Open Carry and New Hampshire Tourism

He's got a bigger problem... (0.00 / 0)

...since AZ and NH are hardly the only two states with wingnuts and open carry. Just take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O... - That's only 7 states that those displays would be totally illegal in.
The obsession with gun control is one of the more distressing aspects of both parties, and I wish they'd focus on what causes people to commit crimes with firearms.

---

by: Liam Clark @ Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 13:23:30 PM CDT

Why concealed carry? (4.00 / 1)

Leaving the discussion of the tourism issue aside for a moment, I'm not into guns but I've never understood why people consider open carry to be more edgy than concealed carry.  I personally would be in favor of requiring anyone who is going to carry a gun to carry it openly.

The tourists - meh.  This is an important issue.  As long as the second amendment's there I think that open carry should be allowed and indeed I think it might be even better if it's required.  With a little deft marketing I bet we could turn that into a plus for tourism - convey that it's safer to be in a state where there are enough people openly carrying that a criminal trying to get away with anything in public is dead meat.

Actually, now I'm imagining an entire ad campaign, based a little bit on Stephen Colbert: "Your gun needs a vacation!" "Does your pistol have spring fever?  Is your revolver down in the doldrums?  Take Sweetness on a vacation to New Hampshire, where there's entertainment, recreation, and relaxation for you and your ballistic companion alike!"  We need the guys who run the Highland Games to come up with a new sport that's a combination of skeet shooting and the caber toss.

---

by: Vis Unita Fortior @ Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 13:51:51 PM CDT

I too would rather know who's packing. (4.00 / 2)

The Second Amendment is there and we cant pick and choose among the Bill of Rights, but there is no constitutional right to conceal.

"But, in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope." Si se puede. Yes we can.  

---

by: Paul Twomey @ Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 14:19:14 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You know, I have a well established right to my thingie. (4.00 / 4)

That right is recognized in the Constitution, perhaps, in the "search and seizure" clause. But it is clearly a natural - some would say God-given - right. Moreso than is the printing press. I was born with my thingie.

And yet I do not display my thingie at political or other public events. And the police officers and even the ACLU would agree that I could be arrested if I did. (I am not in Brattleboro, after all.)

Why I should be free to flaunt a gun designed to kill people, but put in jail for uncovering my thingie, is an interesting question. Only in America.

---

by: elwood @ Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 18:57:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Elwood's thingie (0.00 / 0)

I move that a law be enacted to allow Elwood's thingie to be openly carried in public.  That could have a positive effect on New Hampshire tourism too.

---

by: Vis Unita Fortior @ Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 00:12:22 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Lions and tigers and GUNS! (0.00 / 0)

Talk of boycotts are silly.

"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 14:02:00 PM CDT

Guns do intimidate... (0.00 / 0)

During a house bill on states rights this year, an angry mob in the gallery, some reported to be armed, harangued the legislators below...Some of them found legislation conducted at the possible point of a gun, intimidating...

---

by: TaxiManSteve @ Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 14:33:28 PM CDT

That is their ONLY purpose (4.00 / 3)

Are we not allowed to mention that?

These thugs are not worried that someone is going to take their wallet. They want to make people think that they are ready to kill people to advance their political agenda.

They are terrorists.

---

by: elwood @ Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 18:22:21 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

People should wear helmets, but that's a matter of one's own safety. (0.00 / 0)

Bringing a gun to an appearance by the President is not a matter of one's own safety; it's a matter of public safety and of national security.  And as a New Hampshirite, I'm not only embarrassed and offended that it happened in my state; I'm shocked by it.

--
Freedom is not a fiscal issue. Hope 2012.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 15:03:05 PM CDT

Go visit Crochet Mountain (0.00 / 0)

Then you can tell me if it is a matter of personal responsibility. According to a friend who works there, the average that it costs me for one of those bounce down the road on your head vegetables in a million dollars. This is a safety issue all right, the safety of my wallet.

---

by: xteeth @ Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 16:28:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

It's Crotched, not Crochet. (4.00 / 4)

And I'm leery and weary of complaining about costs in the way you have here, xteeth.

People become ill though all kinds of bad habits, addictions, etc. Should we start judging whether someone is "worthy" of care? That is a slippery slope I don't want to approach.  

---

by: Jennifer Daler @ Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 18:01:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Clicking of the needles. (0.00 / 1)

This is the first time I have heard of head injuries from not wearing a helmet while cycling referred to as an illness, or addiction - bad habit, I'll grant you. I'm worrying about your "worthy of wearing a helmet" argument. Most would regard that as a decision and not an act of God thing - to use insurance language. I hope that you realize that the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy - that is, a spurious argument not used by a rational person unless their desire is to flummox. In short, something to embarass the user not something to applaud as you evidently believe.

