My answer to those who think OC jeopardizes our rights.

[PeteG]

By definition, a "right" is something one does not need to ask permission to exercise. Nor is it something one must hide in order to keep it.

If you are asking anyone's permission, the "right" is an illusion, and you are kidding yourself to think you can "keep" that which you do not actually have by hiding what you are doing.

If we have to ask permission to carry a firearm, or if we have to hide the fact we carry a firearm (saving it for "special occasions"), then we have conceded we do this at the sufferance of others, be they politicians or "the majority."

All of the rights in the Bill of Rights are articulated there precisely because they should be exerciseable by an unpopular minority. Why would the majority need constitutional protection? In a democratic republic the majority presumably has the power of government. The sole function of the Constitution is, therefore, to serve as an irrevocable agreement that the majority cannot use the power of government to take certain specified things away from ANYBODY, including the lunatic fringe.

The right to bear arms is one of those certain, specified things.

Tell that to the editor. Tell that to your co-workers. Tell that to the Sheriff. And if they don't get it, then it comes down to this:

A right is only as strong as the people who are prepared to fight for it.

Not ask for it. Not plead for it. Not fuss and whine and protest for it. Not fenegle or arrange it. Not argue that it's yours. Not beat your chest for it.

If the right to defend oneself (and, by necessary implication, having the tools to actually and effectively do so) is a "natural right" of man, then anyone who tries to take that from you is taking YOU. In that unhappy circumstance, there are two choices, and only two choices: (1) Stand up and insist, making it clear that if you want to take this from me, you are going to have to work at it, and win or lose it is going to cost you; or (2) be diminished as a person.

You are in the desert and a stranger has come to take your water. Moral suasion and rational argument might work, and should be tried, but t is foolish not to recognize they have their limits. One must be prepared and have the resolve to go to the next level, if necessary, or else hand over the water.

So, if exercising a fundamental right prompts someone to try and take that away from me, it's a bad day. But bad days happen. Crying about it won't help - so let's go. Hope you brought a lunch.

[imperialism2024]

Don't know why this deserved a new thread and couldn't be posted on the giant OC/CC thread from yesterday...

[PA Highlander]

Originally Posted by imperialism2024

Don't know why this deserved a new thread and couldn't be posted on the giant OC/CC thread from yesterday...

I think because the message is too important to be lost in all the garbage in the giant OC/CC thread.

Well said, Pete, well said indeed!

[Gary in Pennsylvania]

danbus wrote: ...Like I said before, I open carry because you don't, I fight for all my rights because you won't, I will not sit with my thumb up my bum and complain, because you will.

Still a classic!

[imperialism2024]

Originally Posted by PA Highlander

I think because the message is too important to be lost in all the garbage in the giant OC/CC thread.

Well said, Pete, well said indeed!

Hmpf. Fair enough.

[PeteG]

Originally Posted by imperialism2024

Don't know why this deserved a new thread and couldn't be posted on the giant OC/CC thread from yesterday...

Yeah, and ...

[brewguy]

Originally Posted by PeteG

By definition, a "right" is something one does not need to ask permission to exercise. Nor is it something one must hide in order to keep it.

If you are asking anyone's permission, the "right" is an illusion, and you are kidding yourself to think you can "keep" that which you do not actually have by hiding what you are doing.

If we have to ask permission to carry a firearm, or if we have to hide the fact we carry a firearm (saving it for "special occasions"), then we have conceded we do this at the sufferance of others, be they politicians or "the majority."

All of the rights in the Bill of Rights are articulated there precisely because they should be exerciseable by an unpopular minority. Why would the majority need constitutional protection? In a democratic republic the majority presumably has the power of government. The sole function of the Constitution is, therefore, to serve as an irrevocable agreement that the majority cannot use the power of government to take certain specified things away from ANYBODY, including the lunatic fringe.

The right to bear arms is one of those certain, specified things.

Tell that to the editor. Tell that to your co-workers. Tell that to the Sheriff. And if they don't get it, then it comes down to this:

A right is only as strong as the people who are prepared to fight for it.

Not ask for it. Not plead for it. Not fuss and whine and protest for it. Not fenegle or arrange it. Not argue that it's yours. Not beat your chest for it.

If the right to defend oneself (and, by necessary implication, having the tools to actually and effectively do so) is a "natural right" of man, then anyone who tries to take that from you is taking YOU. In that unhappy circumstance, there are two choices, and only two choices: (1) Stand up and insist, making it clear that if you want to take this from me, you are going to have to work at it, and win or lose it is going to cost you; or (2) be diminished as a person.

You are in the desert and a stranger has come to take your water. Moral suasion and rational argument might work, and should be tried, but t is foolish not to recognize they have their limits. One must be prepared and have the resolve to go to the next level, if necessary, or else hand over the water.

So, if exercising a fundamental right prompts someone to try and take that away from me, it's a bad day. But bad days happen. Crying about it won't help - so let's go. Hope you brought a lunch.

I agree, now send $2000 to damage control so he can get his right back because his neighbor didn't like his OC.

[Joe Smith]

Originally Posted by brewguy

I agree, now send $2000 to damage control so he can get his right back because his neighbor didn't like his OC.

And after a few lawsuits they will actually think before they pull that kind of crap. Back in the day I could call the cops for my neighbor being black (legal but not popular). Can't do that anymore (thank god)

[brewguy]

Originally Posted by Joe Smith

And after a few lawsuits they will actually think before they pull that kind of crap. Back in the day I could call the cops for my neighbor being black (legal but not popular). Can't do that anymore (thank god)

I wish I thought you were right but the only way I see an end to this is for US to start suing the sherrifs office for a large sum and win. Who knows how many folks they deny for similar reasons. There is nothing to prevent them from doing it over and over.

Personally I don't understand why we need a LTCF in the first place.

[Emptymag]

Pete, I read that in "one" of those "other" threads too.

I feel it's just fine as it's own thread.

It's well written, and true.