social license
- Thread starter Hayduke
- Start date
- Status
H, I understand your point, but wonder whether that's how things actually work.
There was a time when the words used on television were much more limited than they are now. Carlin had a famous act about seven banned words.
Free speech advocates didn't argue that Carlin needed to stop becuase he was offending some, and that all this public offense would lead to narrowing of the 1st Am. In fact, many of those popular advocates support otherwise talentless people whose only claim was use of offensive language.
As a direct result of that process, words that would have ruined the career of a public figure 40 years ago are now common in evening programming. It seems that the exercise of a right contributes to its vitality, breadth and popular acceptance.
I saw a few statements like this, even from the OP. To me it makes no sense because the statement boils down to 'it shouldn't be done but it shouldn't be against the law.'
How can we assume that anyone was offended by the open carry? Seems to me nobody's opinion was asked. The great thing about our society is that it is a Democratic, Constitutional Republic. If it is deemed necessary to make illegal, open carry in a library, then so be it. But I'd bet that it was not a majority opinion that it was wrong. This whole debate is based on the OP thinking that some people may be offended. Additionally, if the law did come up for a vote, the pro gun people wouldn't stand for it. there would definitely be debate and, who knows, maybe some people will switch to pro carry, some won't. That's the beauty of Freedom of Speech.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
EXACTLY! The BOR makes clear the original intent. The pre-amble, in fact, should have nullified slavery by itself. The COTUS was misinterpreted for years to allow for slavery, it never justified it.
Hayduke: Where you and I have a fundamental difference is you think society and the way people get along with each other has changed substantially over time.
I completely disagree. I don't think there has been that much of a change in peoples' opinions on the proper way to interact with each other. The "golden rule" is still adhered to as well as acting with "common courtesy".
Those types of important values are timeless.
Much the same as the right to self-defense, which is what open carry can help to accomplish IMHO. Plus make a safer society IMHO.
Now how do I know these things? I was born around 1802!
I completely disagree. I don't think there has been that much of a change in peoples' opinions on the proper way to interact with each other. The "golden rule" is still adhered to as well as acting with "common courtesy".
Those types of important values are timeless.
Much the same as the right to self-defense, which is what open carry can help to accomplish IMHO. Plus make a safer society IMHO.
Now how do I know these things? I was born around 1802!
I still do not understand Haydukes reason for offense at the fact a gentleman was carrying a firearm in the open. Could you please state clearly and with as much detail as you care to provide why this bothered you and why this type of behavior should not be tolerated.
As for the thoughts about this being objected to by enough people to change the laws in your local community would there not be an eaiser way to change this one persons behavior then regulating the entire society. Perhaps by converstion and such.
I grew up next door to a farm when I was a kid, the farmer would strap on his holster and weapon every night when he made his rounds, during the day he kept it locked up in his truck.
Would you take away his rights to walk on his own property and along side his own property on a public road while checking his fence line.
As for the thoughts about this being objected to by enough people to change the laws in your local community would there not be an eaiser way to change this one persons behavior then regulating the entire society. Perhaps by converstion and such.
I grew up next door to a farm when I was a kid, the farmer would strap on his holster and weapon every night when he made his rounds, during the day he kept it locked up in his truck.
Would you take away his rights to walk on his own property and along side his own property on a public road while checking his fence line.
I fear that all three trolls have gotten together and are laughing at how much
fur they made fly over some Venti Cafe Mochas.
Yes, like the Missouri compromise, but there was never a time that slave ownership
was a right guaranteed by the Constitution.
The trolls are united. Let's not fight amongst ourselves.
fur they made fly over some Venti Cafe Mochas.
Creature said:
Yes, like the Missouri compromise, but there was never a time that slave ownership
was a right guaranteed by the Constitution.
The trolls are united. Let's not fight amongst ourselves.
Danzig said:
I'd be willing to contribute to "If you hate this country so much, why don't
you Git OUT" fund, provided that we revoke their citizenship first.
Then, when S832 tries to come back in, we can tell him that we don't
accept immigrants who oppose immigration.
Karma's a bitch.
I'd like to take a different angle on this topic. Would the original poster have been offended if the guy carrying openly in the library had on a private security guard uniform, or if he was an armored car driver? Why or why not? Do we get upset if a LEO carries openly into a library? I've seen some of these private security guards come to our gun club and shoot. Some do OK and others are awful when it comes to pistol shooting. I've seen many members who could shoot circles around them or other LEO's. That's not to say all LEO's are not good with their sidearms, but there are many civilians who are excellent at handling and shooting pistols. How did the OP know the skill level of this particular person? Why would a person carrying openly be more of a danger than a LEO carrying openly? This would have to assume that the LEO was more responsible and safe with a gun than the civilian was. You can never know that. One of the very few accidents we've had at my gun club was a uniformed police officer practicing his draw when his gun went off and he shot himself in the little toe.
