“We all have guns but none of us wear them on our hip and kind of flaunt them around. We consider that extremely rude and ungentlemanly at best.” – Burns, Oregon resident Nancy Fine in To Protestors Flocking to Oregon Town, Locals Say ‘Go Home’ [at npr.org]
Home Quote of the Day Quote of the Day: Open Carry Is Ill-Mannered In Oregon Edition
And the women who show their ankles…sluts…all of the them.
That may be the most blatantly erroneous example of false equivelency I have ever seen.
Are guns a sexual thing for you, or… what? What the hell are you trying to say?
Perhaps he’s just trying to say that wearing something that other folks can see itnot necessarily “flaunting” it with some malicious intent.
That’s what I got from it, Robert.
“Flaunting” is subjective to each person, society, or culture based on said person, society, or culture’s values.
The example being, showing skin in one person’s eyes may seem as flaunting, while in another’s, it is just a way to keep cool.
There is no false equivalency. It’s a statement about “appearance” having more meaning than it actually does…it is exposing an “overgeneralization fallacy” as well.
Question: Are all women who show ankles sluts?
Question: Are all open carriers rude and ungentlemanly?
The point is about dictating non-substantial behaviors that cause no problem on the basis of not liking how it looks.
It may be fallacious on the surface but it exposes a key point through the sarcasm which rescues the statement. In a free society you have the right to be offended. If someone is exercising one of their rights you have the right to not like it but not the right to stop them. Both sides protesting at each other is exactly the perfect outcome. As well, both sides having some member making ridiculous pronouncements of sentiment which are supposedly reflective of the entirety of their group is arrogance and self-importance and is enormously funny. It’s funny because what’s really going on is a no true Scotsman fallacy on the part of both sides.
The conversation might as well go:
Person 1: You’re not ok because you do this completely legal thing!
Person 2: Oh yeah, well you’re not ok because you do this completely other totally legal thing.
Person 1: Oh yeah?
Person 2: Yeah.
Person 3: Well, who exactly made the definition for what’s ok and what’s not? I’d like to have a word with them.
There are quite a lot of perfectly ok things that are illegal.
Deriving meaning and intent from appearance is ignorance on the part of the observer. Whether a sexual deviant claims a woman is asking for it because she wears skimpy clothing or a gun control advocate believes a person openly carrying is trying to intimidate people, the problem isn’t originating from the person being observed.
It’s not false equivalency. It’s unfortunately a lack of comprehension on your part, Swarf.
I’ve done private armed security wearing a uniform, badge and gun. In that persona, people see me as right, just and good; just doing my “job” of providing a visible deterrent.
When my shift is over and I change into my street clothes as just one of the people, with my same OC firearm, suddenly I’m rude, obnoxious and being an A–hole. As for me, I consider myself as just continuing to do my job of being a visible deterrent as a citizen soldier, since our country was founded on the idea that the citizens are the first line of defense.
I see some people’s inability to see the obsurdity of one role of deterrence as legitimate, when wearing a uniform; but illegitimate when wearing clothes of a citizen, as obsurd.
The uniform is representative of “official,” which to the Statist mind is a-ok and good. INDIVIDUAL power, on the other hand, is bad to the Statist mind.
The Statist never stops to consider the nature of the individual. The “ok” person in the uniform could be a power-hungry thug. The non-uniformed person could live a life of compassion to rival that of Mother Teresa. The Statist will not see these disparities in their worldview; the uniform itself represents “good.”
yep. It comes down to the perception of the role each person plays in society. Open Carrying a firearm has become the visible badge of “authority” as exercised by the state. Which many people subconsciously accept as appropriate, because those same people have accepted their subservient role to that state.
So when a person that is obviously “just” a citizen is exercising that same badge of “authority” , suddenly it throws into the light their own surrender to and being a servant to the state, and that frightens them. So they attack the object that brings up this feeling of fear and inadequacy. That would be the citizen OC’ing a firearm.
Sarc. I got it. No one else did.
There are a lot of things people do/wear/say/smell like that I find repulsive/offensive/”ungentlemanly” but so what? This is supposed to be a free society, right? Right!?
