LA Times
Jennifer Carlson says the increasing prevalence of men carrying guns in
public in some areas is the result of a "crisis of confidence in the
American dream." She writes that "men find in guns a sense of duty,
relevance and even dignity." ("Why men feel the need to carry guns," op-ed, May 26)
I am a man. I have been disappointed in my pursuit of the ever-more
elusive American dream. I feel at times irrelevant and lacking in
purpose. However, I do not carry a gun. Does that make me less of a man
or defeatist?
While teaching at a private school in Arizona, I
confronted an individual who was openly carrying. I asked him why, and
he answered, "Because I can." There was nothing about duty, only
disrespect for the decency of most Americans who feel unsafe in the
presence of an armed individual.
This isn't because of protection or duty, but unmitigated arrogance and a distorted interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
Douglas Mitchell, Portland, Ore.
"While teaching at a private school in Arizona, I confronted an individual who was openly carrying. I asked him why, and he answered, "Because I can." There was nothing about duty, only disrespect for the decency of most Americans who feel unsafe in the presence of an armed individual."
ReplyDeleteHere is an interesting contradiction. I'm assuming that he is one of his claimed majority of Americans who feel unsafe in the presence of an armed person, yet he seems to have had no problems with confronting such a person.
For some reason he feels disappointed that the person peacefully going about his business didn't want to stop and chat at length with a stranger who was asking questions about his decision on self defense. The arrogance he wrote into the exchange might have just been the man running late for an appointment or work.
Certainly engaging in a sidewalk debate on carrying a firearm doesn't sound like a fun time for the person carrying and it was likely wise he nipped it in the bud by walking away.
"about his decision on self defense"
DeleteAre you saying that's why people open carry?
"Are you saying that's why people open carry?"
DeleteNo Mike. Everyone who carrys a firearm for self defense makes decisions based on local laws as to how they carry. The majority of states in the union allow open carry in one form or another.
Some states require you to conceal and even go so far as to allow you to be arrested and charged if an officer can see your firearm. This can be misused by overzealous LEOs or as a result of an accidental exposure.
The reasons are unimportant, and the business of the person who elects to do so. Accosting a stranger on the street with such a question is very intrusive. You could possibly get away with it depending on how you ask and the mood of the person being asked.
Mr. Mitchell here, and I'm just going by how he writes about it, was possibly asking in a way that would be calling into question that person's decision and shouldn't have been surprised any more than if he had asked a question regarding any other legal activity such as smoking or eating meat.
I'm still waiting for you guys to provide an example.
Delete"Some states require you to conceal and even go so far as to allow you to be arrested and charged if an officer can see your firearm. "
I'm still waiting for you guys to provide an example.
DeleteLike Florida?
Seventeen seconds after getting out of the car, Smith was asked for his registration and insurance. As he turned, something was slightly visible in his back pocket.
[ . . . ]
Smith is legally licensed to carry a concealed weapon, but was handcuffed and arrested anyway, charged with carrying a prohibited weapon openly.
That took a few seconds to find. I suspect I could find examples in Texas, too. Just a little more evidence (as if any were needed) that those two states need to relax their hyper-authoritarian gun laws. Texas, at least, appears poised to do just that.
"I'm still waiting for you guys to provide an example. "
DeleteTexas and Florida are two examples. Here is the Florida law,
http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2013/790.053
And here is an incident on video,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qKeJ6jd2Ak
And here,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OArAbcz3hlo
Because they are pussies.
ReplyDeleteBut all this time people keep telling us that we carry them because they're substitute dicks. You people need to make up your minds.
ReplyDeleteAs I've explained to you before when you make that bullshit false claim, the dick references are metaphors for psychological inadequacy. They're not literal. I know you like to conveniently refuse to recognize various figures of speech, but I guess that's the best you can do.
DeleteAs I've explained to you before when you make that bullshit false claim . . . .
DeleteUm . . . what "bullshit false claim"? I never claimed that the infantile talk about dick size wasn't metaphorical, just that such talk is very popular among the very stupid.
I think Flying J is more honest in expressing his opinion than you are Mike. And we do you tolerate such hate speech from FJ anyway? Aren't you worried he is pushing a gun nut towards violence with talk like that?
Delete"As I've explained to you before when you make that bullshit false claim, the dick references are metaphors for psychological inadequacy. They're not literal."
DeleteThat is simply an inaccurate statement Mike....I have seen many use's of that particular vulgarity where the person makes it quite clear that they are speaking literally of penis size and not metaphorically....even here on your blog though not recently
"Um . . . what "bullshit false claim"? I never claimed that the infantile talk about dick size wasn't metaphorical, just that such talk is very popular among the very stupid."
DeleteAnother thing I've mentioned a time or two before is that it's usually guys on your side of the argument that mention "dicks" first, as you did in this thread.
George, admittedly, some of the idiots who use this device are incapable of the mental capacity to even understand what a metaphor is. So, you're right. OK?
Another thing I've mentioned a time or two before is that it's usually guys on your side of the argument that mention "dicks" first . . .
DeleteIt "usually" is, huh? What an . . . interesting world you inhabit, Mikeb.
. . . as you did in this thread.
True, but Mr. Junior mentioned genitalia first.
So, you're right. OK?
If Mr. Jefferson is right that not all who claim that gun owners are compensating for inadequate reproductive anatomy do so metaphorically, then my statement would not be a "bullshit false claim" even if I had said that some anti-gun zealots really do mean what they're saying (but I didn't).