If the law of any state says that it's "legal" to carry openly and the place of business (in this case the library) has no "policy" against it, I don't see what the problem is. How often do criminals carry openly? Not often, is my guess. Why should a citizen who is engaged in an activity that is perfectly safe AND legal, change his behavior because someone might feel offended? How many people in the library were OK with this? Maybe it was a majority. We'd need to poll the folks who were there that day. Right now, all we have is the opinion of one patron who didn't like it. He may have been the only one who saw it and felt negatively about it.
If the law of any state says that it's "legal" to carry openly and the place of business (in this case the library) has no "policy" against it, I don't see what the problem is. How often do criminals carry openly? Not often, is my guess. Why should a citizen who is engaged in an activity that is perfectly safe AND legal, change his behavior because someone might feel offended? How many people in the library were OK with this? Maybe it was a majority. We'd need to poll the folks who were there that day. Right now, all we have is the opinion of one patron who didn't like it. He may have been the only one who saw it and felt negatively about it.
USAFNoDak said:
No arguments here. This country is full of would be Nazis (e.g. your
home owners' association Nazis).
Same thing with freedom of speech. Same thing with freedom from
illegal search and seizure. For each one of our freedoms, there are would
be Nazis that would take them away from us. These same would
be Nazis would insist on their freedoms if the shoe was on the other foot.
Most would be Nazis are complete Hypocrites. Thank God we live in a
democracy with one vote for one person.
Can you imagine your home owners' association Nazis running the country?
They would make Stalin look like a pussycat.
WINSTON THE WOLF
Moderator
Maybe he was jellious ,Because he didn't have the "*****" to carry open. Or maybe he was offended because the guys gun was bigger than his.
lol, the constitution has changed and will continue to change through interpretation to reflect whats in the best interests of society.
You guys can run around the woods and attempt to lead an "armed rebellion", I even encourage it as I think it would be entertaining to watch but you can not change the fact that when something becomes a detriment it gets removed.
Some of you are doing a fairly good job of showing how radicalized gun owners can be, its not helping the RKBA - if anything its giving some fairly decent reasons to why there need to be tighter regulations on firearms.
The constitution as stated before is becoming obsolete, in 200 years it will be interpreted significantly differently if it is used at all, self preservation matters to most people more then ideals and when it comes down to it people are going to choose self preservation over almost anything else.
So instead of acting extreme on this issue, I think its in everyone's best interest to look for compromises.
You wanting the right to own SAM's, and carry your rifle anywhere you want, won't be part of the solution.
You guys can run around the woods and attempt to lead an "armed rebellion", I even encourage it as I think it would be entertaining to watch but you can not change the fact that when something becomes a detriment it gets removed.
Some of you are doing a fairly good job of showing how radicalized gun owners can be, its not helping the RKBA - if anything its giving some fairly decent reasons to why there need to be tighter regulations on firearms.
The constitution as stated before is becoming obsolete, in 200 years it will be interpreted significantly differently if it is used at all, self preservation matters to most people more then ideals and when it comes down to it people are going to choose self preservation over almost anything else.
So instead of acting extreme on this issue, I think its in everyone's best interest to look for compromises.
You wanting the right to own SAM's, and carry your rifle anywhere you want, won't be part of the solution.
Monsterman
New member
The constitution is most certainly a living document, however, in 200 years, it will evolve consciousness and it will be able to interpret itself without congree, scotus, or the executive office.
It will terminate those who wish to alter it for any reason what-so-ever. Your efforts are futile, it is invulnerable to force, it cannot be stopped.
mr kablammo
New member
There was and is nothing wrong with O/C in the library. If someone is going to go nutso, they are already beyond being worried about making a good impression. In fact, it is my belief that polite and well-demenoured O/C practice should be encouraged precisely to that effect. Hiding guns away does nothing but encourage the notion that only violent and senseless people are gun-owners-and vice-versa. Hayduke, I hope you meet the youngster again and buy him a drink, java of course.
Am I interpreting your statement correctly in that you are actually trolling? Do you even own a firearm ? And if so do you use it ? My guess is NO.
It seems to me that you are trying to "shovel sh*t against the tide". Your thoughts on 2A will not get you very far on a "gun board".
Ruthless4christ
New member
I wonder who SA32 is voting for this year.....
Because obviously anyone who doesn't agree with you must be a gun hating, star-bucks drinking lunatic
. I own firearms, I don't shoot them allot as I don't find them real enjoyable to use, but I realize they have a purpose and can be beneficial to have under certain circumstances. I simply don't feel comfortable around most people who own firearms. Allot of people shouldn't be allowed to drive, let alone be allowed to carry a pistol without any required training courses, background checks or mental health evaluations.
- Status