NPR is all too happy to report on the uncouthness of somebody with a pistol on their hip as they are all too hapy to cover some flamboyant rainbow parade with beer belly carrying hairballs prancing about in g-strings and ball gags. That’s free expression dont’cha know. Gun on hip is damn hate speech.
Yes, we are supposed to live in a free society.
I believe people have taken the concept of “decency” standards too far. It is “indecent” or “obscene” when people do things in public like walk around naked, engage in sexual activity on a sidewalk, or portray pornography (via text, audio, or images). Not only are these activities repulsive to most adults, they are outright harmful for young children. And we have laws against those activities. Much beyond that list of activities, I cannot think of anything else that would violate obscenity standards. Would some people consider open carry to be “rude” or “distasteful”? Sure. And even a few ardent gun-grabbers would argue that open carry is “obscene”. Nevertheless, open carry does not rise to the level of obscene like public sex or pornography.
And yet in many places in Europe it is not unusual to go into a gas station or other convenience type store to pay your bill and find pornographic magazines and DVDs openly displayed for sale at the cash register. In most stores in America Men’s magazines generally have all but the name of the mag coevered and even Cosmopolitan often has to cover the model on their cover.
Not to mention – Google the pictures of Pompei.
One person’s, or even NPR’s, opinion of what is proper or rude hardly trumps the Second Amendment or our natural rights. If you look at nature the majority of self-defense options utilized are openly displayed (teeth and claws, anyone) for the precise purpose of deterring attacks before they are begun.
And the skunk is hardly carrying a concealed weapon as it proudly prances around in its black suit with a wide white strip.
The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Yet some say that bear only applies to open carry while others say it only applies to permitted concealed carry. Personally, I carry in whatever manner seems appropriate at the time. I prefer open carry because it does raise public awareness and stimulates wonderful conversation from those wishing to buy their first gun and have no clue about our state laws. But I don’t carry to promote social change, I carry to protect myself and those I love. Personally, I really don’t see what all the hubbub is about and why some POTG are so adamant about one way or the ‘tother.
Whay are you protesting against, Johnny?
What do you have?
You really lost me there
I’m sorry, the correct answer is “whadda ya got?”
It’s from a famous movie titled “The Wild One.” Marlon Brando plays a motorcycle club leader.
In one scene, they’re all dancing at a pool hall and a young lady reads the wording on the back of a biker’s leather jacket. She comments that that’s cute, then turns to ask Johnny, played by Brando, who’s just standing against the wall, what he’s rebelling against. Johnny replies “Whadda ya got?” It’s a bold declaration of rebellion for rebellion’s sake.
sort of i guess. i would have said that of the people that open carry, mostly they seem to be obnoxious. seems like thats a more realistic way of putting it. i havent ever actually seen anyone open carry so i can’t say much.
“mostly they seem to be obnoxious. seems like thats a more realistic way of putting it.”
That’s only because you are suffering a selection bias in the open carriers you “know about,” as evidenced by
“i havent ever actually seen anyone open carry so i can’t say much.”
The obnoxious ones get the press, so a biased opinion is formed.
This is the same thing as how most people think all/most DGU’s end in a death. Lott has shown this is quite false, but the phenomenon is due to the “if it bleeds it leads” reporting. DGU’s that don’t involve death don’t get reported with NEAR the frequency.
Just like non-POTG get very biased info from the press, tv and movies about guns in general, so you too are getting biased info about OC.
I think it rude to hide your gun.
Safariland drop-legs for everyone.
I’ll take one!
oregon is not part of “the west”, regardless of the terrain. oregon is northern california. More and more, everyday. used to have friends there. they have decided life is less difficult to “go with the flow”. won’t leave because all the family is in oregon. family is more important than than resisting government suppression of the public. it is just the way of things.
NPR is particularly guilty of stigmatizing the demonstrators/protesters in Oregon as militants, “armed militants.” Of course they’re armed. There are probably many nearby areas with no cell coverage, and even if you can reach the police, they are likely to be over an hour away. And Oregon is not yet a slave state, where only the masters and their trusted servants are armed.
“One [woman] says the community has been flooded in “testosterone,” as she puts it.”
