Previous Post
Next Post

Connecticut resident David Rafferty penned a polemic for headlined ‘Safety from guns is not tyranny’. Straight away we know we’re not in Kansas anymore. The title tells us that Mr. Rafferty doesn’t consider gun control a form of tyranny. Even a cursory understanding of the American Revolution would yield the opposite conclusion. A closer examination — such as David B. Kopel’s The American Revolution against British Gun Control — spells it out in great detail. And that’s before Mr. Rafferty gets to the meat of the matter . . .

Excuse me sir, may I see your license and registration? Excuse me miss, but could I please see your dog’s registration? Thank you for coming to Tod’s Point, may I see your beach card, please? Does any of this sound familiar? They’re some of the little things we do in our civilized society that may offend supporters of a do-whatever-you-please Libertarian utopia, but that most of us recognize as normal, necessary and not an attack on freedom. Hardly intrusive, hardly limiting.

It’s scarcely credible that Mr. Rafferty is unfamiliar with the Fourth Amendment to the United Stets Constitution, which affirms

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.

This means that the government cannot stop a citizen and ask for identification without probable cause that a crime has been committed (DUI roadblocks be damned). As you can guess, Mr Rafferty is lobbying for a proposed change in Connecticut law that would allow police to ask open carriers to show cops their carry license (itself an unconstitutional infringement on the Second Amendment) without probable cause. Like this:

It’s nice to know that Greenwich drivers can prove that they passed the basic competency test necessary to pilot a two-ton SUV down the Avenue. Or that your beach pass can help distinguish between rightful taxpaying residents and mooching outsiders stealing our spot in the sand. So why do some Connecticut gun owners who feel the need to tote their lethal firearms around in public, oppose the idea that the police should have the reasonable ability to ask them to prove that they are indeed carrying legally registered weapons? Why is providing a gun license when asked an imposition?

As a friend of mine with certain odd [but legal] sexual proclivities explained, if you don’t understand it it’s not for you. But the right to keep and bear arms is for those of us who do understand it. It is ours to exercise without government infringement, providing we are exercising it lawfully.

In fact, Connecticut police already have a “reasonable ability” to ask an open carrier to provide their license. As long as they have reasonable cause to believe a crime is being committed, they can stop and frisk anyone, regardless of whether or not they have a firearm on display. That’s not good enough for Mr. Rafferty, the Connecticut police and the state’s anti-gun rights politicians.

This does not, as the NRA puts it, “reduce their constitutional right to possess firearms” any more than checking your dog’s license limits your right to own as many poodles and schnauzers as you like. Safety from guns is not tyranny, and please stop trying to “protect my freedoms.” I want the help of the NRA and CCDL the way I want the mafia helping “protect” my business from having an accident.

Urrr, that Rafferty, he hates America. The Second Amendment means freedom and my cold dead hands and don’t tread on me and Grrrr! Well, contrary to decades of misdirection, misinformation and yes, lying, no one is coming for your guns. Instead, gun owners got their open carry laws even though statistically you’re far more likely to shoot your wife or kids or yourself than any bad guy with a gun. So enjoy. You got your peace of mind, now give us ours.

Here’s where we gain insight into Mr. Rafferty’s mindset. First, he equates the NRA and the Connecticut Citizens Defense League with the mafia. Defending gun rights is a protection racket, apparently. Only someone who opposes democracy could make that absurd parallel. Second, he puts his “peace of mind” above the rule of law. Only someone who opposes the rule of law could make that absurd assertion.

More than that, Mr. Rafferty’s suggesting that open carriers are more likely to shoot their “wife or kids” than exercise their gun rights responsibly. It’s an ad hominem attack that completely undermines his “reasoned” argument. Like so many gun control advocates, Mr. Rafferty hides his hatred of gun owners behind a cloak of civility. To the point of putting gun owners in mortal peril.

Stop waving the Second Amendment in my face like it’s inviolable. Even the First Amendment, which is far more important in protecting your liberty and freedom, is open to varying degrees of subjectivity. We all learned in elementary school that even though freedom of speech is the bedrock of our society, you can’t shout “Fire” in a movie theater and not pay a penalty. There are reasonable limits, even to our most cherished freedoms. So in this age of If You See Something, Say Something, if three armed guys walk into a Subway where my family and I are eating, my first thought goes to robbery or worse, and I’m calling the cops. And if open carriers are upset that their rights are being infringed when asked to prove they have licenses, well that’s just too bad for them; it’s my city, too.

