Stopped for Open Carrying in California

[cruiserlarry]

Well, that's good to know, but it wasn't OAUSA members presenting their viewpoints here that I was referring to - I was talking about the vocal public protesters I observed on the news...

I'd have to agree with you there.

I have an interesting hunch - that gun owners in heavily restricted states have a higher chance of being the stereotypical "gun nut" than gun owners in free states. I have this hunch because it seems like (most) folks I know in the "communist" states that own guns are pretty obvious about that fact and vocal about their few remaining rights. On the other side, most folks I know in free states (like Arizona) own many guns, but you wouldn't know it unless you knew them pretty well. I think this is a combination of it both being more commonplace in such states, and the no-hassle shall-issue stance those states take on handing out conceal carry permits to law abiding citizens.

Not to pick on you, but come on now...have you spent any time talking to folks who've survived living in communist countries for real ??? As my family grew up under Russian dictators and Hitler's Germany, I can say with great confidence that we have nothing close to a communist state here - and this forum is evidence of that.

I accept you (and based on the support my position has received here - everyone else on this forum ) are not happy about the gun laws here - but I'd also venture that there are more guns and ammo in CA than in Arizona, even accounting for the population difference. It is the issues of population density that, IMO, create the concern about open carry and unrestricted gun ownership for many people here. Let's be fair - most folks in Montana or Alaska, (or those in the wild west, from previous posts ) don't stand to cause as much periphery damage from a bad shot as could happen here.

You can drive at higher speeds on roads in less populated areas - why not the same everywhere ??? Because there are different risk factors to the community as a whole, and different regulations are enacted to address these issues. Same applies to anything that could be a concern to the safety and well-being of the community, including gun regulations.

A side note: Conservative governments have always insisted on emphasizing states rights, and less federal control and intervention (whether or not they acted in that fashion is a different debate). So, when states enact different regulations based on varying factors, it is within the conservative platform to do so. To insist that all states follow the same mandate is bordering on socialist thinking, philosophically speaking, of course...

[Chazz Layne]

You can drive at higher speeds on roads in less populated areas - why not the same everywhere ??? Because there are different risk factors to the community as a whole, and different regulations are enacted to address these issues. Same applies to anything that could be a concern to the safety and well-being of the community, including gun regulations.

Indeed. We should ban cities, this would solve 99% of the world's problems.

A side note: Conservative governments have always insisted on emphasizing states rights, and less federal control and intervention (whether or not they acted in that fashion is a different debate). So, when states enact different regulations based on varying factors, it is within the conservative platform to do so. To insist that all states follow the same mandate is bordering on socialist thinking, philosophically speaking, of course...

Absolutely agreed. I would rather see places like California get away with even more bans, than see federally-mandated uniformity. That's why I've been so strongly against a federal CCW system, despite the "new" travel freedoms it would offer me.

[Dennis David]

Now I'm really confused. Based upon what I've been reading I'm either a nasty Fascist or a card carrying Commie.

[cruiserlarry]

Now I'm really confused. Based upon what I've been reading I'm either a nasty Fascist or a card carrying Commie.

So, which is it ???

[Dennis David]

I think I'm a Dadaist

[DaveK]

No, thanks. I am quite satisfied with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that we now have.

Maybe you should still wear a loincloth and pull women by their hair - why change at all ?

I must admit that these exchanges have been a great pleasure for me. Not only did I get a chance to spar with my favorite “ progressive”, but for those who have taken the time to read our series of exchanges, I believe that it has been most revealing.

Case in point. No one but you, Larry, would suggest that a supporter of the Constitution AND the Bill of Rights is stuck in the stone age wearing a loincloth and pulling women by the hair. The best part of this is what it reveals about your mindset. Only someone dissatisfied with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and who is intent on changing it, would suggest such a thing. Perhaps the changes are to make room for the smart people you want to run things.

The Constitution has been altered many times since it's original incarnation to keep it relevant to the times in which we live. More at issue it seems, is the way these documents are interpreted - this is usually where the problems arise. Many other famous works have had this issue, the most well known being the Bible. Many, many different versions have appeared over the ages, all claiming to be the correct version.

The Constitution is not meant to be changed to “keep it relevant to the times”. Its meaning is fixed as are the principles upon which it was founded. That is why Federal courts, including the Supreme Court, seek the original intent of the founders to be able to interpret the Constitution. They do not and should not rely on current thinking or fads, or current morals (or a lack thereof) or opinion polls to interpret the Constitution. James Madison wrote:

"I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful, exercise of its powers."

