This article was delivered to my inbox today and thought it would be a good one to share...
4TH paragraph, 1ST sentence is where my understanding of the author's line of thought begins to fail me, is this a "Did you ride the bus or bring your lunch today" moment?
Someone please help me understand.
I'm a bit confused. I thought "open carry" meant having an unconcealed firearm and "constitutional carry" was our second ammendment rights as worded in the constitution.
On a side note, I believe the author of that link is as pro 2A as our President.
4TH paragraph, 1ST sentence is where my understanding of the author's line of thought begins to fail me, is this a "Did you ride the bus or bring your lunch today" moment?
Someone please help me understand.
"Constitutional Carry" = "Permitless Carry" (i.e. "the 2A is my carry permit"...) The author muddies the waters there. And Constitutional Carry means for everyone who's a US citizen.
I guess my confusion is that I wasn't aware that some consider "Open Carry" = "Constitutional Carry". (As stated in P4,S1 of the linked article)
I think everyone should carry a gun. What does their religion have to do with it?
"Constitutional Carry" = "Permitless Carry" (i.e. "the 2A is my carry permit"...) The author muddies the waters there. And Constitutional Carry means for everyone who's a US citizen.
May I offer a slight tweak to that? "I think every free person should be able to carry a gun if s/he chooses to do so." And I agree, religion is not the issue.
Where is that defined? The Constitution specifically protects the rights of all. No laws made respecting a specific religion, abridging free speech, free press, the right of assembly. An argument might be made for the freedom to petition, as those who cannot lawfully vote have no voice to those who are voted for. Rights must exist for all or they exist for none.
Yes, he's muddying the waters. Constitutional Carry is not the same as Open Carry, but does encompass it. He does make a good point. If we were to go out and see a group of men in long, white robes (stereotypical Muslim attire) and armed with AKs and pistols, would our SA meters not peg to the right? What about the New Black Panthers or militant La Raza folks? I'm choosing specific groups that many have expressed worry about or intimidation by, but honestly, I'm sure there are quite a few other groups as well: Aryan Nation and KKK, just to name two. What if a group of any of those were to show up and stand at the legally permitted distance from the poll entrance on election day (as happened in 2008), openly armed(this didn't, that I know of)? Would that have a chilling effect on voter turnout? (Note that I am not asking if it would intimidate anyone here, I'm asking for thoughts regarding and of the general public.)
I think it probably would, and that very well could turn the vote against us again, and it's a conversation we should have now, before it becomes a problem. How do we counter that probable chilling effect?
Blessings,
Bill
Thanks, BoR for this... I agree: "natural or God-given" rights transcend our Constitution. Our Constitution affirms them. I would have no problem with anyone carrying in the scenarios you describe until ability, opportunity and jeopardy exist. Then it's on like Donkey Kong. But that's preaching to the choir here. J.Q. Public would have a conniption fit and we all know that. This is where the slow and difficult work of changing hearts and minds comes in. Raise good kids, be a good parent. And do your damnedest to help Revere's Riders, Project Appleseed, etc. fulfill their missions. This is hard work and we all know it. If we don't get engaged and stay engaged the current all around us will sweep us away from the USA we cherish.
Nuff Said...It's embarrassing.
What if there were a group of Muslim open carry advocates who called themselves “Sword of the Prophet” and whose avowed mission was to bring Sharia law to the US...
...and they took to showing up armed and in large numbers outside of churches on Sunday, the way the OC guys do at the state house.
Or what if there were a group of hispanic activist OCers, maybe an offshoot of La Raza who liked to organize armed protests at police stations and court houses, and who openly advocate the “reconquista” of the Southern US?
Regardless of what OC advocates would answer to any of this, I’m pretty sure the general public would be none too pleased.
What I also wonder is if those who are pushing for open carry, or “constitutional carry” as they’re now calling it, have thought this through.
This isn’t a rhetorical question; I’m really dying to know.
So again, let me be clear: I take it as a given that if OC is the law, Muslim citizens will and should be allowed to exercise their 2A rights, so the question I’m asking is, can the American public handle the sight of armed Muslims walking the streets?
Yes Sir, your definition is what I understood Constitutional Carry to be.
I guess my confusion is that I wasn't aware that some consider "Open Carry" = "Constitutional Carry". (As stated in P4,S1 of the linked article)
Thanks for the help.