Shouting fire in a movie theater is not protected speech because the person is falsely shouting, inciting imminent lawless action (e.g. a riot). In the same way, an open carrier may not brandish his weapon when he or she isn’t facing an imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm, or otherwise using his or her firearm unlawfully. Open carriers are simply bearing arms, a lawful activity protected by both the Fourth and the Second Amendment.

Mr. Rafferty’s case for stop and frisk of open carriers doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on — which is why it degenerates into five words: “that’s just too bad for them.” Which is why his conclusion conflates a legal term, “brandishing”, with lawful open carry.

. . . if there’s even a moment of hesitation that brandishing a gun means possible trouble, I want the cops to have the law on their side when they arrive to sort it out.

The cops don’t need to have law on their side. The people need to have law on their side. It’s this fundamental faith in the power of the government, in this case the police, as opposed to individual rights, in this case lawful open carriers, that informs all supporters of gun control. For me and America’s Founding Fathers, that is the very definition of tyranny.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Hmm. Not sure how too feel on this one.

    Begs the question if someone walks into a bar with a gun, should anyone acknowledge it.

    Ok, substitute a bar for wallyworld. Same diff.

    Scary outcome? We ignore guns until they go off.

    Just say’n.

    • Wallyworld: easy answer, I’ve already seen it, no one lost their marbles over it and no one got shot. Bar: Depends on the jusrisdiction: in some parts of the world, walking into a bar with a gun is illegal even tho it’s ok to walk elsewhere with it. Hell, if I were going to worry about people who may draw and fire a gun out of nowhere, I would rather they have it out in the open to start with so I would know who to keep my eye on.

    • That’s life in a society. We ignore everything until it goes off, because pre-crime is mot a crime.

      Statistically, a black man is more likely to commit a violent or property crime than others. Should we summon the police to stop and frisk when three black men enter a Subway? Of course not. Lunching While Black is no more a crime than Open Carrying is, despite anyone’s histrionic fear of what could happen.

  2. One mo’ time: The cops do not need “probable cause” to do an ‘investigative stop”. They only need “reasonable suspicion”, a much lower standard, but still more than “just a hunch”, and certainly more than “I see you are engaging in a perfectly legal activity, stop and let me frisk you and ask you questions”. “Probable cause” is what they need to get an arrest warrant, a search warrant, or an indictment.

    • Sorry, but carrying a firearm, where legal, does not meet even that absurd standard. That’s settled law.

      As far as I am concerned, you can make your investigative stop, and I can tell you to fuck off and go on my way. You need probable cause to detain. That’s also settled law.

      • Why do you say ‘Sorry’? That’s exactly what I was saying. “Reasonable suspicion” is a low standard, but it is still much higher than “he was legally carrying a pistol”. And no, you do not need “probable cause” to detain. By definition, if you have been “stopped’, as in a “Terry stop” (look it up) , you are not free to leave. But be my guest, if you want to tell a cop who can articulate a suspicion and detains you on the basis thereof, tell him to f-o and walk away. And then get ready to go to jail. I have prosecuted people for “evading detention”, I do think I know whereof I speak here.

      • Hence Another Robert’s statement,
        “[Police] only need ‘reasonable suspicion’, a much lower standard, but still more than “just a hunch”, and certainly more than ‘I see you are engaging in a perfectly legal activity, stop and let me frisk you and ask you questions’.”

  3. Bad people on average are not open carrying, they’re either nervously concealing or have weapon in hand ready to use. Police are not allowed (theoretically) to pull over a driver in a car that has not given them probable cause to suspect that they are not licensed to drive or in fact under the influence. Cars go off more often than legally carried guns, two thirds of all gun deaths are suicide which is the intended consequence of the user. So why pray tell should the police suspect anyone carrying a firearm of being unlicensed or dangerous unless and until they display some sort of erratic, abusive, or threatening behavior?

    This reminds me of the stories of the deep South where you could be arrested and serve time for having a short length of garden hose in the back of your pickup, as it was obvious you intended to steal gasoline with it. Next thing you know anyone suspected of being equipped with a penis will be arrested on suspicion of intent to commit rape. After all they’re equipped for it.

    • “So why pray tell should the police suspect anyone carrying a firearm of being unlicensed or dangerous unless and until they display some sort of erratic, abusive, or threatening behavior?”

