Armed strangers: Good or bad?

D

Don Gwinn

Staff Emeritus
Can't help you there. I don't get it either. Now, I do know at least one guy I don't trust with a weapon, but he's no stranger. I have good reason.

I try to assume that any stranger I meet may be armed. Illinois is not a CCW state, but that doesn't mean no one is doing it. Going ballistic over one who is openly armed doesn't make much sense to me.

As for property rights, yes, you have the right to hassle anyone you want on your private property, but that doesn't make it wise or mean that you're not being silly.
 
T

Thumper

New member
kantuc2,

In your last post on the old thread, you said that I called you an elitist and an anti. I did not. I said you posses the attitudes of the Anti's. Subtle difference, I admit.

It is a simple question. Two possible answers.

Armed strangers: good or bad. Don't say,"refer to my earlier posts." Just answer.
 
K

kantuc2

New member
There is a third option that you forgot, that is be polite to everyone and have a plan to kill them. Strangers armed or otherwise are neither "good" nor "bad" because they are an unknown factor. The question that needs to be asked is if I would let an unknown person armed or other wise into my house. The answer is "No" that is simple prudence. As to an individual that I know the question would not even come up. They know and respect my house rules and would park their weapon at the door without my having to say a thing. With respect to strangers armed or otherwise on the street I am neutral, I simply don't care what they do, what they carry or don't carry. They leave me and mine alone and I leave them alone. As to the folks with CCWs being on the street making me feel safer, well I have seen alot of those folks do their quals and as a result I have learned to take cover in a big hurry. Same goes for the police by the way.
 
J

johninaustin

New member
Good to see a new thread, things were getting a litle cumbersome.
It boils down to, a right is also a responsibility. However, how to tell a person is responsible?

Now the question seems to be, why do I not automatically approve of people I don't know carrying around me? The other thread put the emphasis on a home situation, but it applies everywhere really.

Normally, I don't have a problem with it, indeed I even teach CHL classes here in Texas. For free.

In a nutshell, I have a problem with idiots. You cannot easliy identify them before something nasty occurs.
There are some situations where it is possible to limit idiot behaviour.
My home. (No carry until I get to know you) Work, (No guns without proir approval and inspection, no ammo in class) At the range. (No firing other than on the firing line, No handling of weapons when the range is cold, no one allowed without a range safety briefing.)

There are rules about firearms in all these places. None of these rules are onerous, none infringe on a basic right. These rules are not guarantee against idiot behaviour, but they help.

As an example, I point to the thread about the gun show shooting. Idiot at large without a doubt, two people wounded.
Basic safety rules violated, by someone you have just met. transfer this situation into any location you wish. Wouldn't you want to limit the posisibility?

Apparently according to the thread this particular gun show bans the carry of loaded weapons. Does anyone here wish to make the argument that a gun show is infringing on your gun rights? :confused:
 
C

Ceol Mhor

New member
There's a place where people gather to socialize, shoot, show off new fashions, and generally enjoy the company of others.

A place where everyone, including the little kids, open-carries a pair of pistols, and keeps a couple of long guns handy as well.

A place where politeness is the rule rather than the exception.

Which L Neil Smith novel is this, you ask? None! It's your friendly local cowboy action match! :cool:
 
T

Thumper

New member
As to the folks with CCWs being on the street making me feel safer, well I have seen alot of those folks do their quals and as a result I have learned to take cover in a big hurry.
Click to expand...

OK, Kantuc, you have established your position. I wouldn't want to lump you in with the anti's or anything... :rolleyes:

I'm going to have to ignore your bringing up property rights(again). I guess explaining something to you seven times (!) doesn't quite cover it.
 
R

Red Label

New member
I'll just repeat what I said in the earlier thread... people's posts pretty much do all the talking to me about where they stand on the issue of carrying.

Would I let a known wacko come into my house waving a gun around? NO. Would I allow a stranger to come into my house waving a gun around? NO. Would I allow a stranger to come into my house armed, but not threatening anyone with his firearm AND within the context of the get-together? YOU BETCHYA. It's the blanket statements here that anyone who is not a known quantitiy WILL BE disarmed that I have a problem with. That is EXACTLY what the anti's say? Honestly, I don't know why this is so hard to understand here. People are letting their passion about property owner's rights cloud their ability to see that what some here are really talking about is TOTALLY outside of property owner's rights. This is a pro- 2nd Ammendment site here -- which means that you are also going to find a lot of people who are pro- property rights here (me included). It's the stance that "UNLESS I KNOW YOU, YOU WILL BE DISARMED BY ME, WHETHER YOU DESERVE IT OR NOT" that so offends some of us here. That is anti-rhetoric. It just does NOT jive with support of the 2nd Ammendment. Can I be anymore clear?
 
K

kantuc2

New member
Just how do you determine who is a wacko and who is not? If you can give me a 100% accurate test that I can administer at the door or any place else then possibly we have grounds to discuss strangers. The problem you folks seem to be having is that you assume that the second is a stand alone right. It is not, the second is woven through out the entire Bill of Rights, they are all interdependent. The right for a person to be secure in his person and papers (home) is where most of the people on this series of threads have chosen to illustrate their point. Why?because it is primary. The same arguments could be made for the first, would you let an armed stranger into your church? Would you let an armed stranger into your town meeting? Right now (and this is an aside), your property rights are in far more danger than your gun rights. Your so called "right to privacy" is all but gone, can anyone show me in the Constitution or Bill of Rights where I have a right to privacy? You quibble about what is really a readily replaced piece of metal and while you are busy with this everthing else is being taken away from you. You worry about a burning match while you are surrounded by a forest fire.:p
 
P

pax

New member
Some people have a default setting of, "You may not be armed around me unless I know you are safe."

Others have a default setting of, "You may be armed around me unless you have demonstrated that you are not safe."

The former position is not consistent with concealed-carry laws, nor with the Constitution, nor with basic human rights.

pax
 
R

Red Label

New member
Amen Pax and Tam. I guess that some here just don't get what we are trying to say and we don't get what they are saying. And that's the problem. Just like the NRA versus the ANTI's. Throwing in the towel here Thumper... it's all yours.

BTW... I think Sarah Brady is posting with an alias here... :rolleyes: To "her" I say -- SEE MY STATEMENTS IN CAPS IN MY PREVIOUS POST.
 
K

kantuc2

New member
Hey Pax, please explain to me how concealed carry laws are consistant with the Second Amendment.
You seem to be of a double mind here. :p
You might want to check artical 4 of the Bill of Rights
 
M

mpthole

New member
My question to kantuc: How are they not consistent with the 2A? Or in other words, why wouldn't the 2A apply to concealed carry?

There are ample explanations on this site of the pro-RKBA position. Please "enlighten" us as to yours.
 
T

Thumper

New member
She mentioned three things that were mutually exclusive, Kantuc2. In other words, she never said that all three of those jibe.

She correctly noted that your view of "not trustin 'em enough to let em carry" violated all three.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top