Open Carry of a Dangerous Weapon

[ZNFYRH]

Kam

Whatever has gotten into you today is beyond me, but in doing so you dismissed the core of the issue. If you can't refute it, what does that tell me?

[Osborn F Enready]

ZNYFRH said: You can put me on ignore now. You are clearly paranoid about the government taking over. There is nothing to support this other than you being scared. You can call it prepared, but in the end, it's because you are afraid of whatever it is you are preparing against.

LOL, ok Dr. Zen. ( I am glad this visit was free, I wouldn't have paid for the analysis you put forth. )

ZNYFRH said: I'm arguing my point quite clearly... that open carry of firearms is not beneficial and causes more problems than it starts.

Why is it not beneficial?

How does it cause more problems?

ZNYFRH said: You start in on Constitutional rights... this has nothing to do with the Constitution. I have no problem with you carrying a firearm. I have a problem with you carrying it in plain sight. That's why you're having a problem understanding me..

Go back and re-read the thread, I think you're mistaken.

ZNYFRH said: you are blinded by your need to soap-box about the rights and such... again. It gets old... you're like the Zhavric of civil rights. You copy-paste your same rhetoric regardless of its relevance to the topic.

Really? You have the option not to reply, or instigate if you feel I am not a debater of your "caliber". I didn't copy and past much of anything except when citing other websites that I referenced with links.

ZNYFRH said: So by all means... put me on ignore if you think I'm insulting you by saying you're either cowardly or paranoid.

No need to ignore you, as it doesn't upset me as much as it shows your obvious disrespect and lowers the quality of the debate. It's a shame you don't recognize that as a personal insult, when you directly attribute it to someone based on your opinion.

Are you saying that the term "coward" or "paranoid" aren't insulting when used in the contexts you used them in application to descriptions of me?

Are you saying they aren't personal, when directed at me?

ZNYFRH said: There are plenty of limitations on rights.

Quoted, from the Bill of Rights:

....the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

ZNYFRH, it would be you who would have to provide clear logical reasoning as to why the government would have the right to infringe upon the individual rights of a citizen.

It is you who alledge "open carry" is so dangerous, we should have laws preventing it based on ________________, even though it directly infringes on indiviual rights of citizens.

[Kamehameha34]

I haven't dismissed anything. The fact that I can't refute what you don't post should be within even your grasp.

The core of the issue is the constitution. I choose to respect it, and you choose to dismiss it as arbitrary.

All that this should tell you is that you didn't make an effort to understand the opposing arguments. That's all you've done since your entry to the thread. It's as if you read the first line of every post, copy/paste something vaguely relevant to it, and call it debating.

The fact that you think that you alone have any kind of authority to dismiss an opponent's post out of laziness, inability, or whatever infliction you have renders you a blatant hypocrite.

Take a look back a few posts. I'm not the only one pissed at your off-hand denial of something posted. He was being tactful when simply categorizing you as "impolite".

I strongly suggest that you either continue the debate civilly and without any of these magical dismissals, or cease to address me altogether, because these cowardly dodges are a sure way to get a rise out of me. I recommend starting with the post you ignored.

[ZNFYRH]

Osborn
Kam

Are you two done telling me how to post?

Since, Kam, you tell me you don't have the burden of proof, I don't need to "understand" the opposing arguments.

I gave a very clear justification for what I believe. Requiring that people who want to carry guns cannot do so openly doesn't infringe on their right to carry the gun. By keeping the weapon concealed, they are not disturbing the peace of those around them while simultaneously exercising their Constitutional right to bear arms.

If either of you wants to tell me how requiring that a gun be concealed is infringing on the 2nd Amendment, that would be the best way to convince me I'm wrong.

[Osborn F Enready]

ZNYFRH said: If either of you wants to tell me how requiring that a gun be concealed is infringing on the 2nd Amendment, that would be the best way to convince me I'm wrong.

Shameless copy and paste attempt to get Z to address the issue.

ZNYFRH, it would be you who would have to provide clear logical reasoning as to why the government would have the right to infringe upon the individual rights of a citizen. It is you who alledge "open carry" is so dangerous, we should have laws preventing it based on ________________, even though it directly infringes on indiviual rights of citizens.

Now, the Bill of Rights states clearly, the peoples right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Is a prohibition law on open carry a restriction?
Is a restriction of liberty an infringement?

Who has the burden of proof?

[Kamehameha34]

If either of you wants to tell me how requiring that a gun be concealed is infringing on the 2nd Amendment, that would be the best way to convince me I'm wrong.

You could start with reading our posts. That's the brilliance of the internet, you can go back and read what you've ignored at least once.

Are you two done telling me how to post?

If someone posted only in French, I would advise him to use English for a higher volume of responses.

If someone posted gibberish, I would ask him to make sense of it.

