6 ms·

> It's suspicious but legal, in the same category as carting a semi-automatic into a grocery store in an open-carry state. Any suspicion toward a US citizen fo

> It's suspicious but legal, in the same category as carting a semi-automatic into a grocery store in an open-carry state. Any suspicion toward a US citizen for open-carrying a semi-automatic weapon (which you realize is like half of the handguns in circulation, right?) is entirely due to one's own prejudice and misconceptions. It is objectively not suspicious. The individual is openly carrying it, not hiding it. Concealed carry should not be suspicious either, but open carry should be less suspicious. This would be a good moment to examine your biases against a fundamentally protected human right as recognized by our constitution.

gambiting 2y ago
>> It is objectively not suspicious. It literally couldn't be any more suspicious. Carrying a jar of bees into a public space isn't illegal either but I'd be very suspicious of anyone doing it, and it doesn't even need any special protection in the constitution. Just because something is legal doesn't mean you have to be completely and unquestionably accepting of it in public spaces.
- soulofmischief 2y ago
  > Just because something is legal doesn't mean you have to be completely and unquestionably accepting of it in public spaces. Nothing should be suspicious about exercising any of your rights as recognized by the US bill of rights and other constitutional amendments. Any of them. You can choose to be suspicious, but again that's a product of your own misconceptions. A gun is not a jar of bees. I'm not interested in debating straw man arguments. If you have a real argument to make, I'm all ears.
  - bartonfink 2y ago
    A gun is substantially more dangerous than a jar of bees. Dangerous things warrant suspicion. If you don't see that, I question your abilities in the realm of risk analysis.
    - soulofmischief 2y ago
      > A gun is substantially more dangerous than a jar of bees. It also serves an actual purpose. If you are just suspicious of anything "dangerous" without appropriate context then I question your peace of mind. I was raised around law-abiding gun owners and have never felt unsafe in the presence of a firearm under normal circumstances provided the wielder is not intoxicated or otherwise exhibiting alarming behavior. It sounds like you just aren't used to guns.
ectospheno 2y ago
I lived in a state for half my life where a concealed carry permit was one page of paper and $100. I knew a lot of people who exercised that right. I wouldn’t describe any of them as legal scholars. Their knowledge extended to two amendments and not much more. I wouldn’t describe many of them as confident or brave either. They could angry post with the best of them though. Loved arguments.
- soulofmischief 2y ago
  This is an example of bias based on your environment. These people you've encountered are not representative of every person living in the US who still believes in constitutional protections from the government.
s1artibartfast 2y ago
It is more suspicious than not carrying. In terms of suspicision from a third party: Concealed carry > open carry > no carry The fact that concealed carry is undetectable and indiscernible from no carry does mean it is free from suspicion. As a 2A proponent, a protected right is no protection from bias or suspicion. If I see an open carry in a strange context, I will wonder WTF they are doing.
- soulofmischief 2y ago
  Is a grocery store considered a strange context? A friend of mine was open-carrying his pistol in his holster once and stopped at Walmart for some groceries. A woman called the police on him and claimed he was waving his gun around and threatening people. So the police show up, talk to both of them, thankfully didn't shoot my friend, reviewed the footage and ended up arresting the woman for making a false 911 call. Things like this give me little sympathy for people who find someone wanting to be safe in public "suspicious".
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    I know someone that caught a charge for brandishing in similar circumstances and unfortunately it stuck, so I truly am sympathetic. That said, I think there's a difference between being suspicious and keeping your head on a swivel vs freaking out, calling the cops, or taking radical action

gambiting 2y ago

>> It is objectively not suspicious. It literally couldn't be any more suspicious. Carrying a jar of bees into a public space isn't illegal either but I'd be very suspicious of anyone doing it, and it doesn't even need any special protection in the constitution. Just because something is legal doesn't mean you have to be completely and unquestionably accepting of it in public spaces.

soulofmischief 2y ago
> Just because something is legal doesn't mean you have to be completely and unquestionably accepting of it in public spaces. Nothing should be suspicious about exercising any of your rights as recognized by the US bill of rights and other constitutional amendments. Any of them. You can choose to be suspicious, but again that's a product of your own misconceptions. A gun is not a jar of bees. I'm not interested in debating straw man arguments. If you have a real argument to make, I'm all ears.
- bartonfink 2y ago
  A gun is substantially more dangerous than a jar of bees. Dangerous things warrant suspicion. If you don't see that, I question your abilities in the realm of risk analysis.
  - soulofmischief 2y ago
    > A gun is substantially more dangerous than a jar of bees. It also serves an actual purpose. If you are just suspicious of anything "dangerous" without appropriate context then I question your peace of mind. I was raised around law-abiding gun owners and have never felt unsafe in the presence of a firearm under normal circumstances provided the wielder is not intoxicated or otherwise exhibiting alarming behavior. It sounds like you just aren't used to guns.

ectospheno 2y ago

I lived in a state for half my life where a concealed carry permit was one page of paper and $100. I knew a lot of people who exercised that right. I wouldn’t describe any of them as legal scholars. Their knowledge extended to two amendments and not much more. I wouldn’t describe many of them as confident or brave either. They could angry post with the best of them though. Loved arguments.

soulofmischief 2y ago
This is an example of bias based on your environment. These people you've encountered are not representative of every person living in the US who still believes in constitutional protections from the government.

s1artibartfast 2y ago

It is more suspicious than not carrying. In terms of suspicision from a third party: Concealed carry > open carry > no carry The fact that concealed carry is undetectable and indiscernible from no carry does mean it is free from suspicion. As a 2A proponent, a protected right is no protection from bias or suspicion. If I see an open carry in a strange context, I will wonder WTF they are doing.

soulofmischief 2y ago
Is a grocery store considered a strange context? A friend of mine was open-carrying his pistol in his holster once and stopped at Walmart for some groceries. A woman called the police on him and claimed he was waving his gun around and threatening people. So the police show up, talk to both of them, thankfully didn't shoot my friend, reviewed the footage and ended up arresting the woman for making a false 911 call. Things like this give me little sympathy for people who find someone wanting to be safe in public "suspicious".
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  I know someone that caught a charge for brandishing in similar circumstances and unfortunately it stuck, so I truly am sympathetic. That said, I think there's a difference between being suspicious and keeping your head on a swivel vs freaking out, calling the cops, or taking radical action