      Hah! In the minds of some gun-grabbers and some of their paid enforcers (police, especially in urban cores) merely owning a firearm is “erratic or threatening” behavior. Of course openly carrying a firearm clearly constitutes “erratic or threatening” behavior in the eyes of most gun-grabbers and some of their paid enforcers.

  4. Wait until he gets mugged or meets one of our new friends from Syria in a mall taking the ace down. He’ll be the one begging for mercy on the floor.

  5. Ever heard of police harassment? The officer is preaching the peace by accosting this man. Also if others don’t know the law maybe the 911 operator they called should educate them. If they even know the law.

  6. If Rafferty’s house does not have a “GUN FREE HOME” sign on the front door, then he is a hypocrite.
    Six inch high letters, at least.

    • No such standard exists in CT. It is left to you to divine the property owner or manager’s intent as no burden is also placed on you to ask. It is very much a don’t ask don’t tell situation. I still can’t figure out if that is a good thing or not.

      • likely criminals believe all homes and property are gfz. now, if we could only get ours to self-deport to connecticut.

  7. I am so sick of these oc videos. I know a lot of folks on here will disagree with me on this, but I agree with the cop – use some common sense. I cc everyday, and when I see someone oc’ing in my area, it makes me nervous – why? Because it’s against all norms IN MY AREA (I oc in more rural areas around my cabin where it is a cultural norm). If it’s normal in your area, go for it, but in an area like mine, I equate it to a meathead wearing a tank top in the winter, screaming look at me FLEX. These people look for attention. I guarantee if someone with a beard, middle eastern dress, and an AK slung over their shoulder in a Walmart where open carry is legal, many of these people would be drawing or calling the cops. Use your head.

    • Sorry bro, but some people aren’t able to reasonably conceal a real firearm. I have a strong preference for open carry for just that reason. One of the (few) things that I love about the Illinois carry law is that I don’t have to make my gun completely disappear. Just make it “mostly concealed” via an untucked shirt.

      • Yeah, I get it, I’m not anti-printing, or against the tip of the slide/barrel showing because it hangs below a shirt. I’m just tired of seeing all of these “victims” on YouTube.

    • How does one make OC ‘the norm’? By doing it. So, how does one make OC ‘the norm’ in a place it isn’t normal already if they, as you so bluntly put it, shouldn’t do it? Or is that your point, to make sure it never becomes normal in your part of town because apparently you’re a NIMBY fudd who supports the second amendment, but…

      Sorry buddy, your gun shaming isn’t going to work this time.

    • And always make certain to consult every single person who lives in, or exists around, the area you happen to be in before doing anything legal, to make certain that it fits in with everyone’s definition of “normal”, whatever that might be….

    • I CC almost every time I go to Walmart (about once per week) and have many times open carried (it gets damn hot here in Vegas). I have never had an issue from anyone and I know how to be discrete. On more than one occasion I arrived at Walmart at the same time the armored car was making a delivery/pick-up and decided it was not a good idea to open carry past that activity. Choose another door or cover the pistol. Simple.

      There are also places in Vegas where it would be unwise to open carry, even though it is technically not illegal – there is no Nevada law against it, but also no law saying it is “permitted”, therefore, it is legal. The Vegas Strip and downtown on or near Fremont street, for example, would end up with you spending most of your time in dialogue with LV Metro police rather than whatever activity you originally planned.

      That said, I refuse to hide my pistol just because it makes someone else uncomfortable. Screw that and them. When and how I exercise my natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms has nothing to do with other people feeling uncomfortable unless I personally choose to accommodate their feelings (as in the armored car instances). I choose to exercise my 2A protected rights with reason and civility and I feel no need to hide that fact in a closet like I’m ashamed of it.

      Unless you are just a YouTube Martyr looking for hits on your confrontation video, open carry is important in normalizing the presence of legal, reasonable people exercising their right to keep and bear arms. Concealing may have its place, I certainly utilize it frequently, but that should not be the only or even the default option if we ever want people to stop panicking the moment they see some average Joe walking down the street or in their local store with an openly carried pistol. And that goes for over-reacting LEOs as well.

      Meanwhile, please, leave the long-guns at home. If you want to open carry to make a point, use some common sense and make friends. Carrying a long gun where there is no logical use for such a weapon is a bit over the top, IMO.

      • I recently took a vacation to vegas and I opened carried everywhere but the strip. I actually got into a lot of fun conversations over it…. although the dominos guy looked like he though I was going to mug him.

    • You know the demographic for which it is the most abnormal to open carry? Criminals.

