Hell. I don’t carry now. But I don’t want my right to do so to be negated by accom0daters who would rather get along than be right.

In the interest of full disclosure.

“We’re not living in a black-and-white world; and an open-carried weapon does deserve a second look, as part of any rational person’s situational awareness.” Ian Argent.

Absolutely, I said that. I also said that after the second look and there was no sign of threat, that alarm was uncalled for. I further stated that that is the societal situation we should be working towards. No undue alarm absent indicators of evil intent by persons seems reasonable to me.

Obviously it does not to Sebastian or others here. I can only assume they do not believe what they preach.

I suppose, in fairness, I should clarify what I think was tangential to the topic. Your allusion to Europe with a uniform and an SMG on every third street corner is what I meant by tangential to the topic, but still worthy of inclusion. I share your displeasure with the militarization of our law enforcement community and its increasingly aggressive nature, often in contravention of the law.

Nothing is so disouraging to would be gestapo as an armed and unashamed to be armed populace.

I cannot argue with your assessment of the success of our co-opting
of the strategy of incrementalism. I can argue with those who believe we should be alarmed at the mere sight of freedom and the exercise of the rights thereof.

Oh, and one more thing, 1994 to now is only 14 years, not 18. Sorry, didn’t want to lose my creds as a prick. :)

We’re not living in a black-and-white world; and an open-carried weapon does deserve a second look, as part of any rational person’s situational awareness. Locking down the entire campus is an over-reaction, though.

I’m not going to touch the remainder of the rant - recriminations on how we got here are pointless. The point remains that we are not currently in a state of “shall not be infringed”; and the majority of the country is not uncomfortable enough with that state to change it. A policy of incrementalism has gotten us farther than I would have believed possible in 1994, at least not in a mere 18 years. There is a debate going on about campus concealed carry; in 1994 it was by no means obvious that we would have concealed carry at all, much less debating about whether it’s appropriate for campus.

I’ve participated in my share of politics, and the way to advance your cause is not to scream defiance from the rooftops, but to calmly engage in negotiation.

I find it pitiful that you act like a member of a cult who thinks he is defending the next Messiah. For Christ’s sake, move in with him.

This all started because I asked if it was really a valid reaction to be alarmed at the sight of a firearm absent any overt threat. Comment after comment I endured personal attacks on my intelligence and character, but not once did any of you pale blooded cyber warriors engage the issue.

You think I’m stupid? I will consider that a ringing endorsement. I would be extremely distressed if I thought a man as bereft of intellect or character as you thought well of me.

Oh Ahab, I answered you on hard copy and set it to sail in a bottle on Caddo Lake, I didn’t think it appropriate to blah, blah, blah.

Only my perceived personal shortcomings received any attention while the issues and questions raised were avoided.

Now we have the mewlings of victimhood when you receive the same treatment you dispense. Awwwww.

You’re goddamned right it did. I have had enough of the bullshit. You want to play dirty fine, I fucking well know how. And you’re right I am at the moment filled with malice. I said I would adopt your rules. What? How dare I assume I am worthy of playing the same rules? How dare I return fire aimed at an asshole that aimed fire at me instead of discussing the issue? Christ ! You guys are delicate.

As for your first paragraph,Linoge, did you miss all the places where I used the pronoun “we”? You know, as though I shared in having been part of the problem. Or did you miss the whole goddamned paragraph I stated so unequivocally.? Or the part where I did not ascribe any evil intent to those of us who have abetted the popular, but mistaken, fear regarding the issue?

So,yeah, if you sonsofbitches are so sensitive that you can’t read past the part where a peon dares questions the dynamics we all engaged in that brought us to a place we don’t want to be then you are doomed to ever be affronted. I am not the only peon you erroneously believe to be your inferior.

Of course, the whole “reasonable manner and malice toward no one” went right out the window with your last comment, now, did it not?

Regardless, someone carrying a firearm on a college campus would attract my attention, whether it was a prop rifle (though, once I determined that, my level of caring would decrease significantly), a “real” rifle, or anything else - it is just the nature of the beast. If nothing else, situational awareness demands it. But the college going into clampdown over it? yeah, that seems a bit much, for something that could have been cleared up relatively quickly.

I don’t know of one place in this debate where I called for an “all or nothing at all” program in this particular discussion. What I did say was that if we believe what we say we should be working toward the normalization of our views, not agreeing with our opposition that normalizing the issue is cause for alarm.

I have stated my views on this issue and stated my reasoning and what thread of logic I have used to arrive at those views. You and others here were free to state your views and why and how you reached them and/or why you may think my reasoning faulty. But you have not. You elite few have simply stated that I am wrong and offered nothing else. Evidently I am supposed to believe it simply because you said it.

