Why I want Open Carry

[jarhead983]

I have just read this entire thread and am compelled to state my belief on the subjects brought up.

I believe that OC should be allowed. Not because I would ever do it, but I believe that it is my God given right to self-preservation. A couple of post indicate that the Supreme Court believes that the 2nd amendment refers to the right of home defense only. This may in fact be their stance, but it doesn't mean they're right. After all, this is the same body that found a constitutional right to abortion. It's called judicial activism and it is no more and no less than an act of personal wants and beliefs coming before the truth.

I want open carry because I have that right. Because the government doesn't have the right to take it from me. They may have the power to do so, but they don't have the right. I would be just as pissed about a restriction of my right to not incriminate myself. I have no reason, nor plans to ever invoke the 5th, but it is my right to do so. Just as I have no plans to ever open carry, but it is my right to do so.

On the subject of some being uncomfortable about the skill level of some who have their CCL or those who would open carry. Tough, that is their right. This discomfort is the price we pay as a free society. If you restrict the right, you dictate that some haven't the equalness of self-protection as you do because of some arbitrary skill set. The weakest mouse has the right to fend off its attacker, even if it is never successful. For those whose lack of skill or whose ill will toward others causes injury or worse, they should be punished accordingly. But you cannot preemptively decide that someone doesn't deserve the right to self-preservation.

Finally, the argument of rather OC creates more danger to the practitioner than CC. I don’t think that there is greater danger, just different dangers. Someone who OC’s will be more likely passed over by some criminals as being too risky. While the CC’r may be chosen by that same bad guy due to no open signs of defense. A different criminal may target the OC’r because there’s a gun to be had. There may not be any statistical data supporting this, but you could be the first. There is a certain amount of risk that you take just walking out of you door. That level of risk can be reduced or heightened for any number of reasons. The color of your shirt can and have caused people to be targeted. Your only option is to evaluate each situation with the information you have and be alert. Alertness will trump the hardware that you carry and how you carry it almost every time.

Sorry for the long post, brevity is not one of my character flaws…uh… attributes.

 

[Mr10mm]

I want open carry because my micro Uzi won't fit in my wasteband and I want to show off all my guns.

 

[vvvvvvv]

After all, this is the same body that found a constitutional right to abortion.

I know it's O/T, but I have to clear this up.

First, that was a separate set of Justices.

Second, Roe v. Wade did not result in a Constitutional right to abortions. Rather, it found the Right to Privacy extended to the decision to have an abortion, but not the abortion itself. That Right to Privacy must be balanced against the State's interest in protecting prenatal life and reducing medical risk.

The Court also said there were no legal grounds to rule on when life begins because "[w]hen those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." How is that judicial activism?

The Court also set guidelines that should be used in balancing the State's interest based on the trimesters of a pregnancy. In the first trimester, an abortion must be left to the medical judgment of the woman's attending physician. In the second trimester, the State may impose regulations meant only to reasonably protect the life and health of the mother. In the third trimester, the State may proscribe abortions except when necessary to protect the life and health of the mother.

Now to determine the definition of "health", one must refer to Doe v. Bolton. "[A]ll factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the wellbeing of the patient...may relate to health."

 

[DirtyDawg]

I have just read this entire thread and am compelled to state my belief on the subjects brought up.

I believe that OC should be allowed. Not because I would ever do it, but I believe that it is my God given right to self-preservation. A couple of post indicate that the Supreme Court believes that the 2nd amendment refers to the right of home defense only. This may in fact be their stance, but it doesn't mean they're right. After all, this is the same body that found a constitutional right to abortion. It's called judicial activism and it is no more and no less than an act of personal wants and beliefs coming before the truth.

I want open carry because I have that right. Because the government doesn't have the right to take it from me. They may have the power to do so, but they don't have the right. I would be just as pissed about a restriction of my right to not incriminate myself. I have no reason, nor plans to ever invoke the 5th, but it is my right to do so. Just as I have no plans to ever open carry, but it is my right to do so.