You channeled your efforts into .. well, something that must have caught your attention outside of this discussion, because I don't see a lot of it in your posts. I said so, and I'm not the only one.

There is one of two things you could be thinking, if you weren't dodging:

1. That we are both idiots and can't tell when a point has been ignored.
2. That we are both idiots and can't tell when we've made a point.

If you're not dodging, I suggest you reread my post for the points that were missed. Unless you think I'm an idiot, then this "debate"* is pointless.



*I put debate in "'s because debate requires reciprocation of counterpoints.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Osborn Shameless copy and paste attempt to get Z to address the issue.

I gave those reasons already in post #38. It's possible, and I think highly likely, that you were typing your response before you read that post.

Quote by: Osborn Now, the Bill of Rights states clearly, the peoples right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I acknowledged this in post #38 already.

Quote by: Osborn Is a prohibition law on open carry a restriction?

Yes.

Quote by: Osborn Is a restriction of liberty an infringement?

No.

In this case, the right only specifies "bear arms." It doesn't say how. If the amendment stated "openly bear arms" I would be agreeing with you 100%. But it doesn't.

As I'm sure you'll agree, this gov't was founded on the idea that we all have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Openly carrying a firearm conveys to the average citizen that one or more of those three basic rights is being threatened.

So let me ask you... do you believe that something that threatens one of those three should be suppressed as quickly as possible?

From what I've read, I think you do. I think you believe that when something threatens your rights that you should fight to eliminate that thing.

So when you openly carrying a firearm is perceived as a threat by others, how is it wrong of them to want you to carry your firearm concealed?

You can still carry your gun, and more power to you for doing so.

Those who feel threatened will no longer perceive any threat.

Both of you can go on your way enjoying your rights.

The point is that your right to bear arms is not threatened by saying that you must bear arms concealed on your person.

But by openly carrying a firearm, you are a perceived threat to the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness for others.

I don't think you are, not in the criminal sense, but that is their perception.

[ZNFYRH]

Kam

See what Osborn did was cut the bullshit and get back to the issue in order to facilitate debate. He asked me to defend my position and I directed him to a post he may have missed. Then he asked other questions in a clear, concise, and polite manner, which I answered to the best of my ability and in a way I think illustrates the reasoning behind what I believe.

But your post is useless. I didn't ignore what either of you had to say. I read it carefully. After doing so, I decided that the point of what you both said wasn't actually addressing the issue, but a larger issue that is part of the topic but not the focus of the topic.

Osborn seems to have picked up on that and took his line of questioning to the infringement of the 2nd amendment instead of the elimination of it. Big difference there.

[Kamehameha34]

Stop trying to validate yourself and answer the post. If you want it explained, I will explain it. Osborn has not changed any of his arguments, he is explaining them to you.

Are you frustrated that you actually have to debate?

There are many avenues you can take from here. Continue to be an ass and assume I haven't posted anything, or answer the post that I'm sure is now a good 10 posts overdue.

[ZNFYRH]

Kam

You must've woke up on the wrong side of the bed this morning because you are being uncharacteristically rude. If you want to repeat the core of what you are trying to say, you can do so.

But if it presumes I'm talking about eliminating the right to bear arms, you will waste your time. I don't want to start all over responding to you, so I suggest you respond to what I wrote to Osborn instead.

I'm not frustrated I have to debate. But when I'm talking about one thing and you're talking about another, that's not debate. Osborn is now on-topic for both the thread and my argument and now he and I can debate this clearly.

How you proceed is your choice.

[Kamehameha34]

So I'm to be forced to dissect my own post? So be it. Consider your behavior excused.

Does a law that limits political punditry to certain hours of the day violate the first amendment?

Meaning: Limiting a right is still a violation of it.
How is this relevant?: Limiting the bearing of a gun is a violation of the right to bear them.

Also, why are you so determined to defeat the main purpose of a firearm? People openly bear them because they want violence to be the penultimate answer to resolution of a conflict, ensuring that the very last is injury or death to their persons. That's how self-defense works.

Meaning: Visible guns would preclude violence more than it would cause it.
How is this relevant?: Self-evident.

Burden of proof exists in both fields. Clearly you haven't thought out the implications of your argument. Should a law banning purple shirts with green pants pass because there's no necessity for that particular ensemble? You are proposing a law. Give me constitutional validation for it.

Meaning: One could propose any ridiculous law if the only requirement was a lack of necessity for the things it prohibits. This leaves the burden of proof with the one proposing the law.

How is this relevant?: You have to prove that hiding guns bears any constitutional necessity.

If I holster a gun next to the front pocket where I happen to keep my wallet, I seriously doubt that any attempts to pick it will succeed without first noticing the gun. Whatever line you have to cross to pickpocket someone with a gun readily hostered, I'm willing to bet that it is far past the one you have to cross to pickpocket an unstrapped streetwalker.

