A Gentleman's Guide to Open Carry

**ICantSpellDawg** · 06-13-2014, 12:04

You are speaking out of both sides. First you say that they will take away our guns if we don't shut up, now you are saying that would never happen because of logistics. People are within their right to try to amend the Constitution, but there is a reason that this is so rare. Even if they amended the Constitution, they still have to come and get them

**Lemur** · 06-13-2014, 16:43

Meh, I find the entire positioning of the 2nd Amendment really weird and ahistorical.

Did the founders envision a standing army? Nope. They thought that was a thing to avoid.

Did the founders envision paramilitary police? Nope, unimaginable to them.

Did they want everything organized around citizen militias? Yep. They figured that was the way to avoid the self-evident evil of a standing army.

Our situation is so wildly out of whack with what they intendend, and by extension, what they meant when they wrote the short, simple sentence that is the Second Amendment.

All of this talk about YOU HAVE TO GO AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION is bullhockey. The everybody-gets-a-gun with minimal regulation thing? That is a recent invention. Has absolutely nothing to do with the Second Amendment, unless you choose to read it in a brain-bendingly selective manner.

Reprint:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

**SwordsMaster** · 06-13-2014, 17:51

Originally Posted by Lemur

Meh, I find the entire positioning of the 2nd Amendment really weird and ahistorical.

Did the founders envision a standing army? Nope. They thought that was a thing to avoid.

Did the founders envision paramilitary police? Nope, unimaginable to them.

Did they want everything organized around citizen militias? Yep. They figured that was the way to avoid the self-evident evil of a standing army.

Our situation is so wildly out of whack with what they intendend, and by extension, what they meant when they wrote the short, simple sentence that is the Second Amendment.

All of this talk about YOU HAVE TO GO AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION is bullhockey. The everybody-gets-a-gun with minimal regulation thing? That is a recent invention. Has absolutely nothing to do with the Second Amendment, unless you choose to read it in a brain-bendingly selective manner.

Reprint:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Exactly, what the constitution enshrines is, in effect, something like Finland or Switzerland. Nothing to do with carrying guns shopping with you.

**Lemur** · 06-13-2014, 19:02

Originally Posted by SwordsMaster

Exactly, what the constitution enshrines is, in effect, something like Finland or Switzerland. Nothing to do with carrying guns shopping with you.

Yep, and all of the letters, speeches, and public records from the time support that position.

Thomas Jefferson: "The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so."

James Madison: "A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. [...] War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few."

George Washington: "a large standing Army in time of Peace hath ever been considered dangerous to the liberties of a Country"

And on and on and on. The evidence is overwhelming. The Second Amendment is clearly, obviously an aspect of the founders' distrust/fear of maintaining a standing army. To cite 2A and not understand its context and intent is just insane.

**Pannonian** · 06-13-2014, 19:22

Originally Posted by Lemur

Yep, and all of the letters, speeches, and public records from the time support that position.

Thomas Jefferson: "The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so."

Didn't the Greeks and Romans consider barbaric to carry swords and daggers around in normal company?

**lars573** · 06-13-2014, 23:22

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Didn't the Greeks and Romans consider barbaric to carry swords and daggers around in normal company?

No. It was against Roman laws and customs to be fully geared for war (IE armed and armoured) inside the cities walls, save for certain events. But being simply armed was just fine (and probably prudent).

**Sir Moody** · 06-14-2014, 00:16

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Didn't the Greeks and Romans consider barbaric to carry swords and daggers around in normal company?

So did most Medieval Kingdoms - In England you were permitted to wear a sword while outside a city but upon arrival in a city were required to immediately go to your place of residence (or Inn if visiting) and store the sword - being caught in the street wearing a sword and not heading directly to your place of residence or out of the city would result in fines or worse.

**ICantSpellDawg** · 06-14-2014, 01:24

I understand the problem with watching someone walk into a Starbucks with a loaded rifle with their hand on the grip and finger on the trigger in low-ready-to-fire.

The question is - why are you afraid of law abiding people who have undergone a mental evaluation, had an in-person interview with law enforcement, and secured a 5 year renewable permit carrying a handgun? There is statistically very little danger to this in a nation where most people can own guns and illegally carry them as the will sees fit. Whether the law abiding carry those handguns concealed or open on their hip, does this have a real affect on you, or merely one of perception? Are you in any more danger?

You must recognize that there is a difference between a drug-adled criming carrying a firearm and someone who is licensed to do so. Even in Florida, you need to pass a safety course and have a renewable background check.

What is your problem with this?