It is a very positive aspect of a society to be uncomfortable with freedom of speech as it represents much social progress.
It is a very positive aspect of a society to be uncomfortable with freedom of the press as it represents much social progress.
It is a very positive aspect of a society to be uncomfortable with freedom of religion as it represents much social progress.
It is a very positive aspect of a society to be uncomfortable with the right to trial by jury as it represents much social progress.
It is a very positive aspect of a society to be uncomfortable with innocent until proven guilty as it represents much social progress.
It is a very positive aspect of a society to be uncomfortable with the right to vote as it represents much social progress.
Because saying a bunch of wrong stuff in the same manner as something that was correct, but makes you uncomfortable, constitutes a valid argument. Did you bother to even think about it or did you instantly perceive it as a threatening statement against guns? This kind of over the top attitude is
literally the only thing that will remove our right to bear arms in the perceivable future. There are those who want to take them, but is in our Constitution. Do you have any idea what kind of uphill battle that is? There are several core concepts to why the law is in place to bear arms. How is it that they, anti gun proponents, were able to chip away at gun rights slowly, law by law, despite the insurmountable odds against them?
Because of irrational arguments and attitudes by the stupid, screaming minority making guns owners "a group". Don't you see this is exactly how they will win? Don't you understand that this is on purpose? They propose ridiculous anti-gun laws that would be struck down in a half second in court only to face the most unnecessarily excessive comeback year after year, decade after decade, all the while turning the public tide against us. Turn the public, turn the courts. This is only made worse that so many of the comebacks themselves are arrogant
and inane - a very unfortunate and self destructive combination.
Now anti-gun proponents have so much traction in the public that we fight a real fight to keep guns. Now is as important as
ever to fight carefully, smartly. In a sense, gun laws got a very lucky break when there started being 100 issues more important to worry about than gun control and it was placed on a backburner. If we were proceeding as we were 10-15 years ago we'd be lucky to have kitchen knives right now. We have allowed them to pin all the gun crime on us. We
let them. Rather than refocusing them on the real social issues that are the root of the problems, we validated everything they accused us of by reacting the way we did - both by the loud minority and collectively in this case.
I'd like to point something out while I'm on this very long rant. When someone questions a rule, you cannot defend the rule by claiming the rule makes it valid. Imagine there is a sign that says "Walk on the sidewalk". Mr.Dickhead comes up and says "Why should I do that? Lets walk on the grass too". The answer to this is not "THE SIGN SAYS WALK ON THE SIDEWALK" it is, "If everybody walked on the grass, it will be ruined". If somebody says "Citizens no longer need guns and the second amendment is invalid" the answer isn't "THE SECOND AMENDMENT GIVES ME THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS". They are questioning the reasoning, they aren't blind. These days there are those who specifically try to draw that response, because of the value it has for the gun control cause. It gives the amendment a hollow appearance if that's the "main" argument heard by the general public. It must be backed up with the facts.
Don't nitpick a tiny detail and stamp down as hard as you can while ignoring everything else. For instance, what you went off on was insignificant, while the entire post was pro open carry. In fact you later went on to agree with Doc1911 who said the exact same thing. If you're going to do that, at least address everything else as well.
And now to what was said. I'm not exactly sure how the psychological response to weapons in any way relates to our right to free speech, freedom of religion, trial by jury, innocent until proven guilty, or the right to vote. The very concept that currently there are areas safe enough where the sight of a weapon will make someone uncomfortable is a milestone in social progress. There are very few times in history this has ever been the case. I can understand how this might be perceived as an anti gun statement, in a knee jerk response sort of way, but see above. However, while it is nice to daydream about a time where weapons would never be needed, it is laughable at best and disastrous to try. Open carry should be allowed, it is an important right, but I'm very glad it's unnecessary in very many places. Unfortunately the only places I can think of where it's prudent to be openly well armed are the places where you can't have a gun at all.
