PDA

View Full Version : Protester brings gun to meeting



_CJ
August 12th, 2009, 07:50 AM
Watched this interview on Hardball yesterday. Kind of entertaining. Matthews leans on him early but eases up after a while.

Personally, I would have been concerned about his presence. Not because of the gun, but because of the sign he was carrying.

http://www.gawkk.com/hardball-with-chris-matthews-8-11-2009-protester-brings-gun-to-town-hall/discuss

OrangeCrush
August 12th, 2009, 08:40 AM
well within his legal rights

people like that are not cool with the soft tyranny we are experiencing

ToyRunner1
August 12th, 2009, 09:01 AM
His sign didn't advocate any violence in my opinion, and I know the rest of the quote. I think it was meant to make people think, and it worked obviously.

_CJ
August 12th, 2009, 09:20 AM
His sign didn't advocate any violence in my opinion, and I know the rest of the quote. I think it was meant to make people think, and it worked obviously.

He didn't quote Jefferson.

Jefferson: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure."

Protest guy: "IT IS TIME to water the tree of liberty"

I don't think it's hard to draw the conclusion that he views himself as a patroit and O'bama as a tyrant, and that he thinks "it is time" to refresh the tree of liberty with their blood.

His sign could be seen as more than just free speech.

Steve
August 12th, 2009, 09:22 AM
Idiots like this don't do anything good for law abiding gun owners. Quite the contrary.

OrangeCrush
August 12th, 2009, 09:26 AM
did he break the law? I only ask because you mention good law abiding gun owners

Loki
August 12th, 2009, 09:29 AM
No laws broken, I don't see the problem here.

OrangeCrush
August 12th, 2009, 09:33 AM
the problem is a bunch of New Yorkers with cnn show up and cant understand how in our progressive society people are carrying guns!!!

Clint
August 12th, 2009, 09:36 AM
I think more people will be carrying, both open and concealed.

Loki
August 12th, 2009, 09:44 AM
the problem is a bunch of New Yorkers with cnn show up and cant understand how in our progressive society people are carrying guns!!!

Sounds like their own personal problem, and not an issue with the law.

_CJ
August 12th, 2009, 09:47 AM
His sign could be seen as a threat against the President, or an attempt to insight a revolution.

Clint
August 12th, 2009, 09:49 AM
His sign could be seen as a threat against the President, and that is against the law.

If that sign can be seen as a threat, then there are a lot of us that are in trouble. :rolleyes:

Steve
August 12th, 2009, 09:51 AM
did he break the law? I only ask because you mention good law abiding gun owners

I'm not a lawyer so I have no idea if he broke a law or not. That's yet to be determined.

But I'll say it yet again: Just because it's legal to do something doesn't mean it's always smart to do it.

Clint
August 12th, 2009, 09:56 AM
It was already determined he didnt break the law. The guy checked with everyone first. Was cleared by the Chief, and was on private property. His interview with Matthews and the tards talking about him on MSNBC shows what kind of idiocy gun owners are dealing with. There is NO issue with open carry where its legal any other time, and this should be no different. Gun owners have been made to feel we have to hide our guns, while the opposite should be true.

OrangeCrush
August 12th, 2009, 10:04 AM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_2qFoJ3p4_B4/SoLWkauOygI/AAAAAAAABV0/KLUgQgzwC_0/s320/thomas_jefferson.jpg

Steve
August 12th, 2009, 10:08 AM
Gun owners have been made to feel we have to hide our guns, while the opposite should be true.

True, and I understand your position. But, let's talk reality here, which is that open carry (combined with the sign he had) in many situations will, without a doubt, stir people up and cause alarm. Does it help our cause to do that? No, it doesn't. Does it help our cause to have the negative press about this? No, it doesn't, and that was entirely predictable.

Was he within his legal rights? Maybe. Was what he did helpful to the cause of gun ownership and carry? No, I don't believe so.

Loki
August 12th, 2009, 10:22 AM
Is hiding your guns, and being shameful of having or openly carrying them, supporting your rights to keep and bear them?

I think not as well.

A right not exercised is a right lost.

Steve
August 12th, 2009, 10:25 AM
Is hiding your guns, and being shameful of having or openly carrying them, supporting your rights to keep and bear them?

I don't hide mine, I'm not shameful of owning them and I carry mine. I don't, however, get in your face about it by open carrying where/when I know it will cause problems.

Clint
August 12th, 2009, 10:27 AM
True, and I understand your position. But, let's talk reality here, which is that open carry (combined with the sign he had) in many situations will, without a doubt, stir people up and cause alarm. Does it help our cause to do that? No, it doesn't. Does it help our cause to have the negative press about this? No, it doesn't, and that was entirely predictable.

Was he within his legal rights? Maybe. Was what he did helpful to the cause of gun ownership and carry? No, I don't believe so.

The reality is what we make it. Reality has changed to make something like this a *bad* thing. Matthews "show of force" "was the gun loaded".......fookin kiddin me? REALLY? Nobody in the crowd had a problem with it, but here we go with the media, trying to make it out to be something its not.


Things they are changin, and Im willing to bet you see more people standing up for themselves and their rights, gun owners included.

We are all sick of the perception that the liberals and media try and place on us and its time to do something about it, and QUIT giving an inch every time something like this comes up and we do something they dont like. Soft tyranny.