Meaning: I don't have to use a gun to benefit from having it visible, in the way that I'd be less likely to have my pocket picked.
How is this relevant?: It isn't really, but it originated from your question.

How many burglars do you know that have volunteered to body cavity searches?

Meaning: He already broke into my house, so I'm not going to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he doesn't have a weapon.
How is this relevant?: It is not up to me to determine if a threat is deadly.

Legality has nothing to do with it. The highest authority is the constitution, regardless of the apparent lack of respect it seems to be getting.

Meaning: Constitution > Laws.
How is this relevant?: "Disturbing the peace" is a bogus law, if used against someone upholding their constitutional right.



Hopefully this has been explained thoroughly enough, and another spoonfeeding won't be necessary.

Now for the one thing you did respond to:

In the most recent look at the 2nd Amendment, the "Shelly Parker v. District of Columbia" decision in March 2007, it was decided that "bear" simply means "carry." The issue, then is about how you bear arms.

Let's extrapolate this to speech. Does the government have the right to legislate how you speak? What you speak of? Where you speak?

If you think they only have the right to legislate how, why just that?

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Kam How is this relevant?: Limiting the bearing of a gun is a violation of the right to bear them.

That's what the debate is about.

Quote by: Kam Meaning: Visible guns would preclude violence more than it would cause it. How is this relevant?: Self-evident.

This is not self-evident. You'll have to back this one up if you want me to accept it as true. Some kind of statistic that clearly states that, as you wrote, visible guns prevent more violence than it causes.

My basis for rejecting that is that police officers are armed yet people still shoot at them and otherwise engage in violence against them. As are members of the military. Yet it doesn't seem to prevent any violence at all. Thus my need for a valid statistic.

Quote by: Kam How is this relevant?: You have to prove that hiding guns bears any constitutional necessity.

Addressed in post #38.

Quote by: Kam How is this relevant?: It is not up to me to determine if a threat is deadly.

Yes, actually it is. Opening fire on a burglar in your home who is trying to leave with your television means, legally, that you thought he was a threat to your life. Remember, the 2nd Amendment states that you have a right to bear arms in defense of yourself. How is killing someone who is not threatening you with deadly force a defense of yourself?

Quote by: Kam How is this relevant?: "Disturbing the peace" is a bogus law, if used against someone upholding their constitutional right.

The problem is you think the law is bogus. But in doing so, you are acknowledging that that law exists. I explained this in post #38 as to what the problem is with "disturbing the peace" and how it relates to OC a fun.

Quote by: Kam Does the government have the right to legislate how you speak? What you speak of? Where you speak?

Yes, they do. I've given two examples in post #38.

You can freely distribute pamphlets stating that a nuclear bomb will be detonated in New York City the day after Election Day. If you incite a mass panic, it doesn't matter if you were advertising for Season One of Heroes coming out on DVD. What matters is that you exercised (not upheld) your right to free speech in a way that disturbed the peace.

[Kamehameha34]

That's what the debate is about.

You skipped the argument part, went to the point, and then just asserted the opposite..?

This is not self-evident. You'll have to back this one up if you want me to accept it as true. Some kind of statistic that clearly states that, as you wrote, visible guns prevent more violence than it causes.

The relevance was self evident..

And wasn't it you who used "experience" to support your assertion that there are asses all over the place brandishing guns at eachother?

Addressed in post #38.

Employing a post which was debunked in post #37.

Yes, actually it is. Opening fire on a burglar in your home who is trying to leave with your television means, legally, that you thought he was a threat to your life. Remember, the 2nd Amendment states that you have a right to bear arms in defense of yourself. How is killing someone who is not threatening you with deadly force a defense of yourself?

He has broken into my home. He doesn't get the benefit of the doubt. If I shoot him before he has a chance to pull a gun on me, there's less of a chance I'll die. That is the point of self defense.

The problem is you think the law is bogus. But in doing so, you are acknowledging that that law exists. I explained this in post #38 as to what the problem is with "disturbing the peace" and how it relates to OC a fun.

Once again, constitution > law.

Any law that infringes upon constitutionally given rights is unconstitutional.

That whole "fire in a movietheatre" bit shouldn't be illegal, either. Someone who does shout it is responsible for any damage caused, and prevention of it should be a social matter.

You can freely distribute pamphlets stating that a nuclear bomb will be detonated in New York City the day after Election Day. If you incite a mass panic, it doesn't matter if you were advertising for Season One of Heroes coming out on DVD. What matters is that you exercised (not upheld) your right to free speech in a way that disturbed the peace.

You do not have the right to peace.

The government is trying to protect your "peace", which you have no right to, at the expense of my constitutional rights. Once again, constitution > law.

Now, if the panic I incited somehow infringed upon someone's rights, then I'd be accountable for violating them. Inciting panic is not a constitutional offense on its own.

