Open Carry vs. Racism
Posted by nsnelson 9 years, 4 months ago to Legislation
I've been contemplating a parallel between some new gun debates and Rand's essay on Racism. Texas passed new legislation to allow licensed open carry of handguns. For years now, I have been licensed to carry concealed wherever permitted. I do not intend to open carry, but I support the liberty to choose whether one carries concealed, openly, or not at all. But the ignorance surrounding this new legislation is astounding. The legislators who passed it displayed irrationality and fear-mongering (I watched them debate the bill). The opponents and local media are increasing the spread of ignorance and fear. But I'm particularly disappointed with average people who supported the legislation.
I have been a member of two Facebook groups: Open Carry Texas, and Texas Carry. Both made amazing strides in getting this legislation passed, even overcoming opposition by the NRA. But now roughly half of the group members are upset that so many local stores (e.g., grocery stores) are posting signs legally prohibiting open carry on their premises. Many open carry supporters are now saying this is a violation of their second amendment rights, and now they want to pursue legislation that requires these stores to allow open carry.
Never mind that the 2A is a limit on the Government, not on private businesses. Never mind that private property rights are the foundation of liberty, and even of our right of self-defense (and the tools of self-defense). Some of these people are making the comparison between the bakers (etc.) who have been sued for refusing certain products to certain homosexual events, saying that stores should not be allowed to discriminate against those who want to exercise their second amendment rights. That's right: they want to make open carriers a protected class.
The other half of the group members (myself included) seem to recognize the importance of private property rights. But it is Facebook, the land of misinformation, of not addressing arguments, of anonymous name-calling, and of never convincing anyone. It's just frustrating to watch, and I needed to share this with people who understand.
Anyway, it reminded me of Rand's treatment of racism. What she said very aptly applies to this debate: some on the pro-gun side started by appealing to individual rights in order to be allowed to open carry, now they want to violate the rights of private business owners.
“One of the worst contradictions, in this context, is the stand of many so-called ‘conservatives’ (not confined exclusively to the South) who claim to be defenders of freedom, of capitalism, of property rights, of the Constitution, yet who advocate racism at the same time. They do not seem to possess enough concern with principles to realize that they are cutting the ground from under their own feet. Men who deny individual rights cannot claim, defend or uphold any rights whatsoever.”
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
I have been a member of two Facebook groups: Open Carry Texas, and Texas Carry. Both made amazing strides in getting this legislation passed, even overcoming opposition by the NRA. But now roughly half of the group members are upset that so many local stores (e.g., grocery stores) are posting signs legally prohibiting open carry on their premises. Many open carry supporters are now saying this is a violation of their second amendment rights, and now they want to pursue legislation that requires these stores to allow open carry.
Never mind that the 2A is a limit on the Government, not on private businesses. Never mind that private property rights are the foundation of liberty, and even of our right of self-defense (and the tools of self-defense). Some of these people are making the comparison between the bakers (etc.) who have been sued for refusing certain products to certain homosexual events, saying that stores should not be allowed to discriminate against those who want to exercise their second amendment rights. That's right: they want to make open carriers a protected class.
The other half of the group members (myself included) seem to recognize the importance of private property rights. But it is Facebook, the land of misinformation, of not addressing arguments, of anonymous name-calling, and of never convincing anyone. It's just frustrating to watch, and I needed to share this with people who understand.
Anyway, it reminded me of Rand's treatment of racism. What she said very aptly applies to this debate: some on the pro-gun side started by appealing to individual rights in order to be allowed to open carry, now they want to violate the rights of private business owners.
“One of the worst contradictions, in this context, is the stand of many so-called ‘conservatives’ (not confined exclusively to the South) who claim to be defenders of freedom, of capitalism, of property rights, of the Constitution, yet who advocate racism at the same time. They do not seem to possess enough concern with principles to realize that they are cutting the ground from under their own feet. Men who deny individual rights cannot claim, defend or uphold any rights whatsoever.”
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
Previous comments... You are currently on page 4.
Perhaps the five dogs, six chickens, and one sheep set the art and knowledge acquisition policy through threats of violence. I cannot imagine three persons who would ignore by choice what is arguably the most effective and powerful source of information and entertainment in the past quarter century, indeed the past half century and more. While you (and even I) might argue that much, even most, of what is on TV is crap, there have been and continue to be excellent programs of great artistic merit, informational content, entertainment, and positive cultural values.