Loki
August 12th, 2009, 10:35 AM
I don't hide mine, I'm not shameful of owning them and I carry mine. I don't, however, get in your face about it by open carrying where/when I know it will cause problems.

I didn't say you were, (however you are coming across that way here) but the media and Liberals in general have stygmatized gun owners as being violent, criminally minded radicals, and when we shrink from confronting those labels, it perpetuates the perception.

Wish there were more out there like this guy.

ZappBranigan
August 12th, 2009, 10:50 AM
but the media and Liberals in general have stygmatized gun owners as being violent, criminally minded radicals, and when we shrink from confronting those labels, it perpetuates the perception.



I agree with the first part of this but not the last. If anything, this kind of thing allows the biased news media to label all anti-Obama or anti-government-health-care people as gun-toting crazies. It allows them to marginalize what should be legitimate opposition.

It's a standard tactic of a biased media.

It works like this: For the side the media supports, they find a reasonable, well dressed, articulate person. It works even better if the person is from a group that would normally be thought of as being opposed to the position you want to advocate. (For example, on the war in Iraq, they find a veteran, reasonably dressed, articulate, who is opposed to the war.) For health care reform, they find a doctor or a business executive or someone else who you would normally think of as being opposed to socialized medicine, and have them parrot the party line about reduced costs, greater coverage, helping the uninsured, blah blah blah.

Then, to present the "balance" they find a lunatic who opposes your desired position. In this case, they find someone dressed in camo, someone packing a gun, someone ranting and raving about sinister government conspiracies or black helicopters or secret internment camps or whatever. They then allow this crazy person to rant and rave.

They have now presented "both sides" of the argument and can say they have done their duty as "objective journalists", wheras in reality what they've done is to take the most extreme advocate of the opposition and characterized that person as being typical or representative.

I think what Steve is saying (and I agree with it) is that packing a gun or carrying what can be thought of as a threatening sign to a rally like this plays right into their hands.

This issue will be decided politically, and if we allow the media to marginalize the opposition it will make it politically impossible for the opponents of socialized medicine to succeed.

Steve
August 12th, 2009, 10:53 AM
I think what Steve is saying (and I agree with it) is that packing a gun or carrying what can be thought of as a threatening sign to a rally like this plays right into their hands.

:thumbsup:

We're not gonna change how the media portrays this kind of stuff, and what this guy did helps them far more than it helps us.

Clint
August 12th, 2009, 11:00 AM
News outlets that are focusing on the incendiary rhetoric of conservatives outside President Obama's town hall meeting Tuesday ignored the incendiary rhetoric -- and even violence -- of liberals outside an appearance by former President George W. Bush in 2002.

When Bush visited Portland, Ore., for a fundraiser, protesters stalked his motorcade, assailed his limousine and stoned a car containing his advisers. Chanting "Bush is a terrorist!", the demonstrators bullied passers-by, including gay softball players and a wheelchair-bound grandfather with multiple sclerosis.

One protester even brandished a sign that seemed to advocate Bush's assassination. The man held a large photo of Bush that had been doctored to show a gun barrel pressed against his temple.

"BUSH: WANTED, DEAD OR ALIVE," read the placard, which had an X over the word "ALIVE."

Another poster showed Bush's face with the words: "F--- YOU, MOTHERF---ER!"

A third sign urged motorists to "HONK IF YOU HATE BUSH." A fourth declared: "CHRISTIAN FASCISM," with a swastika in place of the letter S in each word.

Although reporters from numerous national news organizations were traveling with Bush and witnessed the protest, none reported that protesters were shrieking at Republican donors epithets like "Slut!" "Whore!" and "Fascists!"

Frank Dulcich, president and CEO of Pacific Seafood Group, had a cup of liquid thrown into his face, and then was surrounded by a group of menacing protesters, including several who wore masks. Donald Tykeson, 75, who had multiple sclerosis and was confined to a wheelchair, was blocked by a thug who threatened him.

Protesters slashed the tires of several state patrol cruisers and leapt onto an occupied police car, slamming the hood and blocking the windshield with placards. A female police officer was knocked to the street by advancing protesters, badly injuring her wrist.

The angry protest grew so violent that the Secret Service was forced to take the highly unusual step of using a backup route for Bush's motorcade because the primary route had been compromised by protesters, one of whom pounded his fist on the president's moving limousine.

All the while, angry demonstrators brandished signs with incendiary rhetoric, such as "9/11 - YOU LET IT HAPPEN, SHRUB," and "BUSH: BASTARD CHILD OF THE SUPREME COURT." One sign read: "IMPEACH THE COURT-APPOINTED JUNTA AND THE FASCIST, EGOMANIACAL, BLOOD-SWILLING BEAST!"

Yet none of these signs were cited in the national media's coverage of the event. By contrast, the press focused extensively on over-the-top signs held by Obama critics at the president's town hall event held Tuesday in New Hampshire.

The lead story in Wednesday's Washington Post, for example, is headlined: "Obama Faces 'Scare Tactics' Head-On."

"As the president spoke, demonstrators outside held posters declaring him a socialist and dubbing him 'Obamahdinejad,' in reference to Iran's president," the Post reported. "People screamed into bullhorns to protest a bigger government role in health care. 'Nobama Deathcare!' one sign read. A young girl held up a sign that said: 'Obama Lies, Grandma Dies.' Images of a protester wearing what appeared to be a gun were shown on television."

