On Jul 17, 2016, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Jul 17, 2016, S2000magician wrote:

Quote:

On Jul 17, 2016, LobowolfXXX wrote:
If the Bayesian estimate is that the second flip of a coin has a 2/3 chance to match the first ((1+1)/(1+2)), that sems...high.

Is this the same guy who understands restricted choice?

If you'd talked to my old bridge partner, Tim Lolli, at the wedding, he might have had a thing or two to say about how well I understand restricted choice.

Come to think of it, that's why you weren't seated by him.

On Jul 17, 2016, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Quote:

On Jul 17, 2016, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
This might be the best NVMS digression ever! Thanks guys!

Necessity is the mother of invention. ..I never get banned for talking about probability.

On Jun 30, 2016, Cliffg37 wrote:
I can only think of two reasons to carry a concealed weapon.

1) You are a law enforcement agent who may have to act and don't want to be targeted or known. (This is a plainclothes armed marshal flying on a plane in case of trouble)

2) You are a felon waiting to do something illegal at the opportune moment.

People should keep their firearms at home for protection where the belong. I agree that open carry simply invites trouble.

This is coming from a high school teacher who believes in the 2nd amendment, and has experienced watching a student get shot in my classroom.

Guns are not toys for boys. They are to be respected and used only in the appropriate situation.

On Jul 2, 2016, funsway wrote:

Quote:

On Jul 1, 2016, landmark wrote:
I think self-defense is an arguable reason for concealed carry.

But definitely only licensed.

Shouldn't that read "arguable reason for carry?"

Why do you feel the word "concealed" should be added? If self-defense is the motivation, why would not obvious or announced carry be better?

note that he cited Tennessee law does not make a distinction on barring weapons of any type.

.....

on the issue of "Stripping 2nd Amendment Rights," the Constitution only direct what government can and cannot do.

When an individual specifies rules on their personal property they are not stripping of any right since you have no implied rights on their property.
Consider that the "right to bear" of an individual is also the "right not to bear," and this extend to their personal property.

A business "open to the public" might create a gray area for some laws, but not any defined by the Constitution as Amended.

It is my feeling at the moment (open to change) that I, as an individual, have the right to know if another person is carrying a weapon or not.
This can imply "open carry,' a tattoo on your forehead, public announcement/publication, etc. It has nothing to do with the right to own a gun.

On Jul 2, 2016, funsway wrote:

It is my feeling at the moment (open to change) that I, as an individual, have the right to know if another person is carrying a weapon or not.
This can imply "open carry,' a tattoo on your forehead, public announcement/publication, etc. It has nothing to do with the right to own a gun.

On Jul 17, 2016, RobertSmith wrote:

Why do you feel like you have some sort of imagined, "right," to know a victim of sexual assault is carrying a concealed firearm?

On Jul 18, 2016, funsway wrote:
As noted above, I do not have a firm position on conceal vs open -- which is why I started the thread.
Then, some responses deal with the "right to carry" with no distinction as requested.
So, I pose the idea of my "right to be safe in my person" as a consideration in choosing "conceal" vs "open"


Also note that the Constitution does not create any "right" for a person to own, keep, carry a gun. There is not "2nd Amendment right."
This Amendment just states that Congress cannot pass any law that infringes on the right of a citizen to "keep" and "bear" as separate concepts.

Thus, it can be inferred that such rights are inherent and outside of the Federal Government to restrict as recognized at the time of the signing.

The meaning of "keep," "bear, "arms,"and "citizen" are open to interpretation which is what the Supreme Court is for,
but nay such interpretation does not create any "right" -- just defines what "restrict" means.

So, the theoretical "right" of any person to possess a gun outside of their home is no more important that my right to feel safe, or my right not to have my life plans interfered with, etc.

If it is determined that a person cannot be infringed on their inherent right to bear away for home, then why does this imply a right to hide the fact?
There may be rational reasons or even silly ones for wanting to have a weapon concealed, but that has nothing to do with any "right" to do so.

The above cited California law is to the point. It does not deal with any right to have a gun in public, only the ability to conceal the fact.

On Jul 19, 2016, balducci wrote:
"Secret Service spokesman Robert Hoback said in a statement that 'only authorized law enforcement personnel' working with the agency will be allowed to carry firearms inside protected areas. The Secret Service cited federal law that allows the agency to prevent firearms from being carried into venues with protectees present, even in open-carry states."

On Jul 19, 2016, S2000magician wrote:

I would never trust anyone who thinks that "protectee" is a word.

On Jul 19, 2016, RobertSmith wrote:

So I pose the question again, why do you believe you have a right, "for now" or any other period of time, to know whether a victim of sexual assault is carrying a firearm? Or a women abused by an ex husband is carrying a firearm to protect herself?

On Jul 20, 2016, funsway wrote:

Quote:

On Jul 19, 2016, RobertSmith wrote:

So I pose the question again, why do you believe you have a right, "for now" or any other period of time, to know whether a victim of sexual assault is carrying a firearm? Or a women abused by an ex husband is carrying a firearm to protect herself?

I have already answered that but I will repeat.

I have a right to be secure in my person and to pursue my life plan without undue interference and respect for the rights of others.

Why a person chooses to cary a gun is irrelevant, but nothing I have said implies they do not have the right to carry a gun.

My question is why they chose to conceal it - a completely different issue.

Why won't you address that question?

in addition --

Even at home, before I enter your yard I have a right o know if there is anything possibly threatening to my welfare such as a vicious or infectious disease.
Local laws can require you post a sign announcing this danger. So, why not post a sign about the weapons you have so that I can decide not to risk entering?

Folks leave their expensive car in the driveway so that neighbors can ogle and be envious,
so why should the the proud owner of an assault rifle proudly proclaim the fact?

On Jul 22, 2016, RobertSmith wrote:

People chose to conceal for a variety of reasons. Not the least of which is it gives a tactical advantage and keeps the sheep from panicking.

Beyond that, you seem to have an overly developed sense of self importance, don't you think?

On Jul 24, 2016, funsway wrote:

Quote:

On Jul 22, 2016, RobertSmith wrote:

People chose to conceal for a variety of reasons. Not the least of which is it gives a tactical advantage and keeps the sheep from panicking.

Beyond that, you seem to have an overly developed sense of self importance, don't you think?

I would be interested in ALL of the reasons -- which is what this thread is about. But your opinions are noted.

It is an exploration into a question that does not necessarily relate to my personal beliefs at all -- as stated in the OP.

It is interesting that you seem to project some idea of "self-importance" into the question,
beyond, of course, the desire a person to carry a gun for self-protection. Since in most States you cannot us that gun to protect anyone else,
what is the carry but an overly developed sense of self-importance. (relative to the sheep)

Now, please explain what "tactical advantage" has to do with "self-protection." Maybe I am missing something here.
Wouldn't being able to reach an open carry quickly over digging in a purse be a tactical advantage?

On Jul 24, 2016, RobertSmith wrote:
You need an explanation as to what tactical advantages have to do with self protection? Yes. You are missing something. In fact, I'd say you're missing everything.