I've been a NRA Life Member for over 50 years. Through these past years, some of their ways have made me proud; others have made me sick. Simply said, "Integrity is not a sometimes thing." Neither is the Second Amendment. I joined GOA this morning.
Bob makes some good points but I'm gonna have to side with the OC'ers still. Desensitizing takes time. Hopefully one or more restaurant chains will post a "guns welcome here" sign and defuse the tension a bit, even if they take a short-term loss for it.
Owens also thought the cops were justified in burning Dorner alive. I wonder if he also supported the actions at Waco? I don't pay attention to him any more ... I've come to the conclusion that he's a collectivist tool.
This mindset is what got us in this mess to start with. But in this context, ask yourself how many times bob wrote "botched" regarding Gunwalker.
See, rights enumerated ARE in and of themselves ABSOLUTE. That is indeed the very PURPOSE of enumeration. That said, sometimes rights bounce against each other. IE my right to throw a left hook stops at your nose- unless of course it is in actual defense. Likewise, the right to keep and bear stops at a property owners ground - if the owner wishes it stop there.
It's only fair to witness both rights respected and when they conflict - well - that's what the FIRST amendment is for!
The real reason some folks are against the open carry into businesses is simple. It forces open admission of a position and because that leads to protests and contests. The business world prefers to play both ends against the middle - seeking endless ambiguity and responsibility deferment.
As the NRA received blowback over its stupidity, me thinks Bob just bought himself the same. Good! Personal responsibility and accountability tend to make people think about their choices.
NRA didn't technically reverse themselves, they only admitted that the opinion they released was completely inappropriate, and acknowledged the article lacked any mention of their actual positions on carry laws.
NRA has not done very much for open carry in texas -- hence the very existence of OCT. someone needed to start doing something! so they don't have much place to say, in their correction, that they support us. that's barely true.
now some of us open carried in public, rifles slung and no handling allowed, at RTC 2010. i think i would agree that the very same, but going into a private business as a demonstration unto itself, is a bad idea, because it doesn't help achieve the stated goal, not because its inherently offensive.
happening into a shop because you were at such a rally and needed to grab a sandwich, you certainly shouldn't be hassled. that's just ridiculous. but, OCT folks are in fact going in to take pictures. and they're welcome, too, despite the media campaign suggesting otherwise! virtually all of that is a lie.
however, many OCT members handle their long guns in public for photographs. i am sure these are unloaded but i don't like this practice. nonetheless, i am not at NRA-ILA writing PR articles about it, all the while saying nothing about supporting open carry in any tangible way.
this distaste, shared even by some otherwise 2a-supportive texans (though not many), if it were ever appropriate, is nothing but a footnote to the assertion that all of us unequivocally support open carry. it's not worthy of a whole article.
similarly, bob's article seems fine -- but now is not the time and here is not the place. the short of it is that OCT had a completely acceptable strategy that maybe a handful of people felt uncomfortable about on one or two minor points -- handling, and the indoors -- and now OCT has an even better strategy that precludes the necessity to even haggle over the matter (black powder revolvers and high-vis rubber fakes).
Next thing you know, groups of blacks will be going to restaurants demanding that food be served to them despite making some white customers uncomfortable:
Restaurants can deny service for a small list of reasons, but other customers becoming uncomfortable with a customer’s safe and legal behavior is not on the list:
“Waiter, blue hats cause me extreme anxiety. My psychiatrist recommends that I avoid blue hats. Ask the manager to make that woman who walked in with that blue fascinator hat just like Kate Middleton wore to a ribbon cutting ceremony leave immediately.”
Is the following example of a customer complaining about another customer's legal and safe behavior any more ridiculous?
“Waiter, hoplophobia causes me extreme anxiety. My psychiatrist recommends that I avoid seeing the open carry of weapons. Ask the manager to make that woman who walked in with a rifle slung over her shoulder [or a pistol in a holster at her waistline] to leave immediately.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplophobia
So, do all these restaurants refuse to serve uniformed law enforcement officers, armed security guards and customers in the majority of states that allow open carry of handguns? Only a handful of states prohibit open carry of handguns - California, DC, Florida, Illinois, New York, South Carolina and Texas, while others allow the open carry of long arms.
I have no problem with OC in principle, but I will not do that. My state recently became an OC state, but I'll continue to carry concealed as I have since 1975 for one reason alone: I will not give away tactical surprise simply to make a point.