On Sunday, The New York Times reported that a Democratic congressman discovered that "an opponent of health care reform hanged him in effigy" and was confronted by "200 angry conservatives." The article lamented "increasingly ugly scenes of partisan screaming matches, scuffles, threats and even arrests."

No such coverage was given to the Portland protest of Bush by The New York Times or the Washington Post, which witnessed the protest.

Loki
August 12th, 2009, 11:01 AM
Well thats exactly the reason we need numbers. The media being blatantly left wing, and against guns, and for socialized health care, ARE going to portray us that way.

But, if hundreds, show up to these protests, openly carrying, speaking up for their rights in a peaceful, non violent manner,(like this guy did) those who witness these acts will start to see the bias of the media, and hopefully perceptions will change.

Outside of that, I don't know what will. So if you have any suggestions lets hear them. :shrug:

Clint
August 12th, 2009, 11:01 AM
Its always going to be an uphill battle and Im sick of keeping quiet to appease the other side.

_CJ
August 12th, 2009, 11:03 AM
I didn't say you were, (however you are coming across that way here) but the media and Liberals in general have stygmatized gun owners as being violent, criminally minded radicals, and when we shrink from confronting those labels, it perpetuates the perception.

Wish there were more out there like this guy.

Stygmatize? This guy was actually carrying a gun, and suggesting people take part in violant and criminal actions. :shrug:

If you don't want gun owners to be "labeled" in this manner, you should be denouncing the actions of this whack-ado instead of criticizing the "liberal media" for reporting it.

If this guy wants to carry a gun openly and a sign that says "wake up people, we're losing our freedoms!", as he claims was the intent of his sign, he would be well within his rights and I'd support him.

It was the combination of the sign, the gun, and his proximity to our president that got people's attention.

Clint
August 12th, 2009, 11:04 AM
Stygmatize? This guy was actually carrying a gun, and suggesting people take part in violant and criminal actions. :shrug:

If you don't want gun owners to be "labeled" in this manner, you should be denouncing the actions of this whack-ado instead of criticizing the "liberal media" for reporting it.

If this guy wants to carry a gun openly and a sign that says "wake up people, we're losing our freedoms!", as he claims was the intent of his sign, he would be well within his rights and I'd support him.

It was the combination of the sign, the gun, and his proximity to our president that got people's attention.



Where did he suggest anything? :rolleyes:

Oh its his sign, right. his sign that is the problem. :rolleyes:

Loki
August 12th, 2009, 11:11 AM
Stygmatize? This guy was actually carrying a gun, and suggesting people take part in violant and criminal actions. :shrug:



Wow, when gun owners fall for this liberal spin, it doesn't speak well of our chances to change perceptions. :thumbsdown:

Used to be a time in our country where people like him were called patriots. (Jefferson) but now we allow them to portray us as whack jobs...

_CJ
August 12th, 2009, 11:16 AM
Where did he suggest anything? :rolleyes:

Oh its his sign, right. his sign that is the problem. :rolleyes:

His sign said "IT IS TIME to water the tree of liberty".....and implied "with the blood of patriots and tyrants". He freely admits he was paraphrasing Jefferson, so anyone that knows the quote knows what he's suggesting.

I'd be willing to bet that there wouldn't have ever been a story if not for the sign.

Loki
August 12th, 2009, 11:19 AM
His sign said "IT IS TIME to water the tree of liberty".....and implied "with the blood of patriots and tyrants". He freely admits he was paraphrasing Jefferson, so anyone that knows the quote knows what he's suggesting.

I'd be willing to bet that there wouldn't have ever been a story if not for the GUN .

Fixed, its the gun that got the attention. without it there would be no story.

Steve
August 12th, 2009, 11:23 AM
Wow, when gun owners fall for this liberal spin, it doesn't speak well of our chances to change perceptions. :thumbsdown:

Used to be a time in our country where people like him were called patriots. (Jefferson) but now we allow them to portray us as whack jobs...

Used to be a time in our country where like-minded people could agree to disagree. Apparently that time is gone now too.

_CJ
August 12th, 2009, 11:26 AM
Fixed, its the gun that got the attention. without it there would be no story.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Loki
August 12th, 2009, 11:29 AM
Used to be a time in our country where like-minded people could agree to disagree. Apparently that time is gone now too.

No need to be so sensitive.

Still waiting for other ideas on how to change the perception that gun owners are lunatics, as portrayed by the media. :shrug:

Loki
August 12th, 2009, 11:35 AM
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Really? How many other people carried signs, like the evil gun owner??? Did they get on Hardball? are we talking about them today???

Nope...

_CJ
August 12th, 2009, 11:37 AM
No need to be so sensitive.

Still waiting for other ideas on how to change the perception that gun owners a lunatics, as portrayed by the media. :shrug:

DO: Behave like the responsible law abiding citizens. Go ahead and carry openly if you choose. When people ask questions, use it as an oportuninty to educate them.

DON't: Carry openly and rant about your rights when people ask questions, or talk about how you're being victimized by the "evil liberal media". :rolleyes:

Jeffro600
August 12th, 2009, 11:39 AM
Well within his legal rights...hope more follow suit as a sign that a good part of society is fed up with Governments crap. If you find someone at a protest carrying a gun and think their in the wrong, your part of this nations problem...not the solution. As far as im concerned, the only hostiles in this story and most others like it, are the libtards who report it...like somene said above, gun ownership is a right...the day we stop exercising that right, it will go away.

