# The Founding Fathers and open carry **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 5, 2017, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-founding-fathers-and-open-carry/795584 "2017-09-05T19:22:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2017, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-founding-fathers-and-open-carry/795584/121 "2017-09-19T16:55:29Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > But going back to the OP Thank you. šŸ™‚ > [@](#): > > As far as I am concerned I have no issue with someone with a handgun secured in a belt holster at the mall. I will however chose to find someone walking down that same aisle with a rifle slung tactical-style as if at the ready to be odd. Which is why Iā€™m surprised to hear little or no mention of [scabbards](https://www.midwayusa.com/rifle-scabbards/br?cid=10507) as a compromise. ---
**Author:** ![coffeecat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coffeecat/32/3405_2.png) [@coffeecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/coffeecat)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2017, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-founding-fathers-and-open-carry/795584/122 "2017-09-19T17:40:27Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > . . . and quite frankly Iā€™m more along the lines of focusing on mental health than focusing on hardware. :šŸ˜•: > [@](#): > > The way I see it for most of history sure youā€™d have weapons at home, or at the shop. Sure if youā€™re out in the woods or on the range youā€™ll be armed. And you may be packing under your jacket or belt if you feel the need. But why make a display of it? 1. You might need to defend yourself unexpectedly, in a hurry, and there might not be time to get the gun out from under your jacket. 2. The purpose of carrying a gun isnā€™t to shoot people; itā€™s so you donā€™t have to shoot people. You want the bad guy to know you have a gun and not mess with you, just as dangerous animals have warning colors and make threat displays before attacking. > [@](#): > > As far as I am concerned I have no issue with someone with a handgun secured in a belt holster at the mall. I will however chose to find someone walking down that same aisle with a rifle slung tactical-style as if at the ready to be odd. Me too. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2017, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-founding-fathers-and-open-carry/795584/123 "2017-09-19T18:47:28Z")
> [@coffeecat](#): > > :šŸ˜•: The real answer to ā€œpsycho nut shoots up workplace 15 timesā€ should not be outlawing 15 round magazines, but to make it so the dude works out his problems before he gets to the point of wanting to shoot up the workplace regardless of magazine capacity. > [@](#): > > 1. You might need to defend yourself unexpectedly, in a hurry, and there might not be time to get the gun out from under your jacket. > > 2. The purpose of carrying a gun isnā€™t to shoot people; itā€™s so you donā€™t have to shoot people. You want the bad guy to know you have a gun and not mess with you, just as dangerous animals have warning colors and make threat displays before attacking. 1. Fair enough but that can be adjusted for likelihood, depending on circumstance. 2. That one OTOH I see as being an exaggerated perception of the threat level of the world, where individuals are either predators or prey and must signal it. As in (1) that may be so for specific times and places but in most communities just going about your everyday business it isnā€™t. And FWIW thereā€™s always the putz who will want to be visibly armed so as to make it so nobody dare say anything to him\* even if justified\*. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2017, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-founding-fathers-and-open-carry/795584/124 "2017-09-19T18:56:53Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > But why is the right to bear arms so important to retain, and the right to print oneā€™s own currency not important to retain? First of all, if you donā€™t retain it, it is not a right at all, but something else. You have rights by being born a human, not through the benevolence of your overlords. Second, nobody has the right to print currency. Currency by definition is a social phenomenon. If you just print it, that isnā€™t currency, itā€™s funny looking paper. Currency requires the agreement of the rest of society that it is indeed money. Having a right to print currency doesnā€™t even make any sense, unless you are really discussing the ā€œrightā€ to counterfeit. Everyone has the right to self defense. Defending oneself is the very definition of survival. If you canā€™t do it, you die. The right to keep and bear arms is just an explicit restatement of the right to self defense. You canā€™t reliably defend yourself in the modern world without firearms. Prior to about 1600, you could have said the same about swords, spears and axes. In a thousand years, when we have cheap clothing that stops bullets painlessly, but telepathic brain melting rays are common, we will have to amend things to recognize that having access to brain melting rays is an essential component to self defense. Because the fundamental right is to defend oneself, oneā€™s family and oneā€™s community. We just need to remind people that self defense necessarily entails the right to keep and bear the tools required for defense. Itā€™s not really about the tools. But it needs to be explicit that access to the required tools is necessary to maintain the right to self defense. Itā€™s kind of like the right to a free press. It isnā€™t about the actual printing press, itā€™s about the right to free public discourse. But it needs to be made explicitly clear that the tools needed for that discourse canā€™t be banned, or the right is infringed, even if nobody actually made a law against speaking publicly. ---