"Restaurants can deny service for a small list of reasons, but other customers becoming uncomfortable with a customer’s safe and legal behavior is not on the list:
Just because governments made some law, does not make it right. Of course a restaurant owner can and should serve who he pleases, for any reason or no reason. Any other option is hostile to liberty.
I won't comment on what NRA did, but I think Owens is right. Business owners should throw these folks out if they think (with good reason) they will hurt business profits. And OC advocates should stick to handguns, at least where restaurants are concerned. The whole point of these sorts of actions is to get public opinion behind you. Carrying long guns in businesses definitely fails in this respect. It harms the OC movement.
Another reason to do these sorts of things is to desensitize people to the sight of guns, but long guns in restaurants does the reverse. It sensitizes them.
The reason for this is that it doesn't make any sense. In a completely free world, open carry of handguns would be ubiquitous - because defense is always needed. But in a completely free world, OC of long guns would happen only where long guns make sense - e.g. carrying it to your car, at the range, in the country, while hunting, and so forth. Not in restaurants!
If I am at a store, or restaurant and I see some guy I don't know with a rifle in his hands, fiddling with it, pointing the muzzle in any which direction, looking down the sight in different directions.... basically doing things which would get anybody thrown out of a gun show or a shooting range, do I really need to wait until he shoots a couple of people, before I shoot him myself?
I am not a sell out for regarding a stranger at Taco Bell with a rifle in his hands to be a threat.
A gun is like your pecker: every man should have one, but you shouldn't take it out in public and point it at people.
14 comments:
I don't always agree with Owens, but this time he has it right.
I've been a NRA Life Member for over 50 years. Through these past years, some of their ways have made me proud; others have made me sick.
Simply said, "Integrity is not a sometimes thing."
Neither is the Second Amendment.
I joined GOA this morning.
I read Mr. Owens' blog for years before he became an editor for BearingArms and I have to say I'm disgusted in how quickly he sold out.
Bob makes some good points but I'm gonna have to side with the OC'ers still. Desensitizing takes time. Hopefully one or more restaurant chains will post a "guns welcome here" sign and defuse the tension a bit, even if they take a short-term loss for it.
Seems like Bob Owens is involved in a bit of gaslighting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting
Owens also thought the cops were justified in burning Dorner alive.
I wonder if he also supported the actions at Waco?
I don't pay attention to him any more ... I've come to the conclusion that he's a collectivist tool.
This mindset is what got us in this mess to start with. But in this context, ask yourself how many times bob wrote "botched" regarding Gunwalker.
See, rights enumerated ARE in and of themselves ABSOLUTE. That is indeed the very PURPOSE of enumeration. That said, sometimes rights bounce against each other. IE my right to throw a left hook stops at your nose- unless of course it is in actual defense. Likewise, the right to keep and bear stops at a property owners ground - if the owner wishes it stop there.
It's only fair to witness both rights respected and when they conflict - well - that's what the FIRST amendment is for!
The real reason some folks are against the open carry into businesses is simple. It forces open admission of a position and because that leads to protests and contests. The business world prefers to play both ends against the middle - seeking endless ambiguity and responsibility deferment.
As the NRA received blowback over its stupidity, me thinks Bob just bought himself the same. Good! Personal responsibility and accountability tend to make people think about their choices.
NRA didn't technically reverse themselves, they only admitted that the opinion they released was completely inappropriate, and acknowledged the article lacked any mention of their actual positions on carry laws.
NRA has not done very much for open carry in texas -- hence the very existence of OCT. someone needed to start doing something! so they don't have much place to say, in their correction, that they support us. that's barely true.
now some of us open carried in public, rifles slung and no handling allowed, at RTC 2010. i think i would agree that the very same, but going into a private business as a demonstration unto itself, is a bad idea, because it doesn't help achieve the stated goal, not because its inherently offensive.
happening into a shop because you were at such a rally and needed to grab a sandwich, you certainly shouldn't be hassled. that's just ridiculous. but, OCT folks are in fact going in to take pictures. and they're welcome, too, despite the media campaign suggesting otherwise! virtually all of that is a lie.
however, many OCT members handle their long guns in public for photographs. i am sure these are unloaded but i don't like this practice. nonetheless, i am not at NRA-ILA writing PR articles about it, all the while saying nothing about supporting open carry in any tangible way.
this distaste, shared even by some otherwise 2a-supportive texans (though not many), if it were ever appropriate, is nothing but a footnote to the assertion that all of us unequivocally support open carry. it's not worthy of a whole article.
similarly, bob's article seems fine -- but now is not the time and here is not the place. the short of it is that OCT had a completely acceptable strategy that maybe a handful of people felt uncomfortable about on one or two minor points -- handling, and the indoors -- and now OCT has an even better strategy that precludes the necessity to even haggle over the matter (black powder revolvers and high-vis rubber fakes).