You claim you can’t talk to me. Hell, you haven’t tried. You said I was wrong and have intimated that those who think as I do have no business disagreeing with our betters.

You didn’t examine one premise offered for discussion or show one reason you disagreed. Merely that you believe the other way, therefore I am hopeless. That is so fucking lame.

And this all started because I questioned the validity of alarm at the sight of a non-threatening firearm on a blog that supposedly is pro second amendment.

I have tried to state my position in a reasonable manner with malice toward no one, but that seems to have insulted the elite few So I’m all out of reasonableness. I will play your rules, see the following statement.
So take your superior attitude and your arrogance and shove them up your ass. They can keep your head company.

You’re so convinced and set in your absolutist ways that no amount of reason will penetrate that, and you know what? That’s fine. Call me when shouting “shall not be infringed” and being an absolutist actually gets good legislation passed, or bad legislation overturned.

Because the appearance of caring is more important than actually caring, and easier too.

If some of those monsters our society has recently suffered and sacrificed our children to would have seen a few or more people walking across campus with firearms what are the chances that they would have had a reassessment of intent at best and a lot less success at worst?

We only have conjecture to assign a quantitative ratio of odds in the above question, but we can state unequivocally that there would have been a better chance for the innocent than no chance at all, which is what we left them.

Context, remember? I prefer my parameters that impinge on the equation of actuality rather than the parameters that are established through emotional need and impinge only on perception, a flawed perception, at that.

There’s plenty of blame to go around in the gun community. It has been a slow awakening as to how we have shot ourselves in the foot, pun intended. I do not excuse myself either. Sorry if you think that is stupid. I think you are wrong. Awakening is ongoing, I am merely trying to help it along

But I do take exception when I hear a rights advocate state that open exercise of rights is a shameful or potentially shameful undertaking. That we somehow should be too embarrassed to allow others to know we have the right and we exercise it.

If we believe what we say we should be working for the day when the sight of such is commonplace and not alarming, even to those who choose not to exercise that right.

So yeah, I see it as part of the problem when we, who advocate for 2A rights, agree that the exercise of it is alarming and something to be hidden. As I stated above, we sowed the seeds of our own destruction many decades ago when we agreed that certain venues could suspend rights. That our rights weren’t universal.

We fell into a trap of our own making. We wanted to be sure to consider the sensibilities of our friends and neighbors who became alarmed, so we were courteous and agreed to partial suspension of rights. That act of courtesy has now become a mandate against us in more places than we ever could have imagined. It is difficult to counter the fears of those who are alarmed when we went sub rosa, so to speak, to allay their fears. We have given the appearance that we agree with them that alarm is a proper response to someone minding his own business who is trespassing no others.

As Sebastian said, it is a matter of context. I just happen to vehemently disagree with his parameters defining context. Someone driving down the sidewalk is a context where alarm is justified, usually. Someone carrying a firearm unsafely, putting others at risk or threatening to is a context that justifies alarm.

On the other hand, someone driving on the roadway next to the sidewalk is not usually cause for alarm, nor is someone carrying a firearm who is doing so properly and safely.. As he said, context. We just disagree on what constitutes pertinent context.

Just sayin’.

I submit that you should not be alarmed because you see someone driving on a roadway within a few feet of where you are walking, unless of course, that someone is behaving erratically or not observing the customary safety considerations. I see no reason to use any other criteria to make a judgment on whether to be alarmed or not because a man may be carrying a rifle within your sight or driving a car within a few feet of where you walk.

I further suggest that you already know you are wrong or you wouldn’t have felt the need to misrepresent what I did say.

Are you just as alarmed when you see someone driving a car within feet of where you are walking? Or because it is “usual” the higher death rate attributable to automobiles and their misuse somehow in your mind does not cause as much alarm?

Does that not speak more to your inability to make logical judgments than it does to the need to be “alarmed”.

Hell, I don’t often see terrapins here,so one might say it is unusual. While it might raise my eyebrows, I can’t say I would be alarmed. Same for horned toads. I do see a lot of snakes and while they can be dangerous, I can’t say I routinely become alarmed unless they are aggressive. Of course, we could call SWAT (Snake Wipe-Out Attack Team), just so people could put their eyebrows back down near their eyes.

I also agree with Ian Argent about the co-op program, although it is probably more beneficial for students in an engineering / physical sciences / business fields than the more liberal programs. This is just from my experience (now working with one of my co-op employers) and my wife’s (Psychology) experience.