On the subject of some being uncomfortable about the skill level of some who have their CCL or those who would open carry. Tough, that is their right. This discomfort is the price we pay as a free society. If you restrict the right, you dictate that some haven't the equalness of self-protection as you do because of some arbitrary skill set. The weakest mouse has the right to fend off its attacker, even if it is never successful. For those whose lack of skill or whose ill will toward others causes injury or worse, they should be punished accordingly. But you cannot preemptively decide that someone doesn't deserve the right to self-preservation.

Finally, the argument of rather OC creates more danger to the practitioner than CC. I don’t think that there is greater danger, just different dangers. Someone who OC’s will be more likely passed over by some criminals as being too risky. While the CC’r may be chosen by that same bad guy due to no open signs of defense. A different criminal may target the OC’r because there’s a gun to be had. There may not be any statistical data supporting this, but you could be the first. There is a certain amount of risk that you take just walking out of you door. That level of risk can be reduced or heightened for any number of reasons. The color of your shirt can and have caused people to be targeted. Your only option is to evaluate each situation with the information you have and be alert. Alertness will trump the hardware that you carry and how you carry it almost every time.

Sorry for the long post, brevity is not one of my character flaws…uh… attributes.

Jarhead, my thoughts exactly. Thank you for putting things in order. I get so upset when people desecrate the Constitution, it's hard for me to convey everything that I want to say to them! Just like you said, my right to self protection is not negotiable with unjust laws. The Constitution confers my god given rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The Constitution clearly states that this free society has the RKBA. Can't be much clearer than that. However, liberals come along and start trying to decide what is best for me or my family. I know big macs, whiskey, wild women, and riding a motorcycle without a helmet can be unsafe.....but the government (and liberals) have no right to tell me what is best for me. I will preserve my right to make my own choices and accept the consequences. Sure, as evident from this blog, everyone can Monday morning quarterback a situation and say "Open Carry is unsafe unless you are a trained professional." I'm not good at arguing with folks hell bent to take away my rights, but I won't ever back down on this right. I encourage others to draw a line in the sand and say enough is enough.

How much more liberty and freedom are you willing to give up for safety?

 

[vvvvvvv]

Just like you said, my right to self protection is not negotiable with unjust laws. The Constitution confers my god given rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. The Constitution clearly states that this free society has the RKBA. Can't be much clearer than that.

That doesn't seem to be the position of the "uncompromising" GOA.

 

[DirtyDawg]

That doesn't seem to be the position of the "uncompromising" GOA.

I don't understand what you are implying. Please elaborate. Thanks, DD

 

[vvvvvvv]

I don't understand what you are implying. Please elaborate. Thanks, DD

GOA praised the Supreme Court's ruling in McDonald as a victory. That's enough to tell me where an organization stands.

 

[DirtyDawg]

GOA praised the Supreme Court's ruling in McDonald as a victory. That's enough to tell me where an organization stands.

Is this what you are referring to?

(From the GOA website)

When Will Unarmed Victims Get their Apology from Uncle Sam?
Written by Erich Pratt
Tuesday, 06 July 2010 13:56

Two notable events occurred last month which serve as powerful “I told you so” moments for those who naively follow the gun control mantra.

The first event was the apology issued by the British Prime Minister David Cameron for the Bloody Sunday massacre of January 1972. The second event took place less than a week later when the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in the McDonald v. Chicago case.

The Cameron confession was a long-overdue apology for events that occurred 38 years ago in Northern Ireland. During the Bloody Sunday massacre, British soldiers shot and killed more than a dozen Irish protesters, many of them from behind.

To compound matters, British officials engaged in an ensuing cover-up, claiming that many of the victims who were killed had guns -- when really they did not. (Photographic and forensic evidence would later confirm that these victims were, in fact, unarmed.)

On the other side of the Atlantic, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on June 28 that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms applies to individuals all across the country and not just in places like Washington, D.C.

But just as important, the Court also documented multiple examples of why this right is so important to American citizens. Namely, the right exists because even in a “civilized” society, government agents can abuse the rights of the people.

Here are just some of the examples the Court pointed to:

* So-called “Free-Soilers” in Kansas were disarmed by federal and state authorities who favored slavery. The 1856 Republican Party Platform protested these abuses, saying that the constitutional rights of the people had been “fraudulently and violently taken from them” and the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” had been “infringed.”

