Utah Guns Forum banner

Someone OC at the zoo over the weekend?

7K views 14 replies 11 participants last post by  dewittdj 
#1 ·
A co-worker here complained to me about having to "feel intimidated because of some red-neck open carrying" while at the zoo over the weekend. Which then got the other liberal co-worker I work with a little wound up. Never thought I would have heard all the typical liberal arguments in one conversation... "What about my right to not feel intimidated?". etc.

They are good people, but it's hard to educate people and to respond to such emotional opinions without coming across as a jerk. I tried to give reasons why people OC to explain things so that they'd have a better understanding. Oh and I did let him know there was a right to keep and bear arms, but not a right to not feel intimidated. :D

Anyway, I thought someone may like to know they were spotted over the weekend OC'ing at the zoo. And I was glad to see the gun didn't jump out of the holster around all the children! ;)
 
#4 ·
X2 we were at the zoo earlier this year. Open carried with no issues. Isn't the zoo a state entity?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
#7 ·
To the OP: Did you ask your co-workers where in the constitution this right "to not feel intimidated" is found. My copy seems to be missing that language. Advise him that a therapist can probably help him with his hoplophobia. That said the Zoo is a subsidiary of the state and thus carry is legal and can not be prohibited.
 
#8 ·
There were a couple of bison that were carrying around hi-points in Uncle Mike holsters. KInda tacky, but at least they weren't carrying Jennings' like the fallow deer were. :)

There are few things in this world that irritate me more than someone that claims that they a right to not be offended or uncomfortable. I'm offended by the fact that you claim the right to not be offended, so does that mean you can't claim that right because it offends me and I have the right to not be offended?

Matt
 
#9 ·
morcey2 said:
There were a couple of bison that were carrying around hi-points in Uncle Mike holsters. KInda tacky, but at least they weren't carrying Jennings' like the fallow deer were. :)

There are few things in this world that irritate me more than someone that claims that they a right to not be offended or uncomfortable. I'm offended by the fact that you claim the right to not be offended, so does that mean you can't claim that right because it offends me and I have the right to not be offended?

Matt
:spit: :lol3: :lolbang: :ROFL:

Hey don't forget the Kangaroo's with their Smartcarries, you never know what they might be packing.
 
#10 ·
morcey2 said:
There were a couple of bison that were carrying around hi-points in Uncle Mike holsters. KInda tacky, but at least they weren't carrying Jennings' like the fallow deer were. :)
Tacky or not, the grass eaters have a real need to protect themselves from the predatory carnivores. :D

Of course, all monkeys need to be disarmed since we know "those animals" all have mental health issues and can't be trusted with guns. :nilly:

morcey2 said:
There are few things in this world that irritate me more than someone that claims that they a right to not be offended or uncomfortable.
Almost without exception, folks who make these claims are among the first to tell the other side of the political spectrum that the 1st amendment protects all kinds of truly offensive material including public vulgarities, profanities, blasphemies, and pornography. For some reason, "change the channel or look the other way" is only required of political/social conservatives, never of liberals.

We are living in a nation where "Keep your rosaries off my ovaries" is considered high and essential political discourse while any unkind thing said about homosexuals, muslims, or women with hairy armpits are all considered "hate speech", and even "hate crimes".

Those who would look for a right not to be offended need to think very carefully about the ramifications if uptight, conservative, bible-thumping religious fanatics (again, such derogatory terms applied to conservatives are never considered "hate speech") get to exercise the same right. Seeing a gun, in a holster without a badge and uniform (seeing cops with guns OCd never seems to worry the bed wetters) is no more offensive or discomforting than seeing sexulized naked bodies on billboards or over the public airwaves, or seeing sexual or simulated sexual acts in public places.

Charles
 
#11 ·
morcey2 said:
There were a couple of bison that were carrying around hi-points in Uncle Mike holsters. KInda tacky, but at least they weren't carrying Jennings' like the fallow deer were. :)
Matt
What were the sheep carrying? Oh, that's right! Sheep don't carry!
 
#12 ·
I think if someone came at me with the "right not to be offended" argument, I would tell them something along the lines of "There is no such right, probably because the founding fathers, unlike most modern day liberals, were smart enough to realize that "being offended" is too subjective. What offends me may not offend you, and vice versa. If there were constitutional protections against feeling offended, what was legal or illegal would change minute by minute based on who was in the immediate vicinity of one another. For example, here is a list of things you do that offends me, which would make you a criminal under the law you are proposing (insert list of their vices here). Oh whats that... those things you do arent offensive ? Well, to me and others like me, they are just as offensive (if not more) as my carrying a gun is to you. Thank you for illustrating my point."
 
#13 ·
gravedancer said:
.... Oh whats that... those things you do arent offensive ? Well, to me and others like me, they are just as offensive (if not more) as my carrying a gun is to you. Thank you for illustrating my point."
"But your gun is dangerous while my picking my nose or swearing doesn't actually hurt anyone."

A friend once told me that in politics, almost everything can be explained by one of two rules.

1-"But that is different."
2-People are idiots.

Those who resort to the "my right not to be offended" or "to feel safe" (feel free to "feel" however you like, I feel safer when I have my gun with me) are generally not the kind of folks who give a lot of rational thought to things. In fact, we are all subject to holding certain positions not because of rational arguments, but because of emotional responses. And whether it is a single position held by a generally rational man, or an entire life's view held by someone who lives his whole life on emotion, "You can't use reason to talk a man out of a position that he didn't use reason to get into."

Whether it is a fear of guns, or a phobia about flying or snakes, or a feeling that "discrimination" is wrong and so should be illegal, or even a feeling that certain conduct is "icky" and so should be kept out of public view, reason and logic almost never trump emotion.

Which I think is where we get the aphorism that "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."

Real change of heart on issues of emotion come from emotional experiences, such as personally experiencing the joy of shooting, or having a scarey experience and realizing having a gun in hand may have been of benefit.

Not that there is a thing wrong with your argument. It is entirely accurate and logical. It is just that most of the time it will fall on deaf ears.

Charles
 
#15 ·
bagpiper said:
We are living in a nation where "Keep your rosaries off my ovaries" is considered high and essential political discourse while any unkind thing said about homosexuals, muslims, or women with hairy armpits are all considered "hate speech", and even "hate crimes".Charles
Women with hairy armpits!!! Oh, the vulgarity!!! :nilly:
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top