This is an absurd group of statements. This has nothing to do with anarchist theory or the fact that I'm an anarchist.
It has quite a bit to do with your anarchist views since those views color your entire perception of the world. Any hint that another's opinion might impose something unwanted on you results in a visceral and impolite reaction.
I have literally had someone tell me "I don't want to see" firearms in public, perfectly matching your specific words above. Is that just the same as them saying they believe they may justifiably prohibit firearms in public, or would I be correct to point out the distinction and say that their feelings and personal desires don't justify prohibitions? Obviously the latter.
Understanding meaning requires taking context into account. I once
literally heard a man tell another man he was going to kill him. Within context, this was not a reportable crime or even threat of violence, but an expression of fondness between two very dear friends. Not my chosen form of expression. But for them it obviously worked. I had to explain this to my then teenage daughter. I didn't realize men old enough to presume to carry guns in public would have such a challenge with the concept.
Do you really presume that obviously pro-RKBA posters on this forum, such as since9, are as flippant about enumerated rights as someone who doesn't want to see your firearm in public? He used a turn of the phrase whose meaning and intent was obvious given the context for any willing to look at totality of context rather than looking to take offense and be peeved that someone else isn't singing anarchist kumbaya with you.
Stop trying to force criticisms of my anarchism into every conversation.
Then stop being an unpleasant, impolite jerk about how you address others when your anarchist sensibilities get ruffled.
What do his or my feelings have to do with something? Perhaps quite a bit:
As our patron saint wrote, "An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life."
As the Declaration of Independence declares, "... a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes ...."
Mature and civil men maintain and manifest a "decent respect to the opinions of mankind" rather than acting like puerile adolescents who'd like to pretend they are living on an island, unaffected by others and not affecting others in the least.
Men who live in the real world recognize that at some point, the opinions of others do matter. If 200 million of our fellow citizens want to outlaw OC, odds are good that attempting to OC is going to bring unpleasant penalties. In the extreme case, I expect that 200 million fellow citizens could revoke the 2nd amendment, stack the courts, and do whatever they wanted to legally. And our screaming about "natural rights" won't matter a bit. Might will make right. Even if a man is absolutely correct, being a jerk about it may be a very bad long-term strategy.
To quote your favorite member, "Welcome to OCDO!!
Open
Carry
Dot
Org. As the homepage explains, OCOD is "....[A]n organization whose raison d’etre is promotion of open carry." See that there, the
promotion of open carry. Not merely being unpleasant, or doing something because it is our right and to heck with others' feelings. But the
promotion of open carry. Every individual has his individual reason for OCing. But as a group, this site exists to promote and normalize OC, to gain social and political acceptance. In other words, to persuade others to change their opinions to match ours in this regard. How can we change or influence what we don't care about?
Further, note rule "(9) HATE IS NOT WELCOME HERE: Any posts attacking others based upon race, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender-identity,
or anything other than opposition to gun rights is NOT WELCOME HERE! " (emphasis added) The anarchists' constant sniping and attacking of those who do not share their political views on a million and one things not related to RKBA/OC is inappropriate to say the least. Give it a rest.
Mature and civil men recognize the difference between explicitly enumerated rights where there can be no disagreement among honest and informed men, and those areas where honest men can legitimately disagree about what is a right or what isn't a right. Attacking RKBA or even OC of firearms is in an entirely different category than is private ownership of nukes.
Mature men recognize that arguments stand for themselves rather than being valid based on who makes them. In post 10 I brought up the issue of the inability to use WMDs without infringing the rights of others and you ignore the point, nit picking about corpses. A bit later, Citizen quotes Rothbard to the precisely same point and you start fawning. Get over the personalities and deal with issues. Note that even as Walking Wolf and I have some serious personality issues, I give him credit for well explained position in my post 10. He may not like me in the least. But when he is right about an argument, he is right and I give credit where it is due.
You don't want me attacking your cute little political theories that have never proven workable in a modern, diverse society? Then start showing some civility and maturity in how you bring those theories to bear. We all support RKBA and OC here. That does
NOT require that we all support imposing anarchy on society.
Now, do you want to continue this little exercise in nitpicking exactly how OC supporters express beliefs about WMDs or who is being more rude than the other? Or shall we go back to discussing the actual subject at hand which is how to address gun grabbers who throw out private ownership of nukes as if that issue materially affected individual RKBA of firearms?
Charles