Open carry discussion - Muslims

[buffalobo]

This can be an interesting thread, keep it civil.

My own opinion is that I don't have a problem with any American citizen carrying a firearm. As long as they follow the laws and are civil.

http://www.alloutdoor.com/2014/12/16/question-open-carry-advocates-muslims-start-it/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=2014-12-23&utm_campaign=Weekly+Newsletter


Question for Open Carry Advocates: What if Muslims Start Doing It?

Posted December 16, 2014 in Gun Safety by Jon Stokes with 321 Comments

SHARETWEET

1989 
SHARES

Source: Come and Take It America

I’ve been thinking recently about the way that the Satanists are having a field day with so many laws that Christians are passing under the “freedom of religion” banner: stunts like putting a statue of Satan next to the Ten Commandments, or Satanist plans to hand out literature to school kids in Orange County. What if, I wonder, certain groups were to exercise their open carry rights in the same manner.

What if there were a group of Muslim open carry advocates who called themselves “Sword of the Prophet” and whose avowed mission was to bring Sharia law to the US, and they took to showing up armed and in large numbers outside of churches on Sunday, the way the OC guys do at the state house. Or what if there were a group of hispanic activist OCers, maybe an offshoot of La Raza who liked to organize armed protests at police stations and court houses, and who openly advocate the “reconquista” of the Southern US?

Regardless of what OC advocates would answer to any of this, I’m pretty sure the general public would be none too pleased.

What I also wonder is if those who are pushing for open carry, or “constitutional carry” as they’re now calling it, have thought this through. This isn’t a rhetorical question; I’m really dying to know.

And not only is it not a rhetorical question, but it’s not a theoretical question, either, because this will happen. Part of the impetus behind gun control laws in the 70’s was the fact that the Black Panthers were the original “open carry” advocates, and the sight of black radicals walking around openly armed contributed greatly to public support for gun control laws. In describing this phenomenon of the late 60’s, lefty historian Rick Perlstein writes:

Things shifted, of course, when the Panthers started patrolling rich white neighborhoods, including the one where a right-wing supporter of Ronald Reagan in the state assembly, Don Mulford, lived. When the assembly debated Mulford’s subsequent bill to ban the carrying of loaded firearms in public places, Panthers strolled onto the floor of the state assembly fully armed. The Mulford Act passed right quick after that—and, ironically, one of the nation’s first high-profile gun control laws was signed by Governor Ronald Reagan.

So again, I ask, what happens not just to open carry but to the current wave of support for looser gun laws, when avowed revolutionaries tool up and tell white America to “come and take it?”

Update: This post has generated a lot of apparent confusion about what I actually think, with half thinking that I’m a Muslim-hating redneck and the other half thinking that I’m a liberal. Well, let me clear it up: I’m a pro-2A liberal, and I think that if open carry is the law then Muslims should absolutely be allowed to carry. Nowhere in this post do I even hint otherwise. The question I’m asking here is not, “should Muslims be allowed to carry”, but, as the title says in bold letters, “what happens if they start carrying?” In other words, what happens to the public’s support for loosening up gun laws if they see armed Muslims walking the streets?

I have yet to see a single commenter actually address the question that I asked, and I’ve been doing this long enough to know that when that happens, it’s my fault for not being clear enough in the post. So again, let me be clear: I take it as a given that if OC is the law, Muslim citizens will and should be allowed to exercise their 2A rights, so the question I’m asking is, can the American public handle the sight of armed Muslims walking the streets?

- See more at: http://www.alloutdoor.com/2014/12/16/question-open-carry-advocates-muslims-start-it/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_content=2014-12-23&utm_campaign=Weekly+Newsletter#sthash.gO7Z8x2g.dpu f

[Guylee]

I'm not gonna lie, I've had enough bad experiences with haj with guns that it would probably make me pretty damn uncomfortable.

[Bailey Guns]

Seems to me that sort of behavior would be illegal as it could be construed as advocating for the overthrow of the government...at least parts of it.

Peaceful open carry by these groups...would definitely cause me some concern, I'll admit. But as long as they're peaceful, and legal citizens, it's their right. But advocating doing away with our courts and system of law, or "reconquest" of parts of our country...no way.

[Rucker61]

Seems to me that sort of behavior would be illegal as it could be construed as advocating for the overthrow of the government...at least parts of it.

Peaceful open carry by these groups...would definitely cause me some concern, I'll admit. But as long as they're peaceful, and legal citizens, it's their right. But advocating doing away with our courts and system of law, or "reconquest" of parts of our country...no way.

These are my thoughts, too.

[JMBD2112]

I'm not gonna lie, I've had enough bad experiences with haj with guns that it would probably make me pretty damn uncomfortable.

Same here.....