The beauty and genius of the Constitution is that it was based on timeless truths, principles and beliefs, making it as relevant today as when it was written. The attempts to chip away at the Constitution are principally by those who believe in more governmental control.

A greater understanding of the amendments and the amendment process is necessary before suggesting that they represent an attempt to “keep it relevant”. While it is true that the Constitution has been amended, as provided for in the document itself, it is very difficult to do and in over 220 years, has been amended only 17 times (not counting the Bill of Rights). This difficulty was intentional in order to prevent the very argument that you espouse, that the document should be amended to “make it relevant”. To accept this “keep it relevant” theory is to abandon the beliefs, morals, and truths on which the Constitution was based.

This is not what I've said (or at least not the meaning of what I said).

1. I said you're more likely to be the victim of a gun accident while in possession of a gun.
2. I said that the majority of people who I've encountered lobbying for more gun rights have many guns and lots of ammo - more than I would consider reasonable for personal protection. (Do you know ANY single gun owners vocally demonstrating for open carry ? - I'd venture a guess - no).
3. I said you are not likely to ever need to defend yourself with a weapon.

All of these statements are a far cry from your interpretations of my statements.

Please note that I quoted your exact words. If you did not mean what you said, I will accept that too.

While you can label my statements as elitist, I think you are fooling yourself if you think they are not true. I'm not proud ... about it....

I should hope not. But again, I will let your statements speak for them selves.

And, BTW, I strongly disagree with your statements.

Why are people so afraid of having smart people in charge of things ??? I'll never understand why anyone, of any intellectual level, would against having the smartest folks in charge of things. We expect this in every aspect of our lives, from the guy running the banks, to the corporations we've invested our saving in, but want the most powerful institution, our government, of, by, and for the people, to be run by average joes...Huh ??? I want the smartest, quickest-thinking, most honest, most dedicated people I can find to run the things that will have effects on my life - don't you ?

There are several reasons why we don’t want this. The mere fact that you would suggest that “smart” people should be in charge of things, again reveals your disdain for the “average Joe” . A large part of your problem here is an apparent belief that only “educated people” are capable of being smart. Some of the smartest people in the world are not members of this “educated class” that you seem to admire. And quite frankly, some of the dumbest people I know, are “educated”.

But, the most obvious flaw in this idea is the reality that neither you nor I will ever agree on who the smart people are. More importantly, if we are to believe that “all men are created equal”, we better start living up to that truth and stop creating this ridiculous divide between people who think they are smart enough to know what is best and the rest of us.

This is a very interesting statement. While accurate in description and definition, it is historically completely false. Consider that the largest tax increases in history, the physically largest government in terms of number of workers and agencies, the largest number of regulations restricting the freedoms of American citizens, have all occurred under administrations that claimed to be conservative, to want less federal government, and who claimed to respect personal freedom.

We are in agreement then that the statement is correct. Where we part ways is your characterization of these administrations as “conservative”. Republican, yes. Conservative, no. We also have the recurring problem here with your assertion that these acts ALL occurred under “conservative administrations”. I challenge your facts.

I think everyone would prefer to have minimal government regulation, intervention, and control. If all people managed their affairs in ethical, fiscally responsible ways, without infringing on the rights and welfare of other citizens, this would be a no-brainer. But just as violent crime has been occurring since the beginning of mankind, so has corruption, dishonesty, and greed at all levels of every society, be it in the private or public sector. So, governments have been formed to help negotiate the delicate balance between the individual and the society in which he resides. Some have worked better than others, all have been flawed. This is a subject way beyond the scope of this forum, however, as it has been debated for thousands of years with no agreement or solution.

Ay caramba!! Larry, this is a discussion of OPEN CARRY. I’ll make you a deal. We can start another thread about dishonesty, fiscal responsibility, ethics, corruption, and greed if you promise to stay on topic here.

[cruiserlarry]

I have been twisted again - talk about revealing...

I didn't say I was in favor of changing the constitution, but did say it has been altered many times to adapt to the current era. This is a fact, and why it's ammendments have been added are secondary.

We will continue to disagree on most everything political. But I want people smarter than I am running things, and many folks are scared of change and fear intelligent discourse and progressive thought. This is not to say that I would create restrictions, or any changes on our system of government; just that I will always try to elect and support people who can think at or above my level, as opposed to an average guy who I'd want to have a beer with. I don't hire average employees, I didn't try to raise average kids, and I don't want to leave whatever level of authority remains in the hands of average joes. I want better than that. Of course, I want all citizens to have their right to elect and support whoever they want to remain intact.

