We have entered a period in our society, where feelings take precedent over reason. Where if you feel scared, offended or deprived they are more important than inalienable rights.
Moral conscious
It has been several weeks since we saw some dramatic changes in a few states as it relates to a small group of individuals. Some states have taken a stand against a social trend by enacting laws to protect the masses from this small group. Whether they are right or wrong, the problem I have is these laws have hurt some feelings. An example is the cancelation of a concert tour by the once favorite of mine Bruce Springsteen. He cited his personal belief being in conflict with the new law passed in the state of North Carolina as his reason for canceling the concert. In essence, his moral conscious was at odds with someone else’s beliefs and he chose to refuse service.
What’s good for the goose, forget about the gander
How is this any different from a baker refusing to serve a gay couple? How are their feelings any less important than a musician’s? What gives Bruce Springsteen the right to cite his feelings for refusing service, but the couple who owned a small bakery are not afforded the same luxury. I read some comments online about how the purchase of a concert ticket was a contract and the provider (Springsteen) was entitled to refuse service or cancel his concert at his discretion as long as he gave a refund. How does refunding the ticket sales validate his actions or make it any more or less fair. I mean if this is all about fairness how is this fair to the thousand of concert goers who were planning on attending.
The adult temper tantrum
If one were to pause for a moment and critically exam this and other similar incidents how is this any different from bully tactics, threatening or intimidation. If you don’t believe what I believe then I will punish you, I will withhold services or actions. The behavior that is being rewarded here is nothing more than a spoiled child throwing a tantrum and threatening to take their toys and go home if you don’t do what they say or give what they want. Never mind, you have your own feelings and these feelings have just as much importance or power as their own. That they have no more or no less right than the person next to them. If this type of action and behavior goes unchecked we will no longer be a country where the majority rules.
Know the law
I find this to be beyond troubling, but not too surprising given our social decay. Even at the local level I have felt this same type of thinking, where feelings trump your constitutional rights. In my case, a local “do it yourself” dog washing establishment put up a “no guns” allowed sign. Is it their right to deny service? Yes, but let’s look closer. I contacted the owner to learn more about this new policy. They explained in their email they were “afraid” and didn’t want their employees or patrons to be in fear. I followed up and asked how their feelings were more important than my constitutional rights. Had there been an incident or a cause for concern, was their justification for their action? There was no incident or act, there was simply their feelings. As we discussed the matter further the discussion shifted to a concerned of how people would handle their firearms while on their property.
The self appointed gate keepers
Here is where the issue became even more important to me. The owner claimed not every individual would be responsible, perhaps this is true. If we examine this thought process it would mean there are those who would be responsible. Let’s focus on the idea of irresponsibility; I have yet to find any documented incident to justify her claims. She further commented she felt it wasn’t worth the risk, again, what risk are we talking about here, what exactly is she claiming? Point to incidences of reckless behavior or negligence. If such a pattern existed there might be an argument to be made. As it stands, in the state of Texas to lawfully carry a firearm the individual must pass a background check and attended a class on safety and responsibility. Is this not enough?
Put your money where your mouth is
Apparently this is not enough, individuals and organizations across the country have thus taken it upon themselves to enact more. I am confident the vast majority of individuals are responsible, they follow the law, pay their taxes, help their neighbors and lead good lives. However, if I want to carry a firearm as is my constitutional right I am now deemed irresponsible. Then back up your claim, give me something concrete to prove the majority of legal gun owners are irresponsible. They cannot, we therefore must eliminate the excuse of irresponsibility and return back to a bias against guns based on feelings.
This was a lot of bandwidth abuse to come to the conclusion early on the simple choice is not to patron these and other businesses. This trend will continue because no one is challenging them.
Jeff,
You have a hell of a point. More and more we are seeing people putting their personal sensibilities far before the personal rights of others. What’s more, they are using the government to keep others from ‘hurting their feelings.’ This is clear and irrefutable proof of the “decay” you speak of.