[Bailey Guns]

It's my opinion that most people who "protest" by carrying openly are doing so to celebrate our rights, freedoms, history and greatness of our country. The types of protest outlined in the question by the author of that post are doing just the opposite. I personally don't like open carry but understand that many do.

[TFOGGER]

As long as they follow the same laws I have to, let 'em carry. Citizens are citizens, and have the same rights AND the same responsibilities that are commensurate with those rights. As soon as they step over the line by inciting violence, or menacing others, the full weight of the law should descend on them, same as it would you or I.

[roberth]

As long as they follow the same laws I have to, let 'em carry. Citizens are citizens, and have the same rights AND the same responsibilities that are commensurate with those rights. As soon as they step over the line by inciting violence, or menacing others, the full weight of the law should descend on them, same as it would you or I.

I agree.

[ZERO THEORY]

The difference is that I've never met a bible-thumper that was open-carrying and announcing their intentions to persecute us secular hethens. Nor have I met one who wanted to install a strict Calvinist or Baptist rule of law for all people. Another liberal trying to use straw man tactics and exaggeration to misconstrue the argument. So if, like in his example, they were extremists who were outspoken about their intent to dismantle the country, I would not be okay with it. The exact same way I'm not okay with White Nationalists or Black Separatists who want to do the same. It's not a xenophobic or racist issue, despite the author and left's attempts to frame it as such.

I don't have a fear of Muslims. I know people from Morocco, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. If any of them came and asked me to introduce them to firearms and the safe and effective carry of them for defensive purposes, I'd be really happy to see my foreign-born friends wanting to exercise their rights. I'd be proud to share the tradition of our 2nd amendment with brothers who have chosen the opportunity and freedom afforded in this country over the antiquated dogma and oppression of their native lands. So, to answer the author's question without the trickery, I'd be all for it.


I’m a pro-2A liberal

Oil and water.

[TheBelly]

exercise your rights.

I'll exercise mine to not be there.

[68Charger]

I’m a pro-2A liberal
Oil and water.

Exactly- He's trolling... I have no intention of answering him directly.

Would I give them a second look- most likely... human nature, I'm naturally suspicious even if I haven't had personal experience with being shot at by any ethnic group.
I generally profile anyone open carrying- but I call it "threat assessment"

When I'm stuck somewhere in public and bored (Waiting for spouse, etc), I frequently engage in a game of "threat assessment" where I assign each person I see in the crowd a number based on their appearance and behaviour- and then observe them. (it can pass the time rather quickly- just a little twist on what other people call "people watching).

[sniper7]

Exercise your rights.


then make a law banning Muslims.[mop]

[ray1970]

I'm against open carry in general. Handguns are small for a reason. You want to carry it, that's fine. Just cover it up so everyone around you doesn't have to know you are carrying.

As as far as the context of the original post in regards to a group of Muslims carrying openly in public, hell yes it would make me nervous. With the tensions between us and them I say no open carry for them. Or people from India either. Sometimes they look a lot like Muslims and wouldn't want there to be any confusion.

I consider a lot of the things I think and say to be a bit "politically incorrect". I don't believe everything in our society has to be fair and just and equal for everyone. I do believe in profiling people based on their race, religion, sex, or sexual preference. I honestly don't believe our country was founded on some principle that was put in place to protect you from having your feelings hurt.

[Sawin]

If they start open carrying en masse, I have no doubt we will too...

[cstone]

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
Robert Heinlein


Treat others the same way you want them to treat you.
Jesus of Nazareth

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Bill of Rights


I have nothing to add. [Coffee]

[Sawin]

An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.
Robert Heinlein


Treat others the same way you want them to treat you.
Jesus of Nazareth

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Bill of Rights


I have nothing to add. [Coffee]

+1

[Great-Kazoo]

For someone who is a 2A LIBERAL. HE brings color AND religion in to the debate numouros Times. Were a Conservative to do that, the calls for removing ( in the name of Tolerance & Diversity) would be overwhelming.

[buckshotbarlow]

live by the gun...die by the gun.

[BPTactical]

Green on green?

[Aloha_Shooter]

I've got no problems with any American citizen of any religious persuasion taking advantage of their legal and constitutional rights. I have issues with prohibited persons carrying, openly or not, and with idiots of any religious persuasion (including NO religion) open-carrying ARs/AKs/SKSes/etc. in a ready position just to provoke a political encounter. Muslims have the same rights to self-defense as non-Muslims. BTW, not everyone wearing a turban is Muslim -- Sikhs are generally some pretty nice people and its sad they get so much hate thrown at them because some ignoramus lumps them in with ISIS or AQAP.

[MED]

All citizens have the rights granted to them by the constitution until proven otherwise through due process.

I will also say what I always say; any person intent on doing harm will do harm whether they are "allowed" to carry or not.