There must be some of that “toxic masculinity” the gender studies folks warn us about…
Yepper. Just ask any OB or hormone specialist and he/she will tell you all about how mass quantities of estrogen can make people even keeled.
I read somewhere a long time ago that if a woman kills her husband in a rage she can use the defense of “pre-menstrual syndrome”, but if a man kills his wife in a fit of rage he is suffering from “testosterone poisoning,”
It’s hard to be too mad when the starting premise is “We all have guns”.
This is an important point.
To the extent we’re shifting the debate from “you shouldn’t own guns” to “you can own guns, but don’t carry them concealed” to “you can own guns and carry them concealed, but don’t carry them openly,” we’re winning.
“… We consider that extremely rude and ungentlemanly at best.”
That’s nice dear.
What you consider rude matters to my right to carry in the manner I think best how, exactly?
I consider infringements on my rights extremely rude and un gentlemanly.
You are free to open carry if you like.
But it’s still regarded as bad manners in most areas where guns are widely accepted, such as Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Nevada, Eastern Washington, and Eastern Oregon. Open carry basically demonstrates to your neighbors that you are ready to kill anyone at a moments notice. We don’t regard that as friendly behavior.
The notable exception is hunting. It’s common to carry a pistol as well as a deer rifle, in case a grouse appears. But open carry on a fishing trip is frowned upon.
Open carry on a fishing trip frowned upon?
You haven’t been in my boat. The evening sweep up of brass… Making sure to reload the gunnels the next day with another brick or two. Good times.
Isn’t carrying a firearm for self-defense a sign you are willing to “stop the threat” at any moment?
“… Open carry basically demonstrates to your neighbors that you are ready to kill anyone at a moments notice. ”
Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man
These folks must $#!+ when they see a cop……..
Being ready to “kill someone at moments notice” is a mindset, not the presents of an object, even though, having the right object present can help…
Give a bunny fangs, it’s still a bunny, remove a wolf’s fangs, it’s still a wolf.
Shouldn’t that read:
“Remove a wolf’s fangs, it’s a toothless dog.”?
Well, yes and no.
There have been studies to figure out exactly how humans domesticated dogs from wolves, fox, coyotes, etc. And it all comes back to K-9’s genetics, which can quickly be altered through selective breeding, more so than any other mammal (ex: dogs can be so different in size, shape, attitude, etc. but cats always look and act like cats.) Moreover, humans selectively bred behaviors into K-9’s, as well as physical genetics.
The study I saw years back, which I would have do some digging to properly cite, showed wolves which were bred in captivity, but still didn’t act like a domestic dog. The wolves acted independently of humans, never treating humans as part of their pack, even when raised alone – the animal always remain wild because of its breeding.
Simply put, a wild animal is always still a wild animal at heart.
So basically, the point I was trying to make with my original statement is the concept that a warrior mentality is not created out of thin air, it’s born and bred, and then shaped over time.
Open carry demonstrates to my community that I am ready to stop violent criminals at a moment’s notice.
And as for neighbors who try to dictate my lifestyle choices which have no effect on them whatsoever, I don’t regard that as friendly behavior.
“Open carry basically demonstrates to your neighbors that you are ready to kill anyone at a moments notice.”
There is the basic fallacy in their argument. It is their perception that this statement is true whereas the fact is that open carry simply demonstrates that you are ready, and able, to defend yourself and others at a moment’s notice. The ONLY difference with open carry is that with concealed carry your ability to defend is not know by others until the moment it is required. And that’s rude how?
Quote of the Day: Open Is Carry Ill-Mannered In Oregon Edition
Please fix your headline… Should read “Open Carry is Ill-Mannered.” I doubt that all “Open Is Carry.”
As for the main topic, people who say “we all have guns but we don’t open carry” at least have it half-right.
I’d be willing to bet that very few of them are concealed carrying, however.
(Actually, in the general population, as opposed to the folks one would meet at a shooting range, I’d expect most people who have a permit (or who are lucky enough to live in a place where that particular infringement isn’t enforced) aren’t carrying at the moment.)