My comment stated administrations that claimed to be conservative; we are in agreement that those administrations did not faithfully represent those principles. Again, you were misquoting what I wrote.

I apologize to all for hijacking the tread into a tangent discussion; but, as I think DaveK well knows, it's unavoidable. You can't complain about people stomping on your rights without expecting a retort. That is, unless you want to live in a world where everyone is a sheep, following the same lines of thought, regardless of meaning or consequence. I do not, even if I stand alone in my differences.

Thanks to all for listening;

And Dave, don't always believe everything you think

Back to "open carry 101"...

[JohnGalt]

Why are people so afraid of having smart people in charge of things ??? I'll never understand why anyone, of any intellectual level, would against having the smartest folks in charge of things. We expect this in every aspect of our lives, from the guy running the banks, to the corporations we've invested our saving in, but want the most powerful institution, our government, of, by, and for the people, to be run by average joes...Huh ??? I want the smartest, quickest-thinking, most honest, most dedicated people I can find to run the things that will have effects on my life - don't you ?

There are several reasons why we don’t want this. The mere fact that you would suggest that “smart” people should be in charge of things, again reveals your disdain for the “average Joe” . A large part of your problem here is an apparent belief that only “educated people” are capable of being smart. Some of the smartest people in the world are not members of this “educated class” that you seem to admire.

Wow. Talk about twisting words and intent.

I don't see anywhere Larry made any correlation between smart and educated. While it is often true that "smart" is required for "educated", I don't see where any suggestions were made that: only educated people are smart, that educated are smart, or uneducated are not smart.

And, in fact, Larry went on to further refine that smart alone was not enough - that it should be coupled with traits such as "most honest" and "most dedicated", etc. Somehow you locked onto one portion of a thought, then took it out of context, and then used it to make your position look smart.

Further, you make the assumption that Larry has disdain for the average Joe. That is an irrational and (I suspect) very incorrect assumption on your part. In fact, I believe Larry is suggesting that the 'average Joe' is actually best served when our best and brightest are in positions where they can analyze, propose, and effect change for everyone.

Perhaps you thought the 'average joe' would not understand you twisting of Larry's ideas, and the irrational conclusions you've drawn to support your position and led others to believe are logical.

I initially thought the discussion back and forth was entertaining, and thought provoking on both sides. Then I realized it quickly became pointed, personal, illogical, and put effectively one against the rest. To see words and ideas of good intent (promoted for an open dialogue of issues and ideas) twisted and distorted, it reminded me of why I read, but rarely post.

I was reminded by someone I consider a friend not to remain silent; so this is my attempt to try, albeit with anticipated futility, to have people rethink how they discuss issues like this that do not, will not, and possibly cannot have a clear cut solution for everyone.

I think Larry's arguments have, in effect, asked us to not be afraid to question things, to give us information from which to think, and to encourag us to form opinions based on logic, information, and a healthy debate. We should appreciate the effort he's made, almost entirely without any other support on this forum, and try to keep our minds open to other ideas, questioning of our positions, and ultimately being clearer in mind of the positions we do hold.

And yes, I'm an elitist if that's what you want to call it - and proud of it. While we are all created equal (with the rights that should be afforded to us), the statement you refer to, in it's original form and substance, was neither made, nor intended to represent equality with respect to intelligence, ability, or the unearned - so again an assertion made out of context. Without the best and brightest leading, I'd suggest the world, and the lifestyles we enjoy, would be a far cry from where they are today.

John Galt

[DaveK]

I was reminded by someone I consider a friend not to remain silent; so this is my attempt to try, albeit with anticipated futility, to have people rethink how they discuss issues like this that do not, will not, and possibly cannot have a clear cut solution for everyone.

I initially thought the discussion back and forth was entertaining, and thought provoking on both sides. Then I realized it quickly became pointed, personal, illogical, and put effectively one against the rest. To see words and ideas of good intent (promoted for an open dialogue of issues and ideas) twisted and distorted, it reminded me of why I read, but rarely post.

I am pleased that you have chosen to participate in this long discussion. I am disappointed however that you anticipate futility. By now you should have gathered that firearms discussions are usually charged with strong emotions and opposing viewpoints are not uncommon. If you have spent any time on internet forums, been to any roundtable discussions or engaged friends, you know this to be true. It is no different here.

Given the ease with which these types of differences can escalate into open warfare, I believe that we managed rather well to remain civil and respectful. If you are expecting that the pro-gun crowd here, or anywhere, is going to embrace positions which we believe are wrong, you will be disappointed. We welcome an open discussion on this or any other issue, but our refusal to acknowledge your “good intentions” does not mean that we are not respectful or that we are illogical.

