Told you so: agreeing to any criminalization of OC is BAD!

[DanM]

Felons can't get a CPL right now so maybe our current shall issue isn't available to the "general public"?

When speaking of any right, the fact that there may be persons prohibited from exercising that right in the general public is an accepted understanding when we refer to that right's availability to the general public.

For example, our right to vote is many times referred to as "universal suffrage" even though it's not really universal since some US citizens are in fact prohibited from voting.

 

[TheQ]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

The Fox and the Grapes by Aesop. When the fox fails to reach the grapes, he decides he does not want them after all. Rationalization (making excuses) is often involved in reducing anxiety about conflicting cognitions, according to cognitive dissonance theory.

The theory of cognitive dissonance in social psychology proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by altering existing cognitions, adding new ones to create a consistent belief system, or alternatively by reducing the importance of any one of the dissonant elements.[1] It is the distressing mental state that people feel when they "find themselves doing things that don't fit with what they know, or having opinions that do not fit with other opinions they hold." [4] A key assumption is that people want their expectations to meet reality, creating a sense of equilibrium.[5] Likewise, another assumption is that a person will avoid situations or information sources that give rise to feelings of uneasiness, or dissonance.[1]


Is anyone here making excuses?

 

[DanM]

Please explain how it was not a right?

May-issue CC is a regime in which CC is not a RIGHT, but that it's something less than a right which an agent of the state has discretion to GRANT or DENY.

Shall-issue CC are laws which recognize CC as a RIGHT, and discretion is taken away from agents of the state because there is a RIGHT that is recognized that they may not have discretion to grant or deny.

Again, those who CC'd in PFZs under may-issue weren't exercising a right, they were exercising a discretionary permission granted to them.

 

[Ezerharden]

May-issue CC is a regime in which CC is not a RIGHT, but that it's something less than a right which an agent of the state has discretion to GRANT or DENY.

Shall-issue CC are laws which recognize CC as a RIGHT, and discretion is taken away from agents of the state because there is a RIGHT that is recognized that they may not have discretion to grant or deny.

Again, those who CC'd in PFZs under may-issue weren't exercising a right, they were exercising a discretionary permission granted to them.

Then by your own argument, OC in a PFZ is not a right either, because the state still regulates it to requiring a CPL. By requiring it to be a CPL, it becomes less of a right. If it were a right, anyone could OC in a PFZ.

 

[DanM]

Again, CC during may-issue was never a right, thus CC in PFZ's was never a right. A "right" that was never really a right cannot be a right that was compromised. No matter how many times you try to say it.

So you must agree OC isn't a right.

Huh? How did you come up with that?

 

[DanM]

Then by your own argument, OC in a PFZ is not a right either, because the state still regulates it to requiring a CPL.

Please provide my quotes which you are obviously misunderstanding or mis-reading to come up with that. I've never said that a right recognized by a shall-issue license is not a right. I've said that a privilege granted by a may-issue license is not itself a "right" that can be won or lost.

 

[Ezerharden]

Please provide my quotes which you are obviously misunderstanding or mis-reading to come up with that. I've never said that a right recognized by a shall-issue license is not a right. I've said that a privilege granted by a may-issue license is not a right.

Ok, lets try it from this angle.

Can you OC in a PFZ without a CPL? If you can, it's a right, if not it's a privilege granted by the state.

Can you CC without a CPL? If you can, it's a right, if not it's a privilege granted by the state.

During May issue, if you had a CPL (a privilege) you could OC or CC in what are now PFZ's.

To get Shall Issue (to make getting a CPL easier) people that had the ability to CC in those PFZ's lost it (compromise) so that getting a CPL was easier for more people.

 

[TheQ]

The moral of this thread: compromise is unacceptable, except when DanM says it is.

 

[Ezerharden]

The moral of this thread: compromise is unacceptable, except when DanM says it is.

qft

 

[DanM]

Please provide my quotes which you are obviously misunderstanding or mis-reading to come up with that. I've never said that a right recognized by a shall-issue license is not a right. I've said that a privilege granted by a may-issue license is not itself a "right" that can be won or lost.