[ZNFYRH]

Kam

You have yet to demonstrate how requiring someone to carry a gun concealed is infringing upon their rights.

And you make a strange contradiction.

You say I have no right to peace, but the government tries to protect it. It's the government's job to protect my rights. So which is it?

Is it a right or not? If it's not, why does the gov't seek to protect it?

That's what I mean when I say your arguments are something of nonsense.

You say that inciting a panic is not a Constitutional offense. It is, however, a legal offense. What you fail to understand that the Constitution allows you a right. What the law does is punish you for the consequences of exercising that right.

Again, the Constitution does not protect you from the consequences of your rights. You have the right to say what you want to a person, but you aren't protected from having your face punched in.

Requiring that guns be CC instead of OC is eliminating the potential for panic. There is no legal difference between wearing the gun in a holster openly and having the gun in your hand. The legal perspective is that the OC has the potential to cause panic.

Now answer this... how does CC-only infringe on the 2nd Amendment?

[Kamehameha34]

You have yet to demonstrate how requiring someone to carry a gun concealed is infringing upon their rights.

No, I've actually explained it quite clearly.

You say I have no right to peace, but the government tries to protect it. It's the government's job to protect my rights. So which is it?

Point out in the constitution where you are guaranteed peace.

Is it a right or not? If it's not, why does the gov't seek to protect it?

Because the government is enforcing what amounts to an unconstitutional law.

You say that inciting a panic is not a Constitutional offense. It is, however, a legal offense.

You summed it up in the first sentence. Inciting a panic does not directly infringe upon any rights.

Requiring that guns be CC instead of OC is eliminating the potential for panic.

Requiring that all speech must be reviewed by government officials would eliminate the potential for panic as well.

Now answer this... how does CC-only infringe on the 2nd Amendment?

For the same reason that controlling speech in any way is in violation of the first amendment.

Once you place a requirement on a right, it's no longer a right.

Let's apply a little logic:

1. Bearing arms is a right
2. Once you place a requirement on a right, it's no longer a right.
3. Bearing arms has no requirements.

The only constitutional obligation I have is to not infringe upon the rights of others in my bearing.

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

Whilst agreeing entirely with your citizens rights to bear arms.

do you consider it an infringement of the rights of visitors (aliens from foreign shores) not to also be allowed these rights?

[Kamehameha34]

do you consider it an infringement of the rights of visitors (aliens from foreign shores) not to also be allowed these rights?

No, but we have application processes.

[ZNFYRH]

Quote by: Kam No, I've actually explained it quite clearly.

It's clear to you but not to me. How is requiring CC infringing on your right to carry?

Quote by: Kam Point out in the constitution where you are guaranteed peace.

The Constitution doesn't grant rights. It establishes what you can't do.

For example, the 2nd Amendment doesn't give you the right to bear arms. It tells you that someone can't infringe upon that right.

As another example, nowhere in the Constitution does it say I have the right to life... not be murdered. But murdering someone is still illegal, isn't it?

Your arguments aren't really relevant. I can see how you think they are, and if I weren't careful I would have that assumption as well.

Your first mistake is that you haven't answered why CC is infringing in the 2nd Amendment. No silly logical comparisons. Just straight forwards... how would it be taking away your right to carry if I tell you that you can carry as long as you conceal it?

Your second mistake is in believing that no one can ever infringe upon those rights. They most definitely can.

The State government can set a drinking age, even though an Amendment ended prohibition. The government can infringe upon your right to bear arms while you are in prison.

Instead of the long-winded answers, just tell me how CC infringes on the 2nd Amendment. Short and simple.

[Arawn-ap-Hywel]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 No, but we have application processes.

Agreed, but most require renewal for every visit

[Kamehameha34]

The Constitution doesn't grant rights. It establishes what you can't do. For example, the 2nd Amendment doesn't give you the right to bear arms. It tells you that someone can't infringe upon that right.

Thusly guaranteeing me a right to bear arms. Show me where in the constitution you are guaranteed a right to peace.

As another example, nowhere in the Constitution does it say I have the right to life... not be murdered. But murdering someone is still illegal, isn't it?

It says, in the fifth amendment, that you are "not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

Your first mistake is that you haven't answered why CC is infringing in the 2nd Amendment. No silly logical comparisons. Just straight forwards... how would it be taking away your right to carry if I tell you that you can carry as long as you conceal it?

It would infringe upon my rights because it puts limits on it outside of protecting the rights of others. How many times do I have to say this?

Your second mistake is in believing that no one can ever infringe upon those rights. They most definitely can. The State government can set a drinking age, even though an Amendment ended prohibition.

Why do you think that continuing to point out bastardizations of the constitution makes a point? The fact that they exist doesn't make them constitutional.

The government can infringe upon your right to bear arms while you are in prison.

"Due process of law"