**Author:** ![aldiboronti](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@aldiboronti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aldiboronti)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2017, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-founding-fathers-and-open-carry/795584/125 "2017-09-19T19:31:22Z")
I donā€™t get it. If the anti-gun fanatics donā€™t want to own a gun then they donā€™t have to get one, thatā€™s fine, but why do they want to deprive others of their ability to buy them? It seems to me a little like what was said of the Puritans in England, that they banned bear-baiting not because it gave pain to the bear but because it gave pleasure to the spectators. Some people canā€™t stand watching other people take enjoyment in things they disapprove of. ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2017, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-founding-fathers-and-open-carry/795584/126 "2017-09-19T19:54:06Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > I donā€™t get it. If the anti-gun fanatics donā€™t want to own a gun then they donā€™t have to get one, thatā€™s fine, but why do they want to deprive others of their ability to buy them? It seems to me a little like what was said of the Puritans in England, that they banned bear-baiting not because it gave pain to the bear but because it gave pleasure to the spectators. Some people canā€™t stand watching other people take enjoyment in things they disapprove of. Iā€™m not anti-gun, but there is a reason for limiting access to guns: guns can be and are used to commit crimes. Simply saying we have to trust each and every gun owner not to commit crimes stretches the social contract to the breaking point. Every right we have is contingent on the holder of that right being a responsible person. I have no problem with preventing people from exercising their rights if they do something to show they are a threat to the community. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2017, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-founding-fathers-and-open-carry/795584/127 "2017-09-19T20:11:48Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > I donā€™t get it. If the anti-gun fanatics donā€™t want to own a gun then they donā€™t have to get one, thatā€™s fine, but why do they want to deprive others of their ability to buy them? It seems to me a little like what was said of the Puritans in England, that they banned bear-baiting not because it gave pain to the bear but because it gave pleasure to the spectators. Some people canā€™t stand watching other people take enjoyment in things they disapprove of. I donā€™t think this is a remotely fair interpretation of those that support gun control. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [September 19, 2017, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-founding-fathers-and-open-carry/795584/128 "2017-09-19T20:19:19Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > Everyone has the right to self defense. Defending oneself is the very definition of survival. If you canā€™t do it, you die. The right to keep and bear arms is just an explicit restatement of the right to self defense. You canā€™t reliably defend yourself in the modern world without firearms. Philando Castileā€™s gun got him killed. John Crawford was killed for holding a BB gun. Tamir Rice was killed for brandishing a toy gun, and the person who called the police thought it probably was a toy. The Black Panthers had not only rifles but organization, and the state worked to undermine and destroy them. _Firearms didnā€™t save these people, they shortened their lives. Whatever weā€™re doing with firearms to save our lives, it isnā€™t working._ Consider that Mike Brown of Ferguson allegedly tried to take a gun from a police officer before being shot. Well, by your argumentā€™s logic, wasnā€™t that just trying to gain the means of his own self-preservation? Shouldnā€™t the state be encouraging that, not calling him a threat and shooting him in the head? Well, no, of course not. I would think you probably know that as well as I do. But then you say nonsense like this: > [@](#): > > Prior to about 1600, you could have said the same about swords, spears and axes. In a thousand years, when we have cheap clothing that stops bullets painlessly, but telepathic brain melting rays are common, we will have to amend things to recognize that having access to brain melting rays is an essential component to self defense. You donā€™t defend from brain melting rays by getting your own brain melting rays. You defend from brain melting rays with anti-brain-melting-ray protocols. You also defend from firearms with bullet-resistant clothing, And so it is in the world of today. Gun control\* is\* self-defense and defense of others, from firearms. Itā€™s our anti-getting-shot protocol. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2017, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-founding-fathers-and-open-carry/795584/129 "2017-09-20T02:37:30Z")