* After a Mississippi law used the issue of race to disarm newly freed slaves, state forces were “traversing the State, visiting the freedmen, disarming them, perpetrating murders and outrages upon them.” The Court noted that this kind of thing was happening in other parts of the country as well.

* In one town, a U.S. Marshall “[took] all arms from returned colored soldiers, and [was] very prompt in shooting the blacks” whenever he had the opportunity.

See the common theme? Government agents don’t always act in our best interests, and when this happens, they prefer disarmed victims who can’t shoot back.

In making this point, the Court favorably quoted a nineteenth century commentary on the Constitution, saying guns are the primary way of protecting our liberties:

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

While most of the liberal left thinks such statements are mere kookiness, they can’t deny that our government has, from time to time, acted in a despotic way.

After all, our country had its own Bloody Sunday in 1965, when state and local police officers in Alabama attacked unarmed, peaceful protesters with billy clubs and tear gas.

It was because of abuses like this, says former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, that her father would join with other members of the community to protect black citizens when the police would not protect them.

In an interview with The Washington Post Magazine (September 9, 2001), Rice recalled that when she was a child, her dad joined with other fathers who “got out their shotguns and formed nightly patrols, guarding the streets themselves.”

One liberal policy wonk remembers Rice telling him that she opposed gun registration because the infamous Police Commissioner Bull Connor “could have used it to disarm her father and others who patrolled Titusville in 1963.”

“For me as a liberal, pro-gun control person, it really hit me over the head,” Michael McFaul says. “I remember thinking, ‘Who are we as white liberals to respond?’”

Well for starters, maybe these white liberals should start reading the Constitution or just shut up.

Thankfully, some liberals do get it. Hubert Humphrey, who was Vice-President to Lyndon Johnson, said that “The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible.”

Humphrey was right … there is always the possibility that our government could be a threat to our liberties.

It’s certainly good news that Great Britain has apologized for its Bloody Sunday incident. But one wonders how long it will be before all the Americans who have suffered under draconian gun laws and have been victimized as a result will get their apology from Uncle Sam.

 

[kroberts2131]

Well it maybe true that most criminals are cowards...however... There are many stories of cops getting their gun taken by said criminal and being shot with it. In fact Nikki Green falls into that category. He was shot with his own pistol after a struggle. So yes it happens.

You also have to take into account how many times a LEO puts himself in danger on a daily basis. I don't regularly conduct traffic stops or serve warrants. LEO's do. I sometimes go days without carrying due to work limits and just being lazy and not leaving the house at all. I'm not saying that if I OC that I someone won't attempt to steal my weapon but the odds if it happening to me are much smaller than it happening to any other LEO out there.

Again I think you are a total dumbass if you walk into wal-mart, quik trip, chili's or anywhere else like that with a fire arm strapped on your hip. Your just lookin for trouble. I can't think of a time I would even need to OC off hand but I want to be covered in case of accidental exposure.

 

[DirtyDawg]

You also have to take into account how many times a LEO puts himself in danger on a daily basis. I don't regularly conduct traffic stops or serve warrants. LEO's do. I sometimes go days without carrying due to work limits and just being lazy and not leaving the house at all. I'm not saying that if I OC that I someone won't attempt to steal my weapon but the odds if it happening to me are much smaller than it happening to any other LEO out there.

Again I think you are a total dumbass if you walk into wal-mart, quik trip, chili's or anywhere else like that with a fire arm strapped on your hip. Your just lookin for trouble. I can't think of a time I would even need to OC off hand but I want to be covered in case of accidental exposure.

I appreciate your opinion...but why not let the citizen decide what is best for him/her? I probably wouldn't open carry to the opera...but I should be able to if I chose to do so. I've OC'd in other states without any issues...not even a glance. 43 other states allow open carry.....do you think the citizens of Oklahoma are not as "fit" as citizens of other states? After all....it is our right granted to us by God and conferred by the Constitution to keep and bear arms in pursuit of life, liberty, & happiness. I don't care if you open carry, conceal carry, or choose not to carry at all. Protecting you is not my problem. Protecting me and my family is my concern.