

Source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20

Damn, I was gonna stay in self-imposed exile from PC longer than this, but these points were just being completely glossed over and it was seriously bugging me.

I was just abbreviating "assault rifle" it to AR, I didn't know there was already a specific one abbreviated that way.

 

[4freemarket]

Since CarcharOdin stole my thunder on the meaning of AR, I am going to take an opportunity to change the direction slightly, but only slightly, because the question is at the heart of this thread.

The question is simply, "What is the purpose of the Bill of Rights?"

 

[twocows]

Since CarcharOdin stole my thunder on the meaning of AR, I am going to take an opportunity to change the direction slightly, but only slightly, because the question is at the heart of this thread.

The question is simply, "What is the purpose of the Bill of Rights?"

It guarantees rights to individuals.

If you're referring to the second amendment in particular, it's pretty clear, despite what some people would have you think. It says, word for word, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The wording preceding that is context, not qualification. Here's a brief (NSFW) video link to clarify.

 

[Livewire]

But the context is there for who & what the amendment pertains to, not something you can just ignore.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[Kanzler]

As a non-American, my interpretation of the second amendment is that it was grounded in a context of military strategy. The US Army was small and new, so it's reasonable that it should be supplemented with armed citizenry. Supreme Court decisions invoking the second amendment has long interpreted it in the context of maintaining that well-regulated militia.

On the issue of open carry, I don't know if it's worth entrusting people with that kind of freedom. People can be irresponsible. Not carrying your gun openly is not going to destroy gun rights, but the fact of the matter is that guns freak people out and that's not anything people should have to go through. Maybe the guy carrying the gun openly (not sure why) would feel more secure, but can we say the same thing of the community? We shouldn't do things just because we have the right to, we should do it for good reasons.

 

[twocows]

But the context is there for who & what the amendment pertains to, not something you can just ignore.

The amendment pertains to the people. It doesn't get any more simple than "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." I think my video link from before explains it quite well, really.

 

[Monophobia]

Pretty sure that since the second amendment was adopted, oh, some two-hundred years ago, that it really has no place in the modern world. As stated before, we don't need citizens ready to go to war anymore.

 

[Sir Codin]

Pretty sure that since the second amendment was adopted, oh, some two-hundred years ago, that it really has no place in the modern world.

Protip on how I view that as ridiculous:

> Replace "second amendment" with "first amendment" or "fourth amendment" or even any of the Bill of Rights in that statement, then read it to yourself.

> Repeat above until you finally get it.

 

[Monophobia]

Protip on how I view that as ridiculous:

> Replace "second amendment" with "first amendment" or "fourth amendment" or even any of the Bill of Rights in that statement, then read it to yourself.

> Repeat above until you finally get it.

Well, really, the statement would still be true, depending on the amendment. The U.S. is so stuck on how "perfect" the Bill of Rights is, or even the Constitution, that even if it seems out of context in this day and age, they refuse to change anything big (such as the second amendment). It's ridiculous, really. This isn't the 1700's. A lot of things from back then don't apply anymore.

 

[Sir Codin]

Well, really, the statement would still be true, depending on the amendment. The U.S. is so stuck on how "perfect" the Bill of Rights is, or even the Constitution, that even if it seems out of context in this day and age, they refuse to change anything big (such as the second amendment). It's ridiculous, really. This isn't the 1700's. A lot of things from back then don't apply anymore.

No, it's not true.

The point I was trying to make is that it's ridiculous to make a statement like "This isn't the 1700's" or even "the founding fathers never forsaw [insert personal inconvenience here], so this should no longer apply." It's called "the Bill of Rights" for a reason. The first amendment is the right to free speech, to petition the government, the freedom of or from religion, and the right of free assembly. The fourth amendment is protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and that a warrant is required and must be supported by probable cause. These are agreed to be fundamental human rights.

My point was when you apply the logic of "it was written 200 years ago and is therefore obsolete" to these two amendments, it makes you look like a fascist and the same holds true with the second amendment, regardless of what gun-grabbers tell people. Rights should not disappear because of technological improvments or because it inconveniences some people. Otherwise, they're not rights, they're just priviledges that the government can take away at the drop of a hat and viewing them as nothing more than priviledges paves way for government to get away with so much BS it's sickening.

 

[Kanzler]

From the Mexican constitution:

"Article 10. The inhabitants of the United Mexican States have the right to possess arms within their domicile, for their safety and legitimate defense, except those forbidden by Federal Law and those reserved for the exclusive use of the Army, Militia, Air Force and National Guard. Federal law shall provide in what cases, conditions, under what requirements and in which places inhabitants shall be authorized to bear arms."

Gun rights are not consider fundamental human rights. Compared to Mexicans, I'd have to say that American gun owners whine too much when it comes to regulations.

 

[Oryx]

No, it's not true.

The point I was trying to make is that it's ridiculous to make a statement like "This isn't the 1700's" or even "the founding fathers never forsaw [insert personal inconvenience here], so this should no longer apply." It's called "the Bill of Rights" for a reason. The first amendment is the right to free speech, to petition the government, the freedom of or from religion, and the right of free assembly. The fourth amendment is protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and that a warrant is required and must be supported by probable cause. These are agreed to be fundamental human rights.