As a point of fact, I spent a good part of my life in Oregon in the rural bits of the south east and nobody ever cared when I was there about someone being armed. Pop and I would walk into a restaurant in the local micro-town with pistols on our hips, have a seat and order breakfast & nobody gave a second look. Walking around the nearest city much was a little more difficult because quite a few stores had “no guns” signs and standing around parking lots with a gun might legitimately look a little suspicious but even then, nobody ever said squat. Hell when I was 16 (and I’m not that old, this was within the last few decades) I hitchhiked home 15 miles from a buddies house carrying a shotgun and a skeet launcher & looking a bit scruffy and I got 2 rides along the way.
I grew up in eastern Oregon and spent a great deal of time in, around and southeast of Burns. Mostly for hunting/camping/fishing trips when we ventured out. Most of it was a couple of decades ago but nobody ever blinked an eye at the site of a teenager with a gun, let alone an adult. As isolated as they are from the rest of western Oregon progressive insanity I doubt much has truly changed there. The local being quoted likely has no problem with guns in public and sees them regularly. What he is not used to is a bunch of people who have no vested interest in their community rushing in temporarily with no purpose other than trying to prove a point. One that the locals already understand and live.
I am sure they don’t like all of the outsiders swooping in with the media in tow. That always pisses off rural folk. And for good reason. Go the fuck away and take your obnoxiousness with you before you ruin our community is a perfectly acceptable stance for a small town to have. Not even close to the same thing as accepting a few new people moving in to set down roots and be new neighbors. Similar to another small Oregon town posting signs in their yard telling Obama to stay away after a shooting not too long ago . . .
I wouldn’t concern yourselves over the one cherry picked idiot NPR found useful.
Oregon, it seems, is liable to go the way of California (with Colorado not all that far behind, unfortunately); large, right-thinking areas of the state overwhelmed by leftist jackwagons congregating in the Big City.
Truth. People who live on 5% of the land (one city) forcing the people who live on and own the other 95% how to live like they are in a crime ridden (by comparison) city. CA, OR, WA, CO and a whole list of other states ruled by one large city or sliding into that mire.
WA – the whole state’s policies determined by the People’s Democratic Republic of King County (and their proxies, Western Pierce & Western Snohomish).
The I-5 corridor from Olympia to Everett is the problem.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m living behind enemy lines here in Oregon, and have spent the last several weeks hearing the Portlandians wishing for the death of those protestors, and disappointed that only one was killed.
All I’m saying is once you get out of Multnomah, Washington, or Lane counties, things are different, and NPR finding a useful idiot, who very likely could have been bused from Multnomah county, is not an indicator of views IN the majority of the state (though likely the views OF the majority).
Afraid the “views of the majority” in a one-city state are irrelevant. What counts is what the people with political power do. If a state has a population of 10million, and only 2million live in the single large city, the 2million control. Even if the state legislature is predominately held by representatives of people outside the one-city, the city will provide all the political power, such as governor, city council, agencies. It is why the broad middle of the nation is called “flyover country”; only the politics of the two coasts matter.
This is precisely why the founders only wanted land owners to have the ability to vote.
It was as wise a choice then, as it is now.
When you have a problem with the way I do something lawful, that’s a you problem. Work on your problem, don’t expect me to change me to fix you
That about sums it up!
What I thought of when I heard this, and I am surprised no one else has brought up, is that Oregon does not offer reciprocity for any other state’s concealed carry permit. Since so many of the folks mentioned in the story were from out of the area (presumably out of state) they would either need to be unarmed or open carry. Concealed carry to “be polite” is not an option for them.
Protesting while aligning yourself with people who threaten to kill the local and federal LEO
AND their families while dangling your big iron outside your pants IS rude and threatening. That is why they do it. It is a threat. Harney County is no where near liberal. But even the local “constitutional” Sheriff Palmer was on scene when they arrested the Bundy’s.
Soap box first.
We consider that extremely rude
All my guns are extremely polite. They don’t speak unless they are spoken to and they don’t point at anyone unless it’s necessary.
Poor babies-maybe they should do a Brucey/caitlyn Jenner thing. How dare you be manly! Like a COP?
I agree with Nancy.
I guess you are a Nancy then.