If history repeats itself, which it ALWAYS seems to do, i think were gonna see the next American Revolution here soon...probably not to the extent of previous and maybe in different ways, but a big revolt nonetheless.

Loki
August 12th, 2009, 11:40 AM
DO: Behave like the responsible law abiding citizens. Go ahead and carry openly if you choose. When people ask questions, use it as an oportuninty to educate them.

DON't: Carry openly and rant about your rights when people ask questions, or talk about how you're being victimized by the "evil liberal media". :rolleyes:

Isn't that what he was doing??? Seems the ranting was being done by the interviewer... I didn't see any ranting on the tape of the protest. :shrug:

Clint
August 12th, 2009, 11:42 AM
His sign said "IT IS TIME to water the tree of liberty".....and implied "with the blood of patriots and tyrants". He freely admits he was paraphrasing Jefferson, so anyone that knows the quote knows what he's suggesting.

I'd be willing to bet that there wouldn't have ever been a story if not for the sign.

This story is about the gun, nothing else. Nobody was talking about getting an injunction against the sign.

Clint
August 12th, 2009, 11:43 AM
DO: Behave like the responsible law abiding citizens. Go ahead and carry openly if you choose. When people ask questions, use it as an oportuninty to educate them.

DON't: Carry openly and rant about your rights when people ask questions, or talk about how you're being victimized by the "evil liberal media". :rolleyes:

He broke NO laws, none.

He ranted? where? Saw him peacefully protesting with others. When did he say anything like that? You must have access to an interview I missed.

_CJ
August 12th, 2009, 11:44 AM
Really? How many other people carried signs, like the evil gun owner??? Did they get on Hardball? are we talking about them today???

Nope...

I don't know. I wasn't there. Were you? How many were there? :flipoff2:

For what it's worth, I thought the guy seemed pretty reasonable and well spoken in the interview. But if I had only seen him at the rally, I would have considered him a nutcase.

If he's your hero, then I'll just agree to disagree.

Loki
August 12th, 2009, 11:46 AM
I don't know. I wasn't there. Were you? How many were there? :flipoff2:

Nope wasn't there, but Im not assuming he was ranting about his rights and making gun owners look bad either...

sweater
August 12th, 2009, 11:52 AM
Idiots like this don't do anything good for law abiding gun owners. Quite the contrary.
x eleventy brazilians

The only reason he was carrying it was to make a social and political statement, period. As a means of helping you defend yourself, unloaded open-carry like this is as useful as carrying a brick.

As a gun owner that probably carries a loaded weapon more than most of the people on this board, I would like to personally tell this guy to his face that he's an idiot that's merely poking the bear with a stick, just begging for renewed focus on gun regulation legislation. And with the inability of any opposing parties being able to keep themselves in office last fall, that legislation has a better chance of becoming a daily impact on my life.

Thanks, fooktard. You're an idiot.

- mike

Steve
August 12th, 2009, 12:00 PM
If you find someone at a protest carrying a gun and think their in the wrong, your part of this nations problem...not the solution.

:rolleyes:

Because there has never been an assasination or attempted assasination on a president's life by someone in the crowd with a gun, right? There ARE crazies out there who have done just that. There ARE crazies out there who would like to do it now.

Not every gun owner, and not every person who carries a gun, is a law abiding citizen. Some here seem to forget that at times.

Loki
August 12th, 2009, 12:06 PM
x eleventy brazilians

The only reason he was carrying it was to make a social and political statement, period. As a means of helping you defend yourself, unloaded open-carry like this is as useful as carrying a brick.

As a gun owner that probably carries a loaded weapon more than most of the people on this board, I would like to personally tell this guy to his face that he's an idiot that's merely poking the bear with a stick, just begging for renewed focus on gun regulation legislation. And with the inability of any opposing parties being able to keep themselves in office last fall, that legislation has a better chance of becoming a daily impact on my life.

Thanks, fooktard. You're an idiot.

- mike

In the interview he clearly stated it was loaded, and that he openly carries often.

So to save us from wasting our time reading uneducated theories on the topic, please familiarize yourself with the content before ranting...

K thx bye...

Loki
August 12th, 2009, 12:07 PM
:rolleyes:

Because there has never been an assasination or attempted assasination on a president's life by someone in the crowd with a gun, right? There ARE crazies out there who have done just that. There ARE crazies out there who would like to do it now.

Not every gun owner, and not every person who carries a gun, is a law abiding citizen. Some here seem to forget that at times.

So all need painted with that broad brush of crazy, just for exercising their rights...

Sad to say the media are winning...

sweater
August 12th, 2009, 12:13 PM
So to save us from wasting our time reading uneducated theories on the topic, please familiarize yourself with the content before ranting...

K thx bye...

OK, sorry, I stand corrected. When I saw this yesterday I thought that I had seen pics of the guy and saw an open mag well.

Then here's my take on open carry: If you open carry a loaded firearm you're an idiot. You've now lost all semblance of surprise if you need to defend yourself and you've succeeded in raising the agitation level of those around you instead of diffusing potential for violence, which is the entire point of everyone's life unless you're stupid enough to want to meet violence with violence rather than avoid it.

