<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: On Bearing Arms</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/06/26/on-bearing-arms/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/06/26/on-bearing-arms/</link>
	<description>Where There's Snow, There's Firepower</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 19:51:27 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jake</title>
		<link>http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/06/26/on-bearing-arms/#comment-25344</link>
		<dc:creator>Jake</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jun 2008 03:57:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=3855#comment-25344</guid>
		<description>From what I've read so far, it looks like it will open up a "one or the other, or both" situation. States would be able to ban either open carry or concealed carry, but would have to allow &lt;i&gt;some&lt;/i&gt; form of carry, and could allow both.

Still reading it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From what I&#8217;ve read so far, it looks like it will open up a &#8220;one or the other, or both&#8221; situation. States would be able to ban either open carry or concealed carry, but would have to allow <i>some</i> form of carry, and could allow both.</p>
<p>Still reading it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JJR</title>
		<link>http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/06/26/on-bearing-arms/#comment-25310</link>
		<dc:creator>JJR</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:20:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=3855#comment-25310</guid>
		<description>Open carry would be awesome, but don't hold your breath.  Some form of regulated concealed carry in all 50 states (with 100% reciprocity) is probably more do-able.

When you go back and look at 19th century cases and attitudes, in many ways there the complete opposite of today.  Concealed carry was viewed in a dim light, and often prohibited, because of being perceived as somehow unmanly and "dastardly".  That's not something I'd like to see us go back to.

I still need to look into the hows and whys of open carry getting slowly restricted by the likes of the 19th cen. AZ and TX laws that lead to the dust-ups at the OK Corral and in the final shootout that claimed the life of Sam Bass.

Maybe someday we'll have legal Open carry in all 50 states and MGs as well, but I'm skeptical that'll happen in my lifetime.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Open carry would be awesome, but don&#8217;t hold your breath.  Some form of regulated concealed carry in all 50 states (with 100% reciprocity) is probably more do-able.</p>
<p>When you go back and look at 19th century cases and attitudes, in many ways there the complete opposite of today.  Concealed carry was viewed in a dim light, and often prohibited, because of being perceived as somehow unmanly and &#8220;dastardly&#8221;.  That&#8217;s not something I&#8217;d like to see us go back to.</p>
<p>I still need to look into the hows and whys of open carry getting slowly restricted by the likes of the 19th cen. AZ and TX laws that lead to the dust-ups at the OK Corral and in the final shootout that claimed the life of Sam Bass.</p>
<p>Maybe someday we&#8217;ll have legal Open carry in all 50 states and MGs as well, but I&#8217;m skeptical that&#8217;ll happen in my lifetime.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ian Argent</title>
		<link>http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/06/26/on-bearing-arms/#comment-25277</link>
		<dc:creator>Ian Argent</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:57:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=3855#comment-25277</guid>
		<description>The decision would seem to imply you have a right to self-defense everywhere, and only "sensitive areas" or Really Bad People(tm) are exempted.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The decision would seem to imply you have a right to self-defense everywhere, and only &#8220;sensitive areas&#8221; or Really Bad People(tm) are exempted.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Maynard</title>
		<link>http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2008/06/26/on-bearing-arms/#comment-25274</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Maynard</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:40:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/?p=3855#comment-25274</guid>
		<description>im wondering if this will mean that every state will have to become Shall issue... or that every state will have to allow open carry...

this is the part that is very interesting because it has a huge potential...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>im wondering if this will mean that every state will have to become Shall issue&#8230; or that every state will have to allow open carry&#8230;</p>
<p>this is the part that is very interesting because it has a huge potential&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
