Really thoughtful post, Navy. I can't say I am positive that it was indyyy who has said it before, but I do recall someone (somewhere, don't exactly recall where) from Indiana who said recently that they heard the admonition from their CPL instructor or range master or somebody speaking for themselves (and not the law) that OC is not advised for the reasons asserted in the quote you opened with. It could just be an inartful way of repeating what he'd heard before. Granted, the word "code" is mistaken, but otherwise, the assertions made are consistent with why some folks don't want to OC. I get that it's a wider discussion you're looking for than just the same ol' OC vs. CC nonsense, but that was the context of the original utterance, and besides the reference to a non-existent "code," I totally get where indyyy is coming from because I said much the same kinds of things right up until the point that my mind was changed partially by you and Chen and Bikenut. Mostly my mind was changed by making every attempt to remain open minded and consider all reasonable and rational perspectives. In the end, I decided not to fear my servants, and not to accept street-corner law-making, and started OC'ing a little over a year ago, as I think you'll recall.
If a person says, "I won't do that because I don't want to be hassled by police", then I believe valid questions to ask are:
1. Where will it stop? Carrying a gun openly in public?
Happens every single day somewhere in this once-great country, so yes, it will continue unless and until the creators (The People) of the creature (government) refuse to relinquish our natural superiority over our creation.
As an aside, anyone wanting to fully understand the creator/creature analogy owes it to themselves to pay close attention to
this speech by Publius Huldah last year in TN, in this case, given by her specifically related to Second Amendment original intent.
Conducting religious services in public?
Or even inside their own churches.
Houston, TX anyone? Again, you're right, the government has been busy trying to quash faithful observances since at least the days of Margaret Sanger's seemingly hypnotic, irresistible control imposed on the mindset of the American public in the '20s and '30s.
Drinking bottled water in public?
Or
Arizona Iced Tea?
At what point are you going to stand up and say, "Stop harassing me for behavior which is in no way illegal?"
2. Very closely related, are you part of the problem - or solution? If a person chooses "I don't want the police to harass me" as the biggest factor in making their decision then I feel that is only going to promote tyrannical actions by the government and is part of the problem and not part of the solution.
I've started standing up (many,
many years ago), you've started, several posters here talk the talk which means (at least) that they get it, but I have to concede that fully committing one's self to a life of resisting non-authorized "authority" is difficult, to say the least. Depending on the issue(s) a liberty activist chooses to confront, it can be cost-prohibitive too. I waited to start OC'ing until after a law was passed that I could recite to any cop who thought his law was superior to
the law that would inform them they weren't acting within the law if they continued to harass me after what would amount to, under the new law, an illegal stop. Had I started OC'ing before that, it would've necessitated an attorney on retainer, and even one case could've bankrupted me if the state chose to make an example of me through the wide latitude afforded them with the old code. Nothing I would've done would've been any less legal, it's just that from Reconstruction going forward, the state was given way more latitude to "make law as they go" to quash any uprisings, and legislators down here were no less addicted to that power than the Northerners who forced the South to control its people by pretty much any means necessary back in the day. We're only recently realizing that we're even
in a tunnel, as opposed to a dark prison from which there is no escape, but seeing the light at the end of it is still not visible. Most Southern states, and maybe even most other states in other regions, are having a similarly-slow awakening, which is somewhat encouraging I suppose, but which still puts the force of government between the citizen and the Constitution, and turning that lopsided anathema to liberty back right-side-up can be a dangerous and expensive proposition.
I took that circuitous route to get to the point that not everyone is financially, nor personally/emotionally, prepared to face down the state. Your questions are well-taken, appropriate for the times, and I have no doubt, inspired by the best of intentions, but I guess what I'm trying to say is that everyone, even those who recognize the profundities of which you speak, are simply not equipped for various valid reasons to act on the ubiquitous abuses of power taking place all around us every day of the week. I'm fairly sure it's not fair to say they're all apathetic or lazy or sheeple or
whatever. Many, if not most, are just not equipped and/or prepared to take on the state. I hope your questions inspire a second look for some on that score, but I sort of get it if they just kinda shrug their shoulders and move along. Not encouraging it, just saying that's how it's gone for me in many discussions just like the one you initiated here over the years.
Finally,
3. Is it really helping the situation to continue to pass false information such as "in our code"?
Probably just a misstatement, but even if he really thought it was "part of the code," I'd venture to say you have disabused him of that mistaken impression with the above post. I doubt he'll make it again.
Blues