So now it's a case of a politically-motivated, armed protester holding a sign referring to killing tyrants at a presidential rally.

That will do WONDERS for anti-gun legislation.

- mike

Steve
August 12th, 2009, 12:15 PM
So all need painted with that broad brush of crazy, just for exercising their rights...

Yup, kinda like some here paint all Dems and those not ultra-conservative with the same broad brush.

Feel free to keep digging. :thumbsup:

:flipoff2:

Loki
August 12th, 2009, 12:22 PM
Digging?

Im standing on the same solid ground I was when I joined this thread. But its becoming alarmingly obvious, The reasons were losing the gun debate in this country.

Namby Pamby support of our 2nd amendment rights isn't going to get the job done. :tisk:

Steve
August 12th, 2009, 12:27 PM
Namby Pamby support of our 2nd amendment rights isn't going to get the job done. :tisk:

I agree 100%. It takes educating yourself on candidates for office and voting for the right people, not a party. It takes contacting your .gov representatives when legislation is proposed or comes up for a vote. It takes belonging to organizations that advocate for the rights you find important.

What this guy did is none of the above. What he did, IMO, does NOT do anything for advocating 2nd amendment rights, at least not in any constructive way.

Loki
August 12th, 2009, 12:34 PM
How do you know he doesn't do those things? Comes across to me as a guy who might be active in supporting his rights thru those actions.

Gun owners being critical of other gun owners for exercising their guaranteed rights, in a non violent way and suggesting they are not law abiding, does just as much to hurt the cause as voting for the wrong candidate or exercising poor judgement around firearms.

Steve
August 12th, 2009, 12:38 PM
How do you know he doesn't do those things? Comes across to me as a guy who might be active in supporting his rights thru those actions.

He may and, if so, good for him. I do all of those things, but I'm not going to open carry to the Obama meeting here tomorrow even though it might be legal. Not all press coverage is positive.


Gun owners being critical of other gun owners for exercising their guaranteed rights, in a non violent way and suggesting they are not law abiding, does just as much to hurt the cause as voting for the wrong candidate or exercising poor judgement around firearms.

Really? Discussing it on an interweb 4x4 chat board and disagreeing with what he did is as bad as voting for candidates who advocate gun control? Okay, you stick with that theory. I'll respectively disagree with you on that one.

_CJ
August 12th, 2009, 12:47 PM
How do you know he doesn't do those things? Comes across to me as a guy who might be active in supporting his rights thru those actions.

Gun owners being critical of other gun owners for exercising their guaranteed rights, in a non violent way and suggesting they are not law abiding, does just as much to hurt the cause as voting for the wrong candidate or exercising poor judgement around firearms.

Non violant? His statement advocates violance.....says "it's time....to spill blood". Is that legal? I don't really know. :shrug:

Loki
August 12th, 2009, 12:50 PM
Really? Discussing it on an interweb 4x4 chat board and disagreeing with what he did is as bad as voting for candidates who advocate gun control? Okay, you stick with that theory. I'll respectively disagree with you on that one.

You're limiting it to this forum, my comment was directed at the entire gun owner community in general. United we stand, divided we fall, and this thread is an example of how divided we are.

The firearms abolishionists arent divided, they have one goal, we should have one goal. Unfortunately for us thats not the case, and the biggest reason why were losing.

ToyRunner1
August 12th, 2009, 01:49 PM
So, by the reasoning of a lot who have posted here, we shouldn't be 4wheeling either, because a lot of the American public (And the newsies) thinks it's wrong :rolleyes:

Steve
August 12th, 2009, 01:59 PM
You're limiting it to this forum, my comment was directed at the entire gun owner community in general. United we stand, divided we fall, and this thread is an example of how divided we are.

We're divided? Perhaps on some of the fringe issues, but not on the goal. Who's to say your way is the way all of us should agree on? :P


The firearms abolishionists arent divided, they have one goal, we should have one goal. Unfortunately for us thats not the case, and the biggest reason why were losing.

We're losing? Where? The SCOTUS recently interpreted what the 2nd amendment means, which was a very major victory for gun owners everywhere. How are we losing???

sweater
August 12th, 2009, 02:14 PM
The firearms abolishionists arent divided, they have one goal, we should have one goal. Unfortunately for us thats not the case, and the biggest reason why were losing.

Dubbleyoutee-eff are we "losing," lately? I mean, the ammo shelves are bare for no other reason than panic buying fueled by no one else than pansy fearmongering tinfoil hatters that pretty much have done nothing but inflame the debate.

Any sort of "losing" is based on predictions only, not currently-introduced legislation unless I've missed some major bills lately.

Fear fear fear fear fear fear fear... has anyone gotten tired it yet?

- mike

Jeffro600
August 12th, 2009, 02:15 PM
Not every gun owner, and not every person who carries a gun, is a law abiding citizen. Some here seem to forget that at times.

Not all the them are criminals either, in fact the ratio of law abiders to law breakers is in a HUGE favor for the abiders, so whats your point? :shrug:

All your doing is reinforcing all the liberals mindset that a gun instantly means something bad...way to go Steve! :rolleyes:

Steve
August 12th, 2009, 02:19 PM
All your doing is reinforcing all the liberals mindset that a gun instantly means something bad...way to go Steve! :rolleyes:

No, actually all I'm doing is pissing people like you and Loki off.

