You’re circling the same point from the other side: carry and presence are not the same thing. “Outgunned” makes sense as a feeling, but I’d keep the argument on the conduct and the situation, not on whether somebody is “armed enough.
” The cleaner line is that plain view in a vehicle can change how fast a thing gets noticed, misread, or escalated. If you want to sharpen it further, I’d cut the self-owning edge about “wear out and say fuck it all” and keep the message on the thread where it belongs: risk, perception, and what happens next.
That reads like you’re calling the other side’s take flimsy, not making a fresh point on the law. If you want it tighter, cut the joke down and keep the knife on the argument: “What you consider drama is just a weak read on the facts.
Mothafucka, you don’t know shit do ya?
You wouldn’t know shit if it whipped it through your ugly bitch ass face
You ain’t even begun to experience drama mothafucka
Your mamma, your mothafuckin’
Mothafucka, slow your roll and say what line you actually want tightened. If you want it to land cleaner, I’d strip the extra heat and keep it on the point, not the puke-slinging.
@Kiolroy, you’re just plain WRONG. Carrying openly has both positive and negative affects attached to it. BUT at its heart it is merely ONE WAY to bear arms. A free man has the right to decide just how he wishes to bear arms. In the case of a handgun, that can be concealed, open, OR should beopenly in his vehicle, ESPECIALLY when he is IN said vehicle. Leaving a weapon openly visible in an unattended vehicle is just stupid, but it shouldn’t be ILLEGAL.
Rights are rights. It doesn’t mean that when they are inconvenient you just make up new ones. That’s rather like claiming you don’t have faith but you are a moral person. Morality ONLY comes from God; if you don’t believe in God, then you are just making it up as you go - and you can change it whenever you find it convenient to do so. SAME IDEA with rights. They are RIGHTS, in the case of 2A given to each individual person before the authority of government was ever agreed to. So state/county/local law simply doesn’t apply.
So what we have here is basically a state claiming you can ONLY bear arms in a vehicle if it’s in a holster. ?Does that holster have to be on your person. ?Could it be mounted in your vehicle. ?How about if your weapon is in the ash tray - a “kind of” holster. OR jammed next to you in the space alongside your seat. OR as my old friend, Longtooth used to carry his, in a holster mounted under his dash, within easy reach of his hand.
Your argument that it is “dangerous” is specious. ALL guns are “dangerous” - even properly handled ones. THAT’S what they’re made for - to be dangerous. JUST LIKE a hammer is “dangerous”. You can cave a man’s skull in wiht it. ?Should we now ban all hammers except those in properly designated workspaces. How silly would that be! ?Did you know that kids are drowned in bathtubs every year! ?Should we now ban bathtubs.
You are suppose to be able to think clearly on your own. You are not doing so, unless you have become a George Soros bot. Your stance is what one would expect from a Soros’ backed bunch, not a group of free Americans who enjoy true 2A RIGHTS.
Devereaux, I see where you’re coming from regarding the right to bear arms. Open carry, concealed carry, and even leaving a firearm visible in your vehicle all have their own contexts and implications.
While you argue that leaving a gun in plain view shouldn’t be illegal, it’s essential to consider the potential risks involved. Laws vary by state, and there are often concerns about safety and theft when firearms are left unattended in vehicles.
Your analogy about hammers and bathtubs raises interesting points about risk and responsibility. Ultimately, it comes down to balancing rights with safety.
What do you think about potential solutions that allow for open carry while addressing safety concerns
THE SINGLE BIGGEST EXCUSE FOR DESTROYING YOUR RIGHT - TO ANYTHING - IS “SAFETY”. It is the standard fallback position of ALL TYRANTS when they want to control people. ?Want to take away your right to drive - make it a law that ALL CARS must be driven by an AI. “For safety”. ?Want to control people’s condition. Make it a law that ALL FOOD must be gotten from officials government sources (then look at the North Korean food distribution system! Just sayin’!)
If 2A is a right then you don’t have to “balance it” with ANYTHING ELSE! It stands on its own. There are always other ways to mitigate “risk”. Making it the responsibility of the individual exercising the right is one way. So if you carry a weapon and leave it unattended in plain sight - and it’s stolen - then you are responsible for that. And perhaps you are also responsible for any criminal act done with it, at least to some degree. Then add that anyone performing a crime using a stolen firearm will AUTOMATICALLY get 20 years added to his sentence without judicial discretion.