Your perception that somehow I (or we) have twisted words and intent is wrong. Words have meaning and are commonly interpreted by their well used definitions. When Larry, you or anyone else makes a statement, we are entitled to interpret those words based on what the words mean and not by your good intentions or what you meant. Because we do not agree with you, or Larry, does not mean that we have twisted the words. It is simply not true.

I think Larry's arguments have, in effect, asked us to not be afraid to question things, to give us information from which to think, and to encourag us to form opinions based on logic, information, and a healthy debate. We should appreciate the effort he's made, almost entirely without any other support on this forum, and try to keep our minds open to other ideas, questioning of our positions, and ultimately being clearer in mind of the positions we do hold.

We should appreciate Larry’s effort here because he has remained civil and has presented his arguments in a cogent and responsible manner. The fact that he has done so without “any other support on this forum” is irrelevant. Larry’s courage to speak up in the face of a largely pro-gun membership is what deserves our respect. Your suggestion that we should keep our minds open to other ideas implies that we should be willing to abandon certain core beliefs which are the most fundamental to our freedom - self defense. You ask too much and your expectations are unfair. Do not equate our unwillingness to open our minds to ideas that we hold to be wrong with a twisting of words or intent.

And yes, I'm an elitist if that's what you want to call it - and proud of it.

This is a perfect example of what I referred to above. We are now entitled to accept this statement on the basis of commonly accepted definitions. An elitist is one who believes that certain persons deserve favored treatment, such as governing others, by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect. In this case, you appear to believe that this intellectually superior group should run things.

While space and time do not allow for a full historical discussion, I will note that approximately 230 years ago, a small band of Colonists fought a war of independence, largely due to a rejection of the elitism of the British Crown. The country which arose from the success of this war was based on a rejection of any rule by an elite, including those who perceive themselves to be intellectually superior. The problem with elitists is that they believe that their perceived superiority gives them the right to run the lives of those who are inferior in intelligence.

I am not an elitist and I am proud of that.

I don't see anywhere Larry made any correlation between smart and educated.
And, in fact, Larry went on to further refine that smart alone was not enough - that it should be coupled with traits such as "most honest" and "most dedicated", etc. Somehow you locked onto one portion of a thought, then took it out of context, and then used it to make your position look smart.

Larry did, in fact, make the correlation between smart and educated. While it was spread out in previous posts, his words were clear and we are entitled to accept them at face value:

I said:

The saddest part of this thinking is what it really represents - an insult to the American people by implying we are not smart enough or skilled enough for self defense without endangering everyone nearby. For those willing to believe this, I guess the only salvation then would be the government.

Larry responded:

Most are not smart enough or skilled enough.

And, yes, we do have a deeply fundamental difference of opinion regarding the average American. I've traveled to virtually all 50 states, and met lots of people; and there are many I'd be scared to have making any decisions of consequence for me or my family. Much scarier to me than guns....

there are a lot of average Americans who give in easily to fear tactics used to support political ideas they are uneducated about.

If only this same fervor was put towards improving the education system, or any other socially positive programs, instead of appealing to the fears of less educated folks.

Larry made the connection. Perhaps you missed it.

Further, you make the assumption that Larry has disdain for the average Joe. That is an irrational and (I suspect) very incorrect assumption on your part. In fact, I believe Larry is suggesting that the 'average Joe' is actually best served when our best and brightest are in positions where they can analyze, propose, and effect change for everyone.

I cannot add anything further to what Larry said. I think the words speak for themselves.

The average Joe is not best served by the rule of the elite. Joe is best served when he is allowed to run his own life without interference from the perceived intellectual elite. We certainly need smart people in government but we differ in our view of who is smart enough to do so.

James A. Crutchfield in his biography of George Washington, “ First in War, First in Peace”, observed:

The key to understanding [George] Washington is to remember him as not the flawless hero of our national beginnings but as the American common denominator, the AVERAGE MAN deified and raised to the nth power. Unlike most of his peers, he began his career without the benefit of a college education, yet over the years elevated himself from relative anonymity as a surveyor and minor land owner to lead the thirteen American Colonies through five years of grueling war to independence from British rule.

Yes, I believe in Joe.

Perhaps you thought the 'average joe' would not understand you twisting of Larry's ideas, and the irrational conclusions you've drawn to support your position and led others to believe are logical.

I think Joe is fully aware of what is happening here. He is not that easily fooled!

[DaveK]

And Dave, don't always believe everything you think

Larry:

I think I will have a beer!