:flipoff2:


Seriously, as much as some might wish, no right is absolute. None. Period. Advocating for that position is just as 'fringe' as the other side.

Jeffro600
August 12th, 2009, 02:20 PM
Like i said...part of the problem...not the solution. :rolleyes:

Steve
August 12th, 2009, 02:22 PM
Like i said...part of the problem...not the solution. :rolleyes:

And the solution is???


Edit: No, wait, let's back up a step. First, what's the problem that needs a solution? Let's start there.

sweater
August 12th, 2009, 02:26 PM
First, what's the problem that needs a solution? Let's start there.
x2

What's the problem again? Or is this all still based on the fear of as-yet unintroduced legislation?

- mike

scottycards
August 12th, 2009, 02:28 PM
If there's any issue that I could be characterized as being fairly ambivalent about, it's guns. I'm in favor of them and the 2nd, but I'm in no way a rabid proponent.

I'm not in favor of additional gun control, but I ain't gonna lose sleep if more controls are passed.

So for me, it's kind of a middle of the road issue........

Guys like this hurt the gun cause. Period.

By supporting this guys actions, it makes gun people look whacky- at least to the general population.

When I see someone open carry, I know that they're NOT probably someone I'm going to spend much time socializing with, because you've gotta be a bit off center to feel the need for a sidearm out in the open, for everyone to see in public.

So yeah it's legal. But yeah, it's stupid, and you're gonna be labeled a whack-job- probably because you are a bit of a whack-job.

I have no issue with religious types, as long as they don't get all up in my face about it. But you start thumping your faith in my face, and I'm going to be turned off.

Same kinda thing. A somewhat faulty analogy, but hopefully the point comes across.

Keep your guns on the DL, don't wave them in my face, and it's NBD. Friggin rub your .45 up against me in a crowd, and the probabilitly of an issue arising is greatly increased- I, or someone else, may bring it to the local LEO's attention, because it makes me feel uncomfortable at best, and unsafe at worst.

My one post per day allotment has now been fulfilled.

Cheers.

_CJ
August 12th, 2009, 02:47 PM
I'm not in favor of additional gun control, but I ain't gonna lose sleep if more controls are passed.

When I see someone open carry, I know that they're NOT probably someone I'm going to spend much time socializing with, because you've gotta be a bit off center to feel the need for a sidearm in public.

So yeah it's legal. But yeah, it's stupid, and you're gonna be labeled a whack-job- probably because you are a bit of a whack-job.

rub your .45 up against me in a crowd, and the probabilitly of an issue arising is greatly increased- I, or someone else, may bring it to the local LEO's attention, because it makes me feel uncomfortable at best, and unsafe at worst.


Wow :eek:

:popcorn:

ZappBranigan
August 12th, 2009, 02:49 PM
You're limiting it to this forum, my comment was directed at the entire gun owner community in general. United we stand, divided we fall, and this thread is an example of how divided we are.

The firearms abolishionists arent divided, they have one goal, we should have one goal. Unfortunately for us thats not the case, and the biggest reason why were losing.


Well, two points: First of all who put you in charge of the "gun owner community" anyway?

Second, we're losing? How many states had shall-issue CCW permits 15 years ago? Do you not remember the darkest days of the Clinton administration? After Columbine, anti-gun groups figured they had it in the bag but then after the 2000 and 2002 elections, they found that the Democrats weren't taking their calls anymore. Even now the most liberal candidate to ever run for president has gone out of his way to avoid mentioning gun control.

We may not be getting everything we want (does anybody ever get everything they want?) but we are far, far from "losing."

Between shall-issue CCW in 40 states (or is it more?) the Heller decision and firearms/ammo sales at record levels, we as gun owners are in a better position than we've been in in years.

Loki
August 12th, 2009, 03:18 PM
Exactly thanks guys for illustrating my point. We all have different levels of the acceptablity of guns in our society, we go to different lenghts to support our rights. The gun grabbers have no such spectrum, they want guns outlawed period.

Yes in my mind were losing, there was a time when people didn't go all alarmist when they saw somebody with a gun, now most of us expect to have to explain ourselves to the cops if someone catchs view of our gun. Some lawmakers have even said that if someone views your gun, you are brandishing it. :rolleyes:

So we may have won some battles lately, but overall perception of guns and the general public (those in the middle on this debate) is moving more and more away from us, and towards them.

My opinion. (period)

Some of you seem to think me voicing it, is a sign that I'm the self appointed leader of the issue. :rolleyes:

scottycards
August 12th, 2009, 03:22 PM
I remember moving to Dallas, TX in 1983 for high school.

Open carry is/was much more common there, but it was still one of those rare things you would see, and cross to the other side of the street.

I don't think things have changed as much as you might percieve, Loki.

You're hardcore on the issue. I can respect that. :thumbsup::thumbsup:

Loki
August 12th, 2009, 03:58 PM
:eek: Is that 2 posts today now... ;)

Thanks Scotty.

Here's an example of how were not winning.

I'm a big Steelers fan, (I know who knew) but this story is getting so twisted by normal people, some even asking if suspensions by the league could be possible.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/steelers/s_637933.html?source=rss&feed=9

"Police chief downplays photos of Steelers shooting at range."

So the some of the Steelers took a shooting class provided by the PA State Police by Off duty Firearms instructors.