      If you see someone with an openly carried, holstered pistol, you can put money on that person not being a criminal. Irrational fear is irrational.

    • I’m sick and tired of seeing them too, I wish cops would quit harassing people for doing legal things and then problem solved.
      I hate dealing with all these uninformed/uneducated cops or the ones just on the power trip that try to use threats both obvious and veiled to get people to comply.
      Example, you got a burned out head light, i can give you a ticket for that or you can consent to a search of your car. Why you got that ar,shotgun and glock in your truck? Answer it my right to, my vehicle is consided and extension of my house in louisiana and because I can’t afford a security team to protect me and the response time from 911 is a joke.

      Cops need more time in CLE classes and officials of towns,cities,counties,parishes and boroughs need to be both personal liable and criminaly liable for laws they pass or are still on the books that do not comply with the states laws and constitutions.

    • Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How’s that again? I missed something. Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let’s play that over again, too. Who decides?

      The notebooks of lazarus long

      Ehat exactly is wrong with letting people do what they want as long as it does not pick my pocket or break my leg (to paraphrase)

      • And a REPUBLIC, which is what the US still is by LAW, is where the LAW, as accepted by the supermajority, is considered to be the wisest of all.
        The fact that most people today confuse democracy, which the founders referred to as “the tyranny of the majority”, and “mob rule”, with a republic, is not relevant. Most also refer to cartridges as bullets, but that does not make it so. It only means that that one does not know what s/he’s talking about.

  8. I’d NEVER open carry in CT. Our state is ass-deep in liberal snowflakes and nitwits like this guy. I don’t need the hassle.

    • Rofl, so I wasn’t the only one who was more offended by that than the rest of the editorial. Good!

      It’s more than a bit frightening that I just kinda sighed at the fact that another busybody is advocating for a police state but was outraged at the fact that the anyone would suggest that someone on the beach was mooching if they were a non-resident.

      To quote Bender the Robot; “Yep, we’re boned…”

  9. The guys examples are non starters. A exclusive beach is private property and subject to the limitations outlined in the homeowners association bylaws. A pet license is for the pet, and last I knew they dont have 4th amendment rights. “License and Registration please” implies that you have already broken a motor vehicle law and is way past reasonable suspicion.

    • What Rafferty proposes for open carriers is equivalent to setting up road blocks just to check for valid drivers’ licenses, registration and insurance.

    • I don’t know this for anything resembling a fact, but my guess is that he is talking about a “public” beach, and the card is to prove that you are a tax-paying CT resident and not one of the apparently gazillions of free-loading interlopers snuffling up all that sweet, sweet CT sand with their dirty out-of-stater… snufflers.

      Pretty sure he glorps out the SPF9000 with his righteous pinky extended.

      • Where I come from, “public” beaches are for the “public”, and that includes travelers. Hell, try closing your “open to the public” business to illegal immigrants and see how far you get. Do you think that CT seriously closes its beaches to out-of-staters (ever heard of something called “tourism”? States tend to encourage it.)? Did I miss a potential /sarc tag? Or are you just trolling?

  10. Actually, you can shout “Fire” in a movie theater all you want, you just have to deal with the consequences. What the First Amendment protects us from is nefarious government agents either erasing that word from your vocabulary or forcing you to wear a gag so you cannot shout “Fire.” Many of these so-called non-tyrannical abuses that Rafferty is just fine with are forms of prior restraint, which are indeed illegal and unconstitutional.

    You see, Rafferty, in a free world, adults are free to behave in an adult way, without restraint. However, they are also responsible for those behaviors. Your kind are loathe to that kind of freedom because you don’t trust yourselves, and hence don’t trust anyone else either. That’s why you’re so afraid of open carry in specific and guns in particular. You want to restrain everyone from any sort of perceived harmful behavior in advance, because you can’t hold yourself in check, and believe everyone else is like you.

    Hence, there’s no problem in stopping a gun owner and demanding “Papieren, Bitte!” without probable cause, because every gun owner is likely a closeted criminal anyway. “Stop and frisk” – hey, no problem, anybody under the age of 30 with excess skin pigmentation is probably guilty of something, so 4th Amendment doesn’t apply.

    It’s called “projection.” Seek psychiatric help, and leave us adults alone.

    • Exactly. In some situations you morally have a responsibility to shout “Fire” – you know, if there’s an actual fire!