To gun owners, gun control laws look a lot like prior restraint: forbidding people to do things because of their _potential_ for harm. Formerly, in a free society the rule was to punish actual misdeeds; but our risk-averse society today seems unsatisfied with that. Do we really want to tell people that theyā€™re not allowed to make themselves as strong and capable as they could be, because it makes them too dangerous? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2017, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-founding-fathers-and-open-carry/795584/130 "2017-09-20T04:23:51Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Iā€™m not anti-gun, but there is a reason for limiting access to guns: guns can be and are used to commit crimes. Simply saying we have to trust each and every gun owner not to commit crimes stretches the social contract to the breaking point. Every right we have is contingent on the holder of that right being a responsible person. I have no problem with preventing people from exercising their rights if they do something to show they are a threat to the community. Iā€™m not anti-car, but there is a reason for limiting access to cars: cars can be and are used to commit crimes. Simply saying we have to trust each and every car owner not to commit crimes stretches the social contract to the breaking point. Every right we have is contingent on the holder of that right being a responsible person. I have no problem with preventing people from exercising their rights if they do something to show they are a threat to the community. Iā€™m not anti-computer, but there is a reason for limiting access to computers: computers can be and are used to commit crimes. Simply saying we have to trust each and every computer owner not to commit crimes stretches the social contract to the breaking point. Every right we have is contingent on the holder of that right being a responsible person. I have no problem with preventing people from exercising their rights if they do something to show they are a threat to the community. etcetera, etcetera,etceteraā€¦ ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2017, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-founding-fathers-and-open-carry/795584/131 "2017-09-20T04:25:58Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > Philando Castileā€™s gun got him killed. John Crawford was killed for holding a BB gun. Tamir Rice was killed for brandishing a toy gun, and the person who called the police thought it probably was a toy. The Black Panthers had not only rifles but organization, and the state worked to undermine and destroy them. . And how many unarmed black men were killed even without a gun in their possession? ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2017, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-founding-fathers-and-open-carry/795584/132 "2017-09-20T06:45:54Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > To gun owners, gun control laws look a lot like prior restraint: forbidding people to do things because of their _potential_ for harm. Formerly, in a free society the rule was to punish actual misdeeds; but our risk-averse society today seems unsatisfied with that. Do we really want to tell people that theyā€™re not allowed to make themselves as strong and capable as they could be, because it makes them too dangerous? If Slan getting as strong and capable as he can be means being able to project brain-melting rays from his head antennae, then yeah, I think itā€™s understandable to want fewer Slans. ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2017, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-founding-fathers-and-open-carry/795584/133 "2017-09-20T06:52:26Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > And how many unarmed black men were killed even without a gun in their possession? As I said, > [@foolsguinea](#): > > _Whatever weā€™re doing with firearms to save our lives, it isnā€™t working._ Thereā€™s been some talk about using firearms to challenge the ā€œmonopoly of forceā€ of the police. OK, some questions. (This may have to become its own thread.) Do you guys think that Philando Castile should have just shot a traffic cop instead of trying to cooperate? Do you agree with the Dallas shooter who killed police just for being police? Is the Black Lives Matter movement missing the boat by not staging an armed revolution? Are these your actual policy suggestion? ---
**Author:** ![gatorslap](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@gatorslap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gatorslap)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2017, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-founding-fathers-and-open-carry/795584/134 "2017-09-20T10:06:37Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Iā€™m not anti-car, but there is a reason for limiting access to cars: cars can be and are used to commit crimes. Simply saying we have to trust each and every car owner not to commit crimes stretches the social contract to the breaking point. Every right we have is contingent on the holder of that right being a responsible person. I have no problem with preventing people from exercising their rights if they do something to show they are a threat to the community. Cars in fact are highly regulated. Youā€™re required to get liability insurance for your