Where does this mindset come from that there should be punishment involved in learning how to shoot???

Here's a question from a participant in an online chat...

rbird: "Ed, the report that surfaced today about some Steelers at a police shooting range ... is this something to be concerned about? Thanks.

This doesn't happen if were winning the PR battle on Firearms.

ZappBranigan
August 12th, 2009, 03:58 PM
Exactly thanks guys for illustrating my point. We all have different levels of the acceptablity of guns in our society, we go to different lenghts to support our rights. The gun grabbers have no such spectrum, they want guns outlawed period.



Not even close to being true. There are groups out there that want to outlaw all guns, there are other groups that only want to outlaw handguns, there are groups that don't neccessarily want to outlaw any guns but that want registration and/or licensing, there are groups that want to outlaw so-called "assault weapons", etc. There are at least as many variations among the anti-gun groups as there are among the pro gun groups.




Yes in my mind were losing, there was a time when people didn't go all alarmist when they saw somebody with a gun,


There are still places where that's true. Go to Laramie, WY during hunting season and tell me how many people have rifles hanging in the windows of their trucks. And Laramie is a liberal college town.

And 20 years ago there were places (big cities) where people who caught sight of a gun would call the police. :shrug:

It's more a function of where you are than when. People in urban areas have been skittish around guns since long before you were born. As the country becomes more urbanized, expect the areas where people get alarmed to see a gun increase. It's not a function of gun owners "winning" or "losing", it's simply the way society is changing.



So we may have won some battles lately, but overall perception of guns and the general public (those in the middle on this debate) is moving more and more away from us, and towards them.


Then how do you explain the fact that the number of states issuing on-demand CCW permits has more than doubled over the past 20 years? If anything, the public perception of gun owners has significantly increased in the past 20 years. 20 years ago, gun owners were routinely portrayed on television and in movies and other forms of popular culture as two-dimentional caricatures: Right-wing wackos or dull Elmer Fudd hunters out to blast anything in sight. As more and more people are owning guns, that's changing significantly.

To get back to the topic, there's nothing "illegal" about wearing camouflage pants, a camo hat and a shirt that says "patriot militia" on it, but that doesn't mean it's a smart thing to do, either.

This is an information war. In an information war, it's important to understand how you are perceived by people who are outside of your movement. Being perceived as a nut job or a psycho may be within your "Rights" but it will lose the war.

ToyRunner1
August 12th, 2009, 04:02 PM
As far as open carry goes, why should I have to pay for the class and the permit in order to exercise my 2nd ammendment right? When I'm out in the woods, either wheeling or camping/hiking, I usually open carry. Some may ask have I ever had a problem that needed it while doing so? As a matter of fact I did when some drunk 4wheeler took issue of us filming his going off trail and tried to steel both my camera and camcorder from inside the vehicle when I was standing right there. After the confrontation, which only came to a conclusion after he saw my pistol, I called the Teller County SO. I told them exactly what had gone on and these individuals were met at the trail head. Kind of like Frank's recent encounter. When we met the SO to fill out the report they never even asked about my gun. The only time it was mentioned was when I asked if they needed to see it. They told me no, and asked me why they would want to look at it. They just stated that as long as it was legal they were fine. The only reason I decided to get my CCW was because it is a lot easier to carry while hunting and not have to worry about my coat covering it. It is nice to have it now though, although most of my business trips don't allow it because of reciprocity issues or working on base.

Steve
August 12th, 2009, 04:11 PM
As far as open carry goes, why should I have to pay for the class and the permit in order to exercise my 2nd ammendment right?

:confused:

Open carry is legal in CO with no class, no permit and no money involved.

sweater
August 12th, 2009, 04:22 PM
This doesn't happen if were winning the PR battle on Firearms.
OMG - this surely is a sign of impending doom for gun owners. Or are there other sides to the issue...?


A year after the massacre, Virginia Tech now has one of the largest groups of the guns on campus movement (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2008/04/21/nbc-hightlights-concealed-carry-movement-college-campuses). Only Utah allows permit holders to carry guns on all public university campuses, though eight states have legislation pending.

Or the online version of the story (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27666800/):

At least 11 colleges and universities already allow students to carry concealed weapons, a practice that is banned by law in 30 states. But since being founded after the Virginia Tech slayings, Students for Concealed Carry has put the issue squarely in the spotlight, starting chapters at about 500 colleges and universities, it says. This week, the organization is organizing a nationwide lobbying effort targeting state legislatures and news organizations.

But but but... they're GOING TO TAKE OUR GUNS!!!!! BUY EVERYTHING YOU CAN!!! NOW!!!! :rolleyes:

- mike

ToyRunner1
August 12th, 2009, 06:34 PM
:confused:

Open carry is legal in CO with no class, no permit and no money involved.Yes, I was referring to the comment that Scotty (I think) made regarding open carry.

DADA_JEEP
August 12th, 2009, 07:13 PM
:confused:

Open carry is legal in CO with no class, no permit and no money involved.

that's what he's saying, he feels he should not have to pay for CCW and classes to get the CCW so that he can excersize his 2nd ammendment rights. so he would open carry.

CYAN5DE
August 12th, 2009, 07:58 PM
You guys have seen my posts, and know I am very pro-gun rights. I was on the side supporting the last gun-toting right-wing wack-job at the last protest. Support him fully.