To clarify further:

OC in a PFZ is a right. So is CC in a PFZ. To me, any form of safe and responsible carry by a law-abiding citizen is a right.

The problem is that during may-issue, the RIGHT to CC in a PFZ was not what was being upheld. What was being allowed by may-issue laws was the PRIVILEGE to CC in a PFZ if you were in a minority of citizens that received PERMISSION to do so by an agent of the state exercising his own DISCRETION.

Thus, with shall-issue, the taking away of the granting of discretionary privileges to CC in PFZ's was just that: the taking away of the discretionary granting of a privilege, not the taking away of a right.

 

[Ezerharden]

To clarify further:

OC in a PFZ is a right. So is CC in a PFZ. To me, any form of safe and responsible carry by a law-abiding citizen is a right.

So you can OC in a PFZ without a CPL? Please do and let us know where you were incarcerated at. CC in a PFZ? Not possible without an Exempted CPL. Again, please fee free to test this and let us know it went if they ever let you near a computer in jail.

 

[griffin]

Can you OC in a PFZ without a CPL?

No. Before 2001 you could, but "shall issue" took that "right" away. I'm sure DanM was against "shall issue" because of that.

As a matter of fact, there were no such things as state PFZs prior to 2001. "Shall issue" put those in. I'm sure DanM was against "shall issue" because of that.

Wait...

 

[Ezerharden]

No. Before 2001 you could, but "shall issue" took that "right" away. I'm sure DanM was against "shall issue" because of that.

As a matter of fact, there were no such things as state PFZs prior to 2001. "Shall issue" put those in. I'm sure DanM was against "shall issue" because of that.

Wait...

+1000

 

[TheQ]

3 on 1...kinky.

 

[DanM]

The moral of this thread: compromise is unacceptable, except when DanM says it is.

To clarify, the "compromise" that I speak against and oppose is the criminalization of currently legal firearms rights.

The elimination of may-issue's discretionary granting of the privilege to CC in a PFZ that came with shall-issue passage was NOT criminalization of what was a currently legal firearms right. It was the criminalization of what was a currently legal firearms privilege granted to a minority at the discretion of agents of the state.

OC in PFZs is a currently legal firearms right, not subject to privilege or discretion, which you obtain upon obtaining your right to legally CC, a right itself not subject to privilege or discretion. Compromise that criminalizes currently legal firearms rights that are available is what I oppose.

 

[DanM]

So you can OC in a PFZ without a CPL? . . .

No. Go back and read what I said.

 

[Ezerharden]

No. Go back and read what I said.

Anything that requires any kind of "permission" from the state (CPL) is not a right any way, it is a privilege.

 

[DanM]

Anything that requires any kind of "permission" from the state (CPL) is not a right any way, it is a privilege.

Agreed. Similar to opposing compromise which criminalizes currently legal gun rights, I would oppose compromise which increases "permission slips" or the involvement of government in responsible exercises of gun rights.

 

[Ezerharden]

Agreed. Similar to opposing compromise which criminalizes currently legal gun rights, I would oppose compromise which increases "permission slips" or the involvement of government in responsible exercises of gun rights.

But Shall Issue legislation DID increase "permission slips" (added required training for example) and DID increase Government involvement (added PFZ's for example) thereby COMPROMISING what was already in place, get a CPL and carry OC or CC anywhere.

 

[griffin]

To clarify, the "compromise" that I speak against and oppose is the criminalization of currently legal firearms rights.

"Shall issue" criminalized natural right open carry in Meijer, Kroger, and other places that sold alcohol, churches, theaters, sports arenas, day cares, hospitals, and banks. You don't see that taking away of natural open carry rights as the taking away of natural open carry rights? OCers could no longer carry in Meijer once "shall issue" was passed.

Those were all currently legal before "shall issue."

"Shall issue" by far harmed open carry rights much more than SB 59. It forced firearms owners to pay for classes, and it force firearms owners to pay for licenses (which expire every few years) just to carry a firearm in the grocery store.