[cstone]

All citizens have the rights granted to them by the constitution until proven otherwise through due process.

I will also say what I always say; any person intent on doing harm will do harm whether they are "allowed" to carry or not.

Point of Order
The US Constitution does not grant rights. Human Beings are born with rights that our Constitution delineates and proscribes government power to protect us from government infringement of those rights.

[68Charger]

Point of Order
The US Constitution does not grant rights. Human Beings are born with rights that our Constitution delineates and proscribes government power to protect us from government infringement of those rights.

cstone has it right (as usual)
The Constitution puts limits on the Government, not the governed.

The constitution should never be construed to limit citizen's rights- as they are "inalienable rights, endowed by our creator"

[HoneyBadger]

Point of Order
The US Constitution does not grant rights. Human Beings are born with rights that our Constitution delineates and proscribes government power to protect us from government infringement of those rights.

Thank you.

[ZERO THEORY]

I honestly don't believe our country was founded on some principle that was put in place to protect you from having your feelings hurt.

It certainly wasn't. However, it was founded on the idea that a man should never have his rights or abilities restricted by a ruling class. Guilt by association goes two ways. So unless you're alright with having your gun rights taken away because of Lanza and Holmes, your freedom to practice Christ-based religions because of McVeigh, or ability to speak freely because of national separatists, that's a strong double standard, my friend. Tensions may very well be high because of the actions of raving fucking lunatics, I agree. However, the last time we restricted the rights of people for sharing an ethnicity or nationality, thousands of Japanese Americans (successful business owners, patriots, and family men, no less) were locked away in camps. You know, kinda like the Nazis did (minus the gas and firing squads, thankfully). As I remember it, German Americans were also blacklisted, robbed of their property, and often assaulted not long beforehand.

I'm certainly not in any position to tell you what to think or believe. I would just like to give you something to chew on. Corporal punishment for citizens leads down a very dark road, the likes of which you often don't find your way back on.

[SamuraiCO]

The concept of Liberty is very clear. There will always be some risk in life and our endeavors. Nothing the Gov does will provide a risk free life no matter what they promise.

Liberal 2A=Tool. End game of the progressives is to remove ALL firearms. They are not pro hunter. End game is to remove ALL human activity from land, take away property rights and have the human population living in controlled footprints that do not harm the environment. Only those who "understand" the environment will be allowed outside the walls and that does not include bird watchers, hikers, backpackers, rock climbers. and especially off roaders fishermen and hunters!

[mcantar18c]

I'm not gonna lie, I've had enough bad experiences with haj with guns that it would probably make me pretty damn uncomfortable.
Yup, I'm with you there.

Carrying shouldn't be illegal. Period.
Islam, on the other hand, should be illegal. Period.

[ZERO THEORY]

By no means am I sanctioning the Japanese internment. However in recent years I've seen factual perversion of it.

We did not intern all japanese. They were basically told A) move to the east cost area or b) refuse and be interred or c) refuse and join the military. COTUS japenese on the east side of the Country were wholly unaffected. It wasn't to punish them for being Japanese.

There was a massive number of Japanese intelligence on the COTUS. They didn't know who what who. We don't have a crystal ball to say what would have happened if history was different, but one thing is a guarantee, there would have been a massive flow of intelligence going to the japanese mainland.

That said, for every japanese intellegent agent, there was 999 innocents. But they had (some limited choice) in the matter. Like I said, I'm not endorsing this by any means, but this isn't comparable to the Nazis. War is hell. If we had a brain now, we'd subject every arab speaker to more detailed searches on a plane for instance. It's an inconvenience, but it has a purpose. Old white disabled English speaking grandmas don't have a statistical probability of blowing airplanes out of the sky. I'd argue that our common-sense has been murdered in todays day in age in favor of pure political correctness.

E.G. if Cuba were to sponsor nuclear missles for russia again, and there was credible intelligence that they were sending over cuban military on rafts under the gyst of them being refugees.....

Would you think it inappropriate to treat Cuban refugees in Florida with special gloves? Or would that "violate rights" under the myth of political correctness?

Fair play; my post is a highly-condensed version of the series of events effecting Pacific Coast and Southwestern Japanese Americans. But let's focus on your question.

I wouldn't think it inappropriate, speaking strictly on the terms. Objectively speaking, there's truth value in the reason behind the profiling, and it serves to adjust for statistics. I would note however, your example is apples to oranges, at best. Illegal immigrants being screened upon entering a sovereign nation is very different from telling a citizen that he can't exercise his rights because foreign nationals look like him. Where you and I differ is that I take the Constitution as not having a lot of room for interpretation. I don't have hash marks for violating rights. When it comes to suspending them, I see it as black and white. Binary. I'm not a proponent of political correctness either, so please don't try to frame me as such.

