Open Carry

[Corvus of the Black Night]

i laugh when people who are so vigilant to keep the ammendment give the argument of "why don't i get to keep my gun and someone from the government does just because he has a badge"...

well son, there's this thing called training in fields where you're required to keep a firearm to protect you in your job, like policemen.
it's a great thing guns are as regulated as they should be to keep citizens of the u.s. safer from chances of harm.if any idiot off the block had a gun we'd have a ton of school and home shootings and such. oh, wait a minute, these kinds of situations happen ALL THE TIME.

This is a gross oversimplification of how gun laws actually work and you're really doing a severe disservice to your opposition and your own argument by straw manning them so much.

Again, 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.

People who support Open Carry, or at least conventional Open Carry and not "LOL LET'S GO TO McD'S WITH AN M-16 ON OUR BACKS" Open Carry believe that people have the right, in situations where it is not forbidden (such as when a private establishment forbids them), to have guns. Frankly, people should have the right to possess firearms, because it is used for many other purposes besides just "shooting people". More dangerous firearms are more regulated than less dangerous ones. There are many laws regarding firearms because of their danger, like how alcohol has regulations. Many people believe that gun laws are fairly adequate, with some minor adjustments to how regulated various firearms are on either side.

In addition, the reason why the 2nd amendment exists in the first place is because it places power in the people. It allows people to protect themselves in situations where they feel threatened by wrongful authority. While in many cases it might just be like some crazy paranoid drivel, it is also part of what prevents the government from completely clamping down on the country and forcing a regime on everyone. People don't like to argue with a shotgun. Of course, this is less relevant today as it was when it was first instantiated, but it still plays an important role.

Again, guns are also most times used for sport, not for murder. But most people wouldn't read a news article about a hunter killing a deer or hitting a clay pigeon.

when did i even say that i did in my last post

Because your analogy is actually drawing from the same logic as the prohibitionists. Unfortunately, life is not so simple.

 

[uoneko]

This is a gross oversimplification of how gun laws actually work and you're really doing a severe disservice to your opposition by straw manning them so much.

[.....]

Because your analogy is actually drawing from the same logic as the prohibitionists. Unfortunately, life is not so simple.

i'm really confused what you're standing for when you use the term "your opposition", as i thought we were generally agreeing on the same viewpoint, but ok. i'm just trying to get my point across and i tend to oversimplify things when doing so. twocows' view just gets me irritated; i lost a bit of control with my own personal issues on the topic. my bad.

the quote was, to me, humorous and relevant. it's not my quote, it's not my analogy. it's the original writer's. but yeah, i guess it was implied.

my apologies for both comments.

 

[Atomic Pirate]

Uh, yeah he is using tax payers dollars for vacations.

Source that isn't a right-wing/selfish little kid libertarian site?

And I notice you didn't mention the "FEMA camps" and "black helicopters". I assume then you believe in them? If so, then you have absolutely zero credibility.

 

[Monophobia]

...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.

This is sort of off-topic, but...I'm just wondering what you have against the government. I know things are sketchy, and you hear all of these conspiracy theories made up by weird guys who live in their parent's basements, but seriously? Police officers (assuming that's what you're referring to here) are professionally trained to use their weapons for self-defense and the protection of citizens. They don't rub it in your face that they have a gun and you don't.

What you're basically saying here is "I want it because they have something I don't". That's kind of what this whole gun-rights thing boils down to in my opinion.

 

[Oryx]

This is sort of off-topic, but...I'm just wondering what you have against the government. I know things are sketchy, and you hear all of these conspiracy theories made up by weird guys who live in their parent's basements, but seriously? Police officers (assuming that's what you're referring to here) are professionally trained to use their weapons for self-defense and the protection of citizens. They don't rub it in your face that they have a gun and you don't.

What you're basically saying here is "I want it because they have something I don't". That's kind of what this whole gun-rights thing boils down to in my opinion.

There are uncountable instances of police officers abusing their authority towards citizens. No one is crazy or a conspiracy theorist for feeling uncomfortable around police. There was just another case where a police officer claimed a woman was resisting arrest so he tackled her down, straddled her on the ground, and punched her in the head over and over and over. It was caught on videotape. The police report, which was written assuming no one would have a video of the actual altercation, said that "a plain clothes, off-duty officer assisted in applying the handcuffs."

I'm no conspiracy theorist but it's reasonable to be wary of police officers, considering the long and storied history of police brutality.

 

[twocows]

twocows' view just gets me irritated; i lost a bit of control with my own personal issues on the topic. my bad.

Which part of what I said did you disagree with and why?

 

[uoneko]

it happened a little while ago, when i told my story of my friend being attacked and i misunderstood your rebuttal as victim shaming, which i realize now it wasn't. again, my bad.

 

[Monophobia]

There are uncountable instances of police officers abusing their authority towards citizens. No one is crazy or a conspiracy theorist for feeling uncomfortable around police. There was just another case where a police officer claimed a woman was resisting arrest so he tackled her down, straddled her on the ground, and punched her in the head over and over and over. It was caught on videotape. The police report, which was written assuming no one would have a video of the actual altercation, said that "a plain clothes, off-duty officer assisted in applying the handcuffs."

I'm no conspiracy theorist but it's reasonable to be wary of police officers, considering the long and storied history of police brutality.

Not really sure why you're telling me about these cases, since I never said police officers weren't prone to do awful things (they are human, after all), I merely said that they were trained professionally to use guns and are not rubbing it in people's faces.