My point was when you apply the logic of "it was written 200 years ago and is therefore obsolete" to these two amendments, it makes you look like a fascist and the same holds true with the second amendment, regardless of what gun-grabbers tell people. Rights should not disappear because of technological improvments or because it inconveniences some people. Otherwise, they're not rights, they're just priviledges that the government can take away at the drop of a hat and viewing them as nothing more than priviledges paves way for government to get away with so much BS it's sickening.

Honestly, I think it was a massive mistake on the part of the founding fathers to include references to technology in the Bill of Rights - because guns are technology. It's like the Georgia law from 1970 that said sending unsolicited sexual pictures is a felony unless the envelope has a warning on it - then a man who sent an unsolicited sexual picture to a woman through text got off because text messaging has no envelope or container (source, nsfw). They didn't anticipate that things will change in the future and technology may not be what they expected. This is why the other amendments are different, because the others don't mention technology, just sweeping rights that can be applied in various way in various times.

 

[Sir Codin]

I don't know, I'm kind of skeptical on that and I think you might be placing too little faith in the imaginations of the founding fathers. It's one thing to imagine cell phones, it's another thing entirely to anticipate guns that fire more than two rounds in a minute. The first telephone wasn't patented until 1876, but firearms were already around during the time of the founding father's lives.

 

[Oryx]

I don't know, I'm kind of skeptical on that and I think you might be placing too little faith in the imaginations of the founding fathers. It's one thing to imagine cell phones, it's another thing entirely to anticipate guns that fire more than two rounds in a minute. The first telephone wasn't patented until 1876, but firearms were already around during the time of the founding father's lives.

That's what I mean - it's a technology, like any other. None of the other amendments mention technology, because they're meant to outlive all technologies because they're sweeping rights, while this one mentions arms, which are a specific technology.

They should have been able to tell from the difference of "arms" of bows and arrows to the difference of "arms" of guns that there was still progress to be made, even if they couldn't see the path.

 

[Sir Codin]

That's what I mean - it's a technology, like any other. None of the other amendments mention technology, because they're meant to outlive all technologies because they're sweeping rights, while this one mentions arms, which are a specific technology.

They should have been able to tell from the difference of "arms" of bows and arrows to the difference of "arms" of guns that there was still progress to be made, even if they couldn't see the path.

I like to think that they did, but decided that no matter how dangerous they become, it is still the right of a citizen to own one. Which I'm on board with because I hate the idea of me not being allowed access to something that some schmuck who isn't any more or less human than I am can have access to just because he has a badge. It's like wire tapping; illegal for citizens to do, but the sovereign leadership of our country (PATRIOT ACT)? A-ok. The hell? Follow your own rules, dammit.

I don't think it's too farfetched of an idea that someone during the drafting of the constitution thought, "hey, what if firearms get to the point where they can fire at least 100 rounds a minute?" and they took that into consideration and still decided to make the amendment anyway. People throughout history have imagined technologies long before they ever were invented. Leonardo Da Vinci has been stated to have conceptualized flying machines, armored vehicles, and calculators.

 

[Oryx]

I like to think that they did, but decided that no matter how dangerous they become, it is still the right of a citizen to own one. Which I'm on board with because I hate the idea of me not being allowed access to something that some schmuck who isn't any more or less human than I am can have access to just because he has a badge. It's like wire tapping; illegal for citizens to do, but the sovereign leadership of our country (PATRIOT ACT)? A-ok. The hell? Follow your own rules, dammit.

I don't think it's too farfetched of an idea that someone during the drafting of the constitution thought, "hey, what if firearms get to the point where they can fire at least 100 rounds a minute?" and they took that into consideration and still decided to make the amendment anyway. People throughout history have imagined technologies long before they ever were invented. Leonardo Da Vinci has been stated to have conceptualized flying machines, armored vehicles, and calculators.

I don't know, I'm kind of skeptical on that and I think you might be placing too little faith in the imaginations of the founding fathers.

You seem to be flipping your position here. Which is your position - that the founding fathers likely could not have imagined how guns are today, or that it's not farfetched to think they did?

 

[Sir Codin]

You seem to be flipping your position here. Which is your position - that the founding fathers likely could not have imagined how guns are today, or that it's not farfetched to think they did?

I wasn't aware that I was looking like I was flipping positions, sorry for the confusion.

The second one.

But I think we're getting too off-topic here, because this thread was about open-carry laws, not what founding fathers intended with the second amendment as a whole, so I'm going to stop right here.

 

[twocows]

this is my personal favorite quote about the issue

Do you support prohibition, then, too?

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

Again, I frankly feel that a lot of people are missing the point. It's not about giving everyone and their mother a gun so that we can shoot it up or some stupid ♥♥♥♥.

To reiterate, Open Carry is basically the concept that you can hold a gun that is clearly visible with you at any time. This is opposed to Concealed Carry, which means you have a gun obscured - this is much more controlled than Open Carry, usually. I feel that while in a federal or statewide sense that this is alright, I believe that smaller organizations such as cities, businesses and colleges have the right to disallow such content. This is pretty much how it works in many places that have open carry, so I don't really see what the problem is. A lot of the bickering from the open carry movement has to do more with these private rights, and being able to say that they are "unconstitutional". But the reality is, they aren't. Private organizations can do whatever the hell they want.

Where it gets tricky is public organizations, such as schools, government buildings and cities, but personally, I feel that they, in this case, have the right to abstain from allowing firearms on their premises, because of issues with safety.