Next thing you know, groups of blacks will be going to restaurants demanding that food be served to them despite making some white customers uncomfortable:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/26/south-carolina-charleston-wild-wing-cafe-black-americans/2704125/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/17/south-dakota-phil-jensen_n_4980492.html
Or denial of service because of too many tattoos:
http://newsone.com/2677188/the-game-refused-service-at-restaurant-over-tattoos/
Or denial of service because a child has a non-contagious, “icky” skin disorder:
http://www.freep.com/article/20130508/NEWS02/305080119/Westland-restaurant-lawsuit-Golden-Corral
Restaurants can deny service for a small list of reasons, but other customers becoming uncomfortable with a customer’s safe and legal behavior is not on the list:
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/restaurants-right-to-refuse-service.html
Let's consider a ridiculous example:
“Waiter, blue hats cause me extreme anxiety. My psychiatrist recommends that I avoid blue hats. Ask the manager to make that woman who walked in with that blue fascinator hat just like Kate Middleton wore to a ribbon cutting ceremony leave immediately.”
Is the following example of a customer complaining about another customer's legal and safe behavior any more ridiculous?
“Waiter, hoplophobia causes me extreme anxiety. My psychiatrist recommends that I avoid seeing the open carry of weapons. Ask the manager to make that woman who walked in with a rifle slung over her shoulder [or a pistol in a holster at her waistline] to leave immediately.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoplophobia
So, do all these restaurants refuse to serve uniformed law enforcement officers, armed security guards and customers in the majority of states that allow open carry of handguns? Only a handful of states prohibit open carry of handguns - California, DC, Florida, Illinois, New York, South Carolina and Texas, while others allow the open carry of long arms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_States
Fuck Bob Owens. I've considered him a hypocritical asshole some time ago. The bastard is little better than Harry Reid.
I pay zero attention to anything that clown blubbers about. One can trust the SoB about as far as you could throw his sorry, despicable, neocon ass.
I have no problem with OC in principle, but I will not do that. My state recently became an OC state, but I'll continue to carry concealed as I have since 1975 for one reason alone: I will not give away tactical surprise simply to make a point.
"Restaurants can deny service for a small list of reasons, but other customers becoming uncomfortable with a customer’s safe and legal behavior is not on the list:
http://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/restaurants-right-to-refuse-service.html"
Just because governments made some law, does not make it right. Of course a restaurant owner can and should serve who he pleases, for any reason or no reason. Any other option is hostile to liberty.
I won't comment on what NRA did, but I think Owens is right. Business owners should throw these folks out if they think (with good reason) they will hurt business profits. And OC advocates should stick to handguns, at least where restaurants are concerned. The whole point of these sorts of actions is to get public opinion behind you. Carrying long guns in businesses definitely fails in this respect. It harms the OC movement.
Another reason to do these sorts of things is to desensitize people to the sight of guns, but long guns in restaurants does the reverse. It sensitizes them.
The reason for this is that it doesn't make any sense. In a completely free world, open carry of handguns would be ubiquitous - because defense is always needed. But in a completely free world, OC of long guns would happen only where long guns make sense - e.g. carrying it to your car, at the range, in the country, while hunting, and so forth. Not in restaurants!
If I am at a store, or restaurant and I see some guy I don't know with a rifle in his hands, fiddling with it, pointing the muzzle in any which direction, looking down the sight in different directions.... basically doing things which would get anybody thrown out of a gun show or a shooting range, do I really need to wait until he shoots a couple of people, before I shoot him myself?
I am not a sell out for regarding a stranger at Taco Bell with a rifle in his hands to be a threat.
A gun is like your pecker: every man should have one, but you shouldn't take it out in public and point it at people.
Hell - just leave them outside leaning against the door jamb so that some malcreant can pick it up and come on in to rob the "Gun-free Zone"
Where are those guys & Gals with guns when you need them!
III
Post a Comment