JSchuler
Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
So many San Diegans carry guns
Refried, you must be able to juggle chainsaws while balancing on a musk melon at the summit of Mount Everest before your argument has any validity. See? You aren't the only one who can come up with non sequiturs.— July 19, 2009 11:55 p.m.
So many San Diegans carry guns
Refried, your analogies completely fail because the situations are not analogous. You do have the right to take drugs, for valid medical use. To save your life, you are allowed access to the most powerful opiates, to chemical concoctions that could dissolve your internal organs, to pills that alter your state of mind. No one is going to deny you the right to use these if your health is endangered (unless Obamacare passes, but that's another issue entirely). Similarly, the founding fathers saw that there was a legitimate use for firearms; for self defense, either from those individuals that threaten our person and property, or from the government. Open carry and concealed carry both serve this responsible use. You cannot choose when you will be the target of a crime. When you are mugged in an ally, a gun sitting locked in your cabinet at home may as well not exist. If a gun is not on your person, you are abrogating your right of self defense to others who may not be in a position to help you when you need them. You argue that the very possession of a gun is the equivalent of taking cocaine or the shouting of racial epithets. You equate a broad right with narrow instances of abuse of other rights. Quite simply, your arguments are not honest. Open carry in a restaurant is not the same as yelling Italian slurs in that restaurant. It is the same as just talking in that restaurant. Brandishing a gun, waving it at random people, that is an abuse of a right as is getting drunk and driving a car. But there, an action above and beyond the simple possession of a gun, a bottle of Jack, or a Ford Mustang, is what is objectionable, what is immoral, what is illegal. So yes, don't argue with us any more. At least until you are ready to do so honestly, not with straw men and strained analogies.— July 19, 2009 9:47 p.m.
So many San Diegans carry guns
refried, in that case, it is the government's job to train their techs to know that open carry is not illegal, and thus no more worthy of sending out a call than a complaint that the neighbor is painting his house green. It is not the fault of the law abiding citizen that police resources are being wasted on him. It is the fault of the original complainant and the tech. Although you can't tell me that communication between techs and police officers is one way. Surely, if police members complain to their department that the techs are sicing them on law-abiding citizens for the act of doing something perfectly legal, and thus interfering with their legitimate efforts, the techs would receive the education they so desperately need. I can only that the reason this doesn't happen is because a) the resources diverted at, at present, minimal, and so your practical argument unfounded or b) the police see law abiding citizens exercising their rights as a greater threat than criminals, and so the cultural change is all the more necessary.— July 19, 2009 8:39 p.m.
So many San Diegans carry guns
refriedgringo, you actually just stated the very valid reason for open carrying in your post. Let me quote: "If you live in a remote area, rural, then fine. But in a city - even if its not corporated - citizens are going to freak out." Now, why is that? Because responsible gun ownership is part of the culture in rural areas, while it's not in a city. So, if you don't want people to freak out every time they see a gun in the city, you have to change the culture. How do you change the culture? By exposing city dwellers to more responsible gun owners. Right, police don't choose the calls they have to respond to. But, citizens determine which calls police get. So, it's the duty of citizens not to call the police for things that are not crimes. It is not the fault of the law abiding if some ignorant jackass chooses to waste the time of the police. And actually, police do get to choose what calls they respond to. Try this: go up to an officer, and complain about how McDonald's won't sell you a foot-long sub. The police aren't going to come out and harass the people working at McDonald's, because that's not illegal. Complain to the police that someone drives an SUV. The police aren't going to harass the driver, because driving an SUV is not against the law. Yet, complain that someone is open-carrying, when open carry is perfectly legal, and suddenly the police are obligated to show up? Puh-lease. Anyway, it must really suck trying to live your life so as not attract the ire of those most willing to force you to conform.— July 19, 2009 7:25 p.m.