      I explain to people that make that comparison that keeping me from carrying a firearm someplace, on the demonstrably minisucule chance that I might decide spur of the moment to lose control and shoot someone, is like duct taping everyone’s mouth shut at the theater entrance on the demonstrably miniscule chance that someone might decide spur of the moment to incite a panic by yelling “Fire” inappropriately.

      They either are speechless as their gun-control hard drives spin down, frozen, or they just repeat over and over “it’s not the same! it’s not the same!”

  11. So … Would he mind the editor of the paper demanding to see his “license to write” card before accepting his editorial?

    Surely it’s in line with his other examples.

  12. So, according to Officer Friendly, we should carry concealed because observers don’t know whether or not it is legal to have a handgun in a holster on your hip in public.

    • I didn’t watch the entire video, but at the point where I stopped the officer was at least attempting to make an argument in favor of concealed carry. I got the suspicion he did not mind CC mostly because it didn’t cause him any heartache and force him to waste his time on investigations such as the one he was conducting.

      Poor excuse for harassing someone who is not breaking any law while trying to figure out some other offense you can actually charge him with. Breach of the peace? He could walk through Walmart with a T-shirt covered with offensive and bigoted slogans and not get charged with breach of the peace. He could even wear a tank-top in a predominantly black neighborhood while covered with Aryan Nation tattoos and not be guilty of breach of the peace. But go about your business normally except for that open carry pistol – no f’n way!

  13. >The Second Amendment means freedom and my cold dead hands and don’t tread on me and Grrrr!

    Damn straight.

  14. At my store in N. Alabama, nobody bats an eye when someone open-carries, I usually see at least 2-3 every day. However, we have a support manager who transfered here from up north (Illinois); her previous store manager held a very dim view of armed citizens, and it was his policy to call the law on anyone spotted with a handgun (open or concealed).

    So when our new support manager saw an open-carrier here for the first time, she asked me if it was our SOP to report them to the police. I took the opportunity to educate her on Alabama’s laws for open-carry, and our store’s policy in particular. She’s not anti-gun, but just wanted to be sure. When she told me about how they treated armed customers at her old store, it made me thankful again that I live & work where I do.

  15. A few corrections:

    You absolutely can shout fire in a crowded theater. Look up Ken White or Eugene Volokh’s excellent work on the subject. In a nutshell, the phrase was a hypothetical offered by Holmes in an opinion regarding antiwar speech during wartime. The case is now moot.

    Second, the police do not need probable cause to stop you. They need “specific and articulable” reasonable suspicion, a lower but strict level. The courts have ruled over and over that otherwise lawful activities cannot fulfill this requirement.

  16. Uh, that’s weird, because I didn’t see the word “frisk” once in Rafferty’s article. It seems that the only person using the phrase ‘stop and frisk’ is Mr. Farago, It also seems he has no idea what it means. Even wikipedia has a reasonable article on the practice.

    “In fact, Connecticut police already have a “reasonable ability” to ask an open carrier to provide their license. As long as they have reasonable cause to believe a crime is being committed, they can stop and frisk anyone, regardless of whether or not they have a firearm on display.”

    No they can’t. See Terry v. Ohio. Or wikipedia! In order to stop and frisk someone the police must not only have reasonable suspicion (not probable cause!) of a crime but must also have reasonable suspicion that the person in question is armed and dangerous. Stop and frisk is a legal tactic for detecting concealed weapons and has nothing to do with seeing someone’s license.

    This TTAG article is about on par with a politician talking about guns and mentioning the ‘shoulder thing that goes up’

    • My understanding is that any officer who detains you can make a brief frisk to make sure you aren’t armed–officer safety, you know. it even happened to me once when I was walking past a closed business that an alarm had gone off in, just about the time a cop got there. Funny thing, he did his brief frisk–and missed the pistol I had in my pocket.

      • My understanding is that any officer who detains you can make a brief frisk to make sure you aren’t armed…

        Actually, IIRC, the standard is armed and dangerous – which, again IIRC, comes from Terry v Ohio. The officer must have specific, articulable, reasonable suspicion that someone is both armed and dangerous in order to conduct a pat-down. Simply being armed, especially where being armed is lawful, is not sufficient to meet the standard for suspicion that someone is dangerous.

    • Shouldn’t you and your ilk be chasing down real criminals rather than harrassing citizens?

    • “In fact, Connecticut police already have a “reasonable ability” to ask an open carrier to provide their license. ”

      This is true. If it becomes known to the police officer that you are armed they can ask you for your permit at which point you say yes and produce it. If you forgot it that day but otherwise have a valid permit issued to you you get a fine ($60 I believe) and probably a stern talking to. You do not need to volunteer to the officer that you are armed or have a permit when stopped though.