That’s one end of the spectrum. The other would be private individuals running their private businesses as they see fit. What once made this country great was that the common denominator to everything was freedom. Springstein doesn’t agree with a new law and decides to cancel his concert in that state? No problem! That’s his right. He refunds the money and no one is worse off. He can refuse service to whomever he pleases. There should be no law that forces any private company or individual to give fair or equal treatment to anyone. A business doesn’t want to serve blacks? That’s fine. In a free market, they’ll go somewhere else. Money talks.
Only the all-so-corrupt government can “officially” and violently deprive anyone of their constitutional rights, or at least try. A private person cannot. I guarantee you that Springstein’s reputation will be irrevocably tarnished because of his actions. His business will suffer because of it. But he didn’t infringe on anyone’s rights.
Consider your own situation compared to the carwash lady who would have her business be a gun-free zone. The first point would be to say that she can post all the signs she desires and yell at the top of her lungs that guns are forbidden at her place of business, but that is not law and that doesn’t take away from your legal right to carry. As a matter of fact, if you’re doing it right and carrying concealed, then no one would be the wiser. The second point, which applies to you, is your student selection. Would you provide training to some camel jockey who is vocal about commiting violent acts against innocents in the name of his religion? Absolutely not! And you’d be perfectly within your rights as a private business owner to refuse your service to anyone for any reason you see fit. To be sure, I’m not saying that concealed carriers exercising their rights are to be compared with terrorists. I’m only saying that no one is obligated to serve anyone.
The more freedom people have to choose and do what they believe to be in their best interest, the better, so long as they don’t use force, violence or intimidation to impose their will on others. Because, in that case, they’d open themselves to a whole world of hurt.
Joey
Thank you Joey, free markets are a good thing.
This article is spot on Jeff. Many people today are overly sensitive and easily offended. If you don’t agree with their views you are labeled as a bigot, racist, or extremist. I am shocked and disappointed at the ease in which these people give away their liberties or seek to strip others of their individual freedoms for a false sense of security.
It is a bit disappointing, lambs to the slaughter.
This is a constant struggle and one I don’t see changing. I have come to the conclusion that carrying a concealed gun will never be popular or accepted by the general public. Whether it be at certain stores, movie theaters, or at work environments, carrying (concealed) is frowned upon and prohibited by internal policies. Yet, nobody truly cares about my safety. Places such as work environments and other facilities are more concerned about their liability.
Even self-proclaimed “gun people” and many in the gun industry, from what I have observed, don’t always accept the general public carrying concealed guns. Unless you are a LEO, no loaded guns on their property. For example, I won’t go to any local gun shows any more because 1) they have a no concealed carry guns policy and 2) they hire an armed police officer at the door asking you whether you have a gun on you. Since I don’t feel like lying to an officer, I choose not to attend. I have been to gun stores and gun ranges where they display “no concealed weapons signs.” How this is tolerated by the gun culture – the same people that argue for 2nd amendment rights – I don’t know.
If you have a concealed weapon on you and you keep it concealed, what is the problem?
It is frustrating for someone who takes their safety seriously. I have invested a lot of time, thought, and money to get proper equipment, training, etc. Yet, members of the general public who either refuse to accept that there is evil in the world, or believe that nothing bad will ever happen to them – they are quick to limit your personal rights.
Carrying a gun doesn’t win you friends. But I don’t carry to make friends, I don’t carry to be popular or to “show off.” In fact, I don’t want people knowing I carry. I just want to go about my daily life knowing that I have the tools available to protect myself in the event they are needed. Hopefully, that day never comes.
That’s is a great point, “I don’t carry to make friends.”
I have noticed the same thing here in Illinois Jeff. No gun signs posted everywhere not long after ccw was passed here in the courts. Most gun owners are good law abiding people as we all know, and ccw permit holders are among the most responsible and well trained gun owners in the country. It is a shame some people wont recognize that because of their irrational fear of firearms. Some of us are willing to take responsibility for are own safety and society makes it very difficult. Not everyone can be a sheep and get in line.
Very true, it seems odd the anti-gun would be more concerned with law abiding citizens than the criminal element.