---

by: xteeth @ Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 07:27:18 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not at all. (4.00 / 3)

A slippery slope argument can be entirely legitimate - calling on the other person to propose lines along that slope where logic can justify a barrier.

Examples: if we demand helmets because of the shared medical costs for potential head injuries, should we also ban rock climbing or parachuting or swimming (LOTS of swimming deaths this year)? Where is the distinction?

There may be a convincing one - better than, "I like to swim, but I don't like to ride motorcycles without a helmet" - but you haven't provided it yet.

---

by: elwood @ Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 08:38:09 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, at all. Never legitimate. (0.00 / 0)

Classical informal fallacy. There is no slope other than a hypothetical one for which there is no support. Involves another very common fallacy called post hoc ergo propter hoc. Though, with that one it is possible for the argument to have merit it is just impossible to evaluate what that merit might be. With a slippery slope, one event in predicted to cascade into another not even based upon temporal relations etc.

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

---

by: xteeth @ Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 10:06:32 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Interesting (0.00 / 0)

I'd argue, though, that in the case of an existing slope -- cost-cutting in this example -- it's pretty easy to grease it up.

---

by: JimC @ Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 11:55:40 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Liberty on Welfare (0.00 / 0)

The liberty minded conservative asserts limiting government's encroachment on their personal liberties. Concurrently, they argue on the merits of a freewheeling free market.

This point: "if we demand helmets because of the shared medical costs for potential head injuries, should we also ban rock climbing or parachuting or swimming (LOTS of swimming deaths this year)? "

It seems clear, to me anyways, that liberty enhanced recreational activites are subsidized by the pool of premium payers.

Now, I live in Lowell, MA. The car insurance rates here are jacked up based on risk to the insurance companies. snark If my car gets swiped, they have to pay off the bank that lets me use their car. So, effectively, I pay more to my car insurance to protect my lender. Admittedly, I get to use this car, so that I can go to work for my corporate feudal master. /snark

Should "high risk activities" be risk pooled to the population partaking in same? If conservatives prefer fees based on use, eg. toll roads, would they not favor pooling of risk. This certainly builds upon a conservative meme that one can choose their own lifestyle and pay or save accordingly.

Doubt it. The words "hidden tax" come to mind.

"Ill writers are usually the sharpest censors." - John Dryden

---

by: Jack Mitchell @ Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 10:55:37 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Am I the only one who finds this offensive? (0.00 / 0)

You're equating the following in moral weight:

• risking one's health in such a way that could incur government healthcare expense;
• risking the assassination of the President of the United States

--
Freedom is not a fiscal issue. Hope 2012.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sat Aug 22, 2009 at 14:28:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Wait a minute (0.00 / 0)

The subject line was, "
People should wear helmets, but that's a matter of one's own safety." Well that's only one thing that is relevant - namely safety. If that is the only thing that you think relevant then consider this .......... your purported personal safety issues may also cost me a million dollars a bounced head. So it you think not wearing a helmet is your right, then go post a bond or something so that it doesn't become my cost. This is classic chickenhawk logic. I am going to risk something of yours because of something that costs me nothing, or for which I am not willing to take responsibility though I through that phrase in your face every chance I get.  

---

by: xteeth @ Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 10:07:38 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

"Something that costs me nothing" (0.00 / 0)

Really?

Mebbe you should start over.

---

by: elwood @ Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 12:34:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I'm conflicted on the helmet issue because of the potential healthcare cost to others. (0.00 / 0)

But in general, I think it's a slippery slope for government to forbid things on the basis that they might incur public expense.  By that logic, should we take away the right to assemble, seeing as crowds necessitate police presence?

The propensity of public expense to be used as an excuse to take away liberties should not be overlooked.  Live free or die.

--
Freedom is not a fiscal issue. Hope 2012.

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Sun Aug 23, 2009 at 15:45:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

What do you think would have happened if (4.00 / 3)

a dozen or so protesters had shown up wearing anti-bush tee shirts outside a Bush town hall while he was fearmongering the Iraq invasion?

...the Doo Dah Man once told me you've got to play your hand. Sometimes the cards ain't worth a dime if you don't lay 'em down.

---

by: rambler american @ Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 15:03:20 PM CDT

Questions like this (0.00 / 0)

Need to be asked more often.

Not that everything has to be compared one-to-one. But even the presence of guns at these events got little coverage.  

---

by: JimC @ Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 16:29:49 PM CDT

[ Parent ]