      AFAIK legislation to make merely carrying a gun reasonable suspicion to stop, detain, investigate, etc has not passed but has been on the docket for a couple of year; I honestly don’t know though.

  17. ‘Why is providing a gun license when asked an imposition?’

    Why is providing an ID at the voting station an imposition?

    • Why is providing an ID at the voting station an imposition?

      It isn’t, and helps ensure that lawful voters are not disenfranchised by the inclusion of unlawful voters. Unlike voting, one person’s exercise of the right to bear arms is not infringed by another person’s exercise of that right, whether via one or multiple, carried firearms.

      “One person, one vote” is not analogous to “one person, one firearm.”

      • I wish it was ‘liberal yankees’ but here in Phoenix I have to have yearly renewed licenses for all of my dogs.

        • Well I’ve heard some stupid things lately but that takes the cake. How on earth is that even real?

          • animal licensing is generally a means to provide information that the animal has been properly vaccinated against disease. the major benefit is that should the animal bite a human, after capture it is easier to determine if the animal needs to be killed to determine if it has a disease. i have heard that in some places, if you let your animals roam, the license is a fee to offset the cost of “pounds”.

  18. What the eff is a dog license? Or a beach pass? That a COP checks? Does this guy live where these are actual THINGS?

  19. Using the “shouting fire in a crowded theater” argument should be like citing the Dred Scott decision to bolster your case. Popehat has a good discussion of it:

    The upshot: “fire in a theater” a.k.a. the “clear and present danger” standard is extremely bad law, extremely authoritarian, and thankfully has been repudiated by the court for decades. If one is engaged in some sort of “dangerous speech”, then the modern standard in determining whether First Amendment protections apply is whether that speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” (emphasis mine). Even the worst kinds of calls to violence and hatred are protected speech if they are not inciting or likely to produce lawbreaking or violence in the moment. It’s not for the government to tell people “this is a good thing to say” or “this is a bad thing to say”.

  20. pffft. There is a huge hole in this person’s argument. Just one that I will point out. People don’t often see someone walking their dogs and then call the police because they think they might not have a license for their dogs. They don’t see someone driving and then call the police because they think that person might not have a license. But they do call the police when they see someone with a gun even though they have done absolutely nothing wrong.

    Let’s look at this from the perspective of the gun owner. They paid money and jumped through a lot of hoops just to be allowed to carry their gun in public. They worked for the legal right to do so. Then they strap their gun on and head on out, only to get stopped by police every time they exercise the right right they worked so hard to earn. Does he not see how this could be used to to make exercising your rights so inconvenient that you won’t want to do it? That is a clear infringement on rights.

  21. Well, since Mr. “Frisk for Carrying” went with the “Fire” thing, maybe he’s hoping he’ll he thinks he ought to get frisked any time he’s in public with a mouth. He could say any stupid thing, with that, after all.

    On point, the gun analogy for shouting “Fire!” is brandishing: doing something gratuitously proactive, vs. doing nothing with the ability, like not saying anything stupid though you could. Clearly, Mr. “Frisk-em, Danno” can’t keep himself from saying something stupid when that’s an option. Just as clearly, Mr. “Runs off at the Mouth” has difficulty concieving of people with greater discretion than he.

  22. Let us look at one of his arguments. The one about asking for a driver’s license. The police assume that you have a valid license to drive. They do not stop every person they see behind the wheel to see if they are legal. If the police were to start doing this, as the writer suggest should be done with open carry citizens, people would riot. Imagine how long it would take to get anywhere if you had to provide you license every time your drove anywhere.

    I live in Indiana and I see people at Rural King with their gun on their hip in the open. I have not witnessed a single shooting or any riots break out.

    • That’s what I was wondering. I know some towns require a dog license (which I think is ridiculous), but I’ve never heard of a statewide pet licensing regime.

      And beach permits? What the what? Where I’m from, people just go to the damn beach, and unless it’s a state park or you’re accessing it through private property, nobody has to acquire a special permit just to stand where the water meets the land.

      Maybe being from a “beach permit” state explains this guy’s “everything not expressly permitted is bad” mindset. You couldn’t pay me enough to live in a state like Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts, or New Jersey. (Well, not entirely true; any amount large enough to lure me in would also be large enough that I could buy my way out with a fortune to spare.)

Comments are closed.