H&H no holster draw

[SMS]

Smart ass comment time (since I feel like playing devil's advocate today):

With all these loose cannons out there who can't be trusted to draw from a holster, I guess we shouldn't be in too much of a hurry for unlicensed open carry passage then huh?

If one of the largest and most successful gun ranges/stores in the state of Oklahoma doesn't trust it's own customer base to be able to safely draw and fire from a holster, what does that do for the unlicensed open carry debate?

 

[poopgiggle]

You have a right to keep and bear arms even if you're an idiot who doesn't know trigger discipline.

However, businesses have the right to impose rules of conduct on their property to protect themselves and their customers from idiots who don't know trigger discipline.

 

[SMS]

However, businesses have the right to impose rules of conduct on their property to protect themselves and their customers from idiots who don't know trigger discipline.

And some would argue that the government has the right to impose rules of conduct, a.k.a. Laws, to protect society from idiots who don't know trigger discipline or other common sense related stuff....hence existing carry law, seatbelt laws, DUI laws, helmet laws etc.

If the behaviour is deemed a threat to society, then precedent exists for laws that restrict associated behaviour. If we are saying that 95% of the gun owners out there are not safe and responsible, then how can we argue that everyone should be allowed to open carry without training or licensing?

Keep in mind I am an advocate, but we are arguing against a mass of people/politicians who do not believe in the 2nd Amendment the way we do.

Gun owners and related businesses (business is a huge player in legislation) railing for expanded carry laws and/or 2nd Amendment restoration while at the same time not trusting their fellow gun owners to stand next to them on a firing line will appear about as hypocritical as an anti-gun politicians with concealed carry licenses/bodyguards appear to us.

 

[poopgiggle]

And some would argue that the government has the right to impose rules of conduct, a.k.a. Laws, to protect society from idiots who don't know trigger discipline or other common sense related stuff....hence existing carry law, seatbelt laws, DUI laws, helmet laws etc.

There isn't a fundamental human right (nor constitutionally protected right) to drive a car. Existing carry law is wrong.

If the behaviour is deemed a threat to society, then precedent exists for laws that restrict associated behaviour. If we are saying that 95% of the gun owners out there are not safe and responsible, then how can we argue that everyone should be allowed to open carry without training or licensing?

Brandishing a gun at an inappropriate time, and/or shooting an innocent bystander, infringes upon others' rights and would be (and should be) prosecuted.

Similarly, you have a right to free speech and freedom of assembly, but as soon as you start inciting a crowd to violence you go to jail.

Keep in mind I am an advocate, but we are arguing against a mass of people/politicians who do not believe in the 2nd Amendment the way we do.

You don't have to hedge. If anyone knows what playing devil's advocate means, it's me

Gun owners and related businesses (business is a huge player in legislation) railing for expanded carry laws and/or 2nd Amendment restoration while at the same time not trusting their fellow gun owners to stand next to them on a firing line will appear about as hypocritical as an anti-gun politicians with concealed carry licenses/bodyguards appear to us.

Here's an analogy using the universally-loved First Amendment, building o a previous example: I believe in basically unrestricted 1st Amendment rights but if I owned a business like a restaurant or coffee shop I wouldn't allow any kind of political groups to hold meetings or rallies there because of potential complications.

I believe in personal responsibility, in essence that the law should give you enough rope to potentially hang yourself. I just don't want you hanging yourself on my property.

 

[SMS]

I hear you...I'm just making the point that, regardless of our beliefs in the
2nd, our argument for easing of restrictions rings hollow to the opposition when we state that even we don't trust our fellow gun owners. The opposition will use that against us.

Trust 'em, but hammer them when they screw up. Or don't trust them and restrict everyone based on that lowest common denominator. I don't believe you can have it both ways.

 

[FAL guy]

Trust 'em, but hammer them when they screw up.

That sounds easy enough...except when they screw up in this case there is a chance of killing someone.

 

[FAL guy]

You are being generous ...

Yes I am.

 

[poopgiggle]

I hear you...I'm just making the point that, regardless of our beliefs in the
2nd, our argument for easing of restrictions rings hollow to the opposition when we state that even we don't trust our fellow gun owners. The opposition will use that against us.

Yeah I know. I'm providing an argument against those people.

Trust 'em, but hammer them when they screw up. Or don't trust them and restrict everyone based on that lowest common denominator. I don't believe you can have it both ways.

Sure you can. Private property owners can ban things on their own property that the government can't ban everywhere.

 

[SMS]

Yeah I know. I'm providing an argument against those people.



Sure you can. Private property owners can ban things on their own property that the government can't ban everywhere.

Right, but when the actions of private property owners conflict with arguments in terms of the 2nd...it muddies the waters and provides grist for the mill.

A business owner that prohibits weapons on their property yet campaigns for open carry, a politician who carries a personal weapon but votes against legislation that would let others do the same, gun owners who want unrestricted rights but admit/claim that many/most of their peers are unsafe etc....it's "do as I say, not as I do".

The message that is being sent is: We have a right to carry and we are safe and responsible gun owners, don't restrict it....yet we won't/don't like to allow people to perform basic practice of drawing from a holster because we are scared of the lowest common denominator. Huh?

 

[vvvvvvv]

Private property owners can ban things on their own property that the government can't ban everywhere.

But they can't ban things that the government bans from being banned.