I would be embarrassed to say I had no television for 25 years, and more so to repeat it a second time, just as I would be embarrassed to say I viewed no hardcopy printed matter, regardless that most of what is in print is trash unfit for lining a parrot cage. The key is to use principles, intellect, and sound judgment to quickly distinguish the valuable from the junk, and revel in the delights of the valuable programs.
Most persons consider a no-TV environment akin to a padded safe room stocked with aluminum foil anti-radio-wave hats. Though healthy self-esteem is not derived from the opinions of others, one should at least be aware of the social consequences of proudly proclaiming a stance against all TV.
Gun safety is a problem too, for it´s obvious that death is alot more probable with the use of fire arms. Personally, I can´t help but seing this as a constant threat on safety; since for everyone to have a gun in their pockets; conceiled or not, does post a constant threat.
In an argument about this I responded "guns don´t kill people, bullets do" and, so as to not go overboard on the whole gun control scene; I proposed an idea that could only be a first step for more tolerance and less danger; changing the ammunition from led to, let´s say; rubber.
In the Wild West, this probably would´ve been ridiculous. Yet I believe it´s probable to instrument nowadays, in these lawful times. Not to mention that death and murder can become a very serious problem for the executioner, as well as the victim.
I´m not saying it´s simple to apply, don´t get me wrong. But in a society where guns are a part of their heritage; I feel it might be easier to start this way than to try and ban the use of fire arms altogether. Both legally and as an industry, leaving deadly ammo for war purposes (meanning that this would have to extend to the police force as well). Call me a fool, but I think it´s interesting to take all factors into account; not just the ultimate "they´re dangerous so that´s that". Rubber Bullets, tranquilizers, etc. may be a better way to get things done in the long run. As for the subject at hand; if I were a gun carrier I wouldn´t go showing it around on my waist in order to stand out, despite my intentions about what it may represent. I mean, I´m automatically making myself a target saying "I´m packing". As for the analogy well, I consider it very far fetched.
Jan
(But a number of computers)
Jan
television was "chewing gum for the eyes." -- j
.
and never reveal it until The Time Arrives. -- j
.
Stinking Rules. . Why? . Conformity Sucks! -- j
.
Jan
If I know ahead of time, I can (a) not patronize that business, (b) make sure my male friends spread the word not to patronize that business.
Jan
Jan
Jan
Follow me on this one. Daniele Steele is a Professor of Social Science at Princeton. She discovered, or so she thought, the Declaration of Independence had been forged by the addition of a period AFTER the signing.
From this she made the great leap from Declaration to Constitution, from Mission Statement to Operating Manual, and claimed the right to change the meanings and intent of the second document and that in the pursuit of her happiness. -- Or so she thought -- but Ms. Danielle had a problem. A failure in education. She was no English Major much less a grammarian. Neither were her interviewers nor their editors..
The Document was perfectly punctuated. ending a sentence ...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. -- but Ms. Steele was unable to read English -- and did not recognize something called disambiguity marks. Two dashes as opposed to one dash which sometimes replaces a comma. Disambiguity Marks are placed to denote additional information in support of the main sentence. Second paragraph of the Declaration
Get a copy of the original manuscript and enlarge it. That's what happens when you take a cavalier attitude and accept a serf's explanation as gospel. Secular or religious it's how some chain others.
It came to me that the more we accepted that which is not true nor exact especially on the important the truly important parts of our lives and cultures the easier it became to lose them.
That's now happened.
All because some said a period wasn't important enough to bother with nor the letter u versus the letter i.
As of last night you have no civil rights that can't be taken from you on a whim. You have no right to a civil court with all the trimmings if those who told you punctuation and spelling is not important decide to use a military court.
You have no rights to free and open, without elections
Good luck that which you counted on by believing in unstated intent - no longer exists. It died yesterday evening.
I was wrong though. Periods and vowels don't matter., not any more.
I like open carry being legal. Think familiarity with firearms will dispel some of the foolishness. However, I wonder if open carriers will be sufficiently responsible.
Load more comments...