car. You need a license to drive. That license requires two tests, regular renewals, and is revokable for various reasons. It can be for committing a major crime but it can also be for repeated traffic violations, failure to pay a fine, etc. My license was suspended when I went to the hospital for a seizure. To say that guns should be regulated on a similar level as cars is generally considered a strong gun control position. > [@](#): > > Iā€™m not anti-computer, but there is a reason for limiting access to computers: computers can be and are used to commit crimes. Simply saying we have to trust each and every computer owner not to commit crimes stretches the social contract to the breaking point. Every right we have is contingent on the holder of that right being a responsible person. I have no problem with preventing people from exercising their rights if they do something to show they are a threat to the community. Computers are used to commit ā€œcrimesā€ such as prostitution and black market trade. Not violent crimes. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2017, 11:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-founding-fathers-and-open-carry/795584/135 "2017-09-20T11:30:59Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > I donā€™t get it. If the anti-gun fanatics donā€™t want to own a gun then they donā€™t have to get one, thatā€™s fine, but why do they want to deprive others of their ability to buy them? It seems to me a little like what was said of the Puritans in England, that they banned bear-baiting not because it gave pain to the bear but because it gave pleasure to the spectators. Some people canā€™t stand watching other people take enjoyment in things they disapprove of. I canā€™t speak for all advocates of gun control, just myself. If youā€™re a hunter, knock yourself out. Hunting is a key component of responsible wildlife management. The deer you kill and eat is one less that might wreck my car. When you shoot animals for sport like giraffes and lions, you really lose me. But they do not represent the average hunter who by and large are responsible advocates for conservation. If youā€™re a rancher who needs to pack a pistol to ward off rattlesnakes and coyotes, no problem. If you really really think you need a pistol in the house to ward off intruders, fine by me as long as you keep the kids away. Where you lose me is when you regard any reasonable restrictions as the first step in taking all your guns away. Registration and reasonable limitations on firepower are things that the NRA used to be in favor of before they were taken over by the batshit crazy. You also lose me when you tell me that you need guns in case you need to overthrow the government. Maybe that was conceivable in colonial days, but nowadays with tanks and drones, any thought of overthrowing a rogue government is nonsense. The way to overthrow oppressive governments is by non-violent means as we saw in East Germany and other former Soviet satellites. So in short, Iā€™m not afraid of you enjoying your guns. I am afraid of a society where there is too much firepower in the hands of too many nuts. I wouldnā€™t be afraid of living in Switzerland where most people have guns, but I would be in Somalia where thugs roam freely with advanced weaponry. All things in moderation. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2017, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-founding-fathers-and-open-carry/795584/136 "2017-09-20T17:33:38Z")
> [@foolsguinea](#): > > As I said, So, disarm the police also? The fact that a few innocents were killed as it was thought they had a real gun, and instead they had a toy gun is meaningless, and many more who didnt even have the toy were also shot. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2017, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-founding-fathers-and-open-carry/795584/137 "2017-09-20T17:35:16Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I canā€™t speak for all advocates of gun control, just myself. If youā€™re a hunter, knock yourself out. Hunting is a key component of responsible wildlife management. The deer you kill and eat is one less that might wreck my car. When you shoot animals for sport like giraffes and lions, you really lose me. But they do not represent the average hunter who by and large are responsible advocates for conservation. If youā€™re a rancher who needs to pack a pistol to ward off rattlesnakes and coyotes, no problem. If you really really think you need a pistol in the house to ward off intruders, fine by me as long as you keep the kids away. Where you lose me is when you regard any reasonable restrictions as the first step in taking all your guns away. Registration and reasonable limitations on firepower are things that the NRA used to be in favor of before they were taken over by the batshit crazy. . So, what are ā€œreasonableā€? Never was the NRA in favor of registration, and registration is useless expect as a tool for possible confiscation. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2017, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-founding-fathers-and-open-carry/795584/138 "2017-09-20T17:41:10Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > registration is useless expect as a tool for possible confiscation. Does it work that way for cars too? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-founding-fathers-and-open-carry/795584.md?page=6)