As far as I'm concerned it's very simple: are we willing to violate rights based on statistical analysis or guilt by association? Personally, I would gladly trade my life to a Muslim extremist or any other ne'er do well, if it meant that we dismantled the Patriot Act, NDAA, wire tapping programs, email scans, et. al. I prefer dangerous liberty over peaceful slavery. The sheepdogs on this board may assume that this assertion is naive or uninformed, but I can live with that.

I'm of the frame of mind that as soon as we let the actions of a few justify our mistrust and judgement on our countrymen, we've lost. To make us suspicious and combative to our own people based on nothing more than arbitrary identifiers that the terrorists have exploited, is the very definition of successful terrorism. I'm not saying that we shouldn't maintain suspicious alertness. I profile every person I see based on any multitude of inputs. What I'm saying is that when we systematically pigeon-hole people, it hurts the solidarity of this great nation.

[wctriumph]

As long as all laws are followed, I don't see the issue.

[Danimal]

Deleted

[cstone]

There are several groups of people who have realized the most effective way to control the government is to wage a war of demographics. Have more children and you significantly raise your chances of having more votes in the future.

Demographics takes longer than armed rebellion, and over time there are few guarantees that your progeny will agree with your original premise. I think one of the things we are seeing in Europe right now are a combination of demographics, both by birth and immigration, and armed rebellion.

[Skip]

[snip]

Slowly, progressives want society to turn full force into this ignorance. Why? Because they ARE the people you naturally profile and often exclude. For good reason.

^ That sir, is an epic quote!!!

[275RLTW]

Why is this even a thread? Religion has no effect, in America, on someone's right to carry. However, how you chose to exercise your religious beliefs can affect your ability to carry.

[mcantar18c]

Why is this even a thread? Religion has no effect, in America, on someone's right to carry. However, how you chose to exercise your religious beliefs can affect your ability to carry.
For me, the problem is with Islam's classification as a "religion" and with it's well stated goals.

[buffalobo]

Why is this even a thread? Religion has no effect, in America, on someone's right to carry. However, how you chose to exercise your religious beliefs can affect your ability to carry.

The op stated nothing about religion having anything to do with right to open carry.

The op posted an essay/article asking a question specifically of open carry advocates: What if Muslims started open carrying?

Reading the op will help you to participate on topic.

[275RLTW]

The op stated nothing about religion having anything to do with right to open carry.

The op posted an essay/article asking a question specifically of open carry advocates: What if Muslims started open carrying?

Reading the op will help you to participate on topic.

I did read it. Again, what does someone's religious beliefs have to do with their rights?

[buffalobo]

Nothing, their religious beliefs in this case is the common bond of the group and has no affect on their rights.

The author listed several groups that are seen be some as "radical" or "scary". Some had religion as their common bond, some had ethnicity as common bond.

Post the passage that relates their religion to right to open carry.

[HoneyBadger]

I did read it. Again, what does someone's religious beliefs have to do with their rights?
Since rights are God-given, I guess it depends on your religion... Right? [Dunno]

[Aloha_Shooter]

The op stated nothing about religion having anything to do with right to open carry.

The op posted an essay/article asking a question specifically of open carry advocates: What if Muslims started open carrying?

Reading the op will help you to participate on topic.

I think the OP assumed and implied open carry advocates are just racist morons and was asking the question with the idea of fomenting dissension amongst non-liberals. The very premise of the question assumes we're as hypocritical as the liberals are.

[68Charger]

I think the OP assumed and implied open carry advocates are just racist morons and was asking the question with the idea of fomenting dissension amongst non-liberals. The very premise of the question assumes we're as hypocritical as the liberals are.

Quoted for truth... the writer of the article (in alloutdoor.com) is a troll, plain and simple.

[GilpinGuy]

WTF? Radical Islamic terrorists hell bent on slaughtering innocent people aren't going to open carry anyway. They want the element of surprise, no? For Christs sake this whole argument is just silly.

The "2A liberal" succeeded at dividing us, as liberals are so skilled at doing.

Let law abiding citizens carry. Period.

[hurley842002]

Let law abiding citizens carry. Period.

/thread

I don't give a crap who carries, because if someone (bad or good) wants to carry, they are going to carry, period! Just don't keep those that can't afford a permit, from carrying in a discreet anonymous fashion (i.e. concealed).

Slightly off topic since the OP is about open carry, but that's my soap box for the year.

[CapLock]

Someone already mentioned it but just a little. Ronald Reagan signed the bill banning open carry in California in 1967. They got scared when the black panthers started open carry around the state capital. Gone down the shitter ever since. Tell me why the gun community loves the gipper again? Any how don't let history repeat itself or some other cock sucker will use it to take more rights away.