This guy, I think overdid it with the sign. The particular implied action of the sign coupled with carrying a gun is enough to raise an alarm bell to the individuals protecting the president. If I had been present, I would not have been concerned with him. If I had been present, and a member of the Protective Detail of the POTUS, he would have raised a flag to me.

I have open carried a few times, seems to be too much of an attention getter for my preference. I carry concealed a lot, and there are parts of fayetteville that yes, I am somewhat comforted by having a sidearm.

recently, in wimington (NC) I had to speak to a few LEO's and approached them, and said "hey guys, first thing, I am carrying a concealed weapon under permit, and was wondering if you would be upset if I took a leak behind those bushes" it was 2am, and all three of them didn't give me a second look and said sure.

Not a single one of them asked for my weapon, to see it, my permit, or anything else. Not a big deal.

DADA_JEEP
August 12th, 2009, 09:17 PM
so a Bible is ok, but the sighn was overboard?




(BTW i tend to agree with you)

CYAN5DE
August 13th, 2009, 07:45 AM
a sign in and of itself is not overboard. A sign that incites violence, coupled with a means to produce violence, is still not a problem. but it is a security concern.

If they arrested him and put him in jail, that would be bad
if they asked him a few questions, made sure he was not a threat, I understand.
possibly removing him from the vicinity of the POTUS, I could see.

Confiscating his firearm would be wrong, unless it was an immediate security concern, and it was returned to him as soon as he was clear of the area, or something of this nature. like within minutes.

I don't really like the Pres to much, but he is the Pres, and his security is first
concern. You cannot stomp on civil liberties to make this happen, but you have to eliminate the threat somehow tactfully.
POTUS PSD would be horribly lax if they just said, hey, he's got a gun and a sign implying people should cause legislators to bleed. cool.

zillacon
August 13th, 2009, 08:35 AM
OK, sorry, I stand corrected. When I saw this yesterday I thought that I had seen pics of the guy and saw an open mag well.

Then here's my take on open carry: If you open carry a loaded firearm you're an idiot. You've now lost all semblance of surprise if you need to defend yourself and you've succeeded in raising the agitation level of those around you instead of diffusing potential for violence, which is the entire point of everyone's life unless you're stupid enough to want to meet violence with violence rather than avoid it.

So now it's a case of a politically-motivated, armed protester holding a sign referring to killing tyrants at a presidential rally.

That will do WONDERS for anti-gun legislation.

- mike

Maybe Cops should conceal then?

sweater
August 13th, 2009, 09:20 AM
Maybe Cops should conceal then?
Why would police need to do that? They're already wearing uniforms that identify them as officers. They do not rely on any element of surprise. :shrug:

And for another interesting take on William Kostric, Mr. Open Carry at a Presidential Rally guy - that slogan's been seen by the Feds before (http://www.bluehampshire.com/diary/8027/the-tree-of-liberty-and-timothy-mcveigh).

- mike

Waifer2112
August 13th, 2009, 09:21 AM
A view from the other side...

Many here know I've been held up, rifle to my head for the $20 bucks I was carrying working at Domino's. It affected me greatly as far as my views on guns. I don't like 'em. Let me rephrase that. I don't like people carrying them around me. The irony I find is that I'm supposed to trust these people who carry guns to protect themselves from other people. Maybe I'm just not a trusting enough person. :shrug:

OTOH, I was once in the mountains camping when I heard soemone shooting not far off. We zipped over on some quads to let them know we had seen campers on the other side of the hill they were shooting into, just so they knew the potential of someone coming over the hill from the direction they were shooting towards. When we pulled up, a guy was shooting at cans with a pistol like you'd see in an old western. Pop, the can flew. The moment it stopped, pop, hit the can again. The very moment it stopped, pop, hit again. The guy was good!! I left feeling a little more comfortable knowing there were folks out there that good with a gun, should it ever come to citizens protecting this country.

So while I'm not going to ever vote (should it come to it) for an amendment banning all guns, I also don't feel comfortable seeing someone carry as I just don't trust most people enough.

Ready for the flaming!!!

zillacon
August 13th, 2009, 09:41 AM
A view from the other side...

Many here know I've been held up, rifle to my head for the $20 bucks I was carrying working at Domino's. It affected me greatly as far as my views on guns. I don't like 'em. Let me rephrase that. I don't like people carrying them around me. The irony I find is that I'm supposed to trust these people who carry guns to protect themselves from other people. Maybe I'm just not a trusting enough person. :shrug:

OTOH, I was once in the mountains camping when I heard soemone shooting not far off. We zipped over on some quads to let them know we had seen campers on the other side of the hill they were shooting into, just so they knew the potential of someone coming over the hill from the direction they were shooting towards. When we pulled up, a guy was shooting at cans with a pistol like you'd see in an old western. Pop, the can flew. The moment it stopped, pop, hit the can again. The very moment it stopped, pop, hit again. The guy was good!! I left feeling a little more comfortable knowing there were folks out there that good with a gun, should it ever come to citizens protecting this country.

So while I'm not going to ever vote (should it come to it) for an amendment banning all guns, I also don't feel comfortable seeing someone carry as I just don't trust most people enough.

Ready for the flaming!!!

I was in an accident once so I feel the same about cars and people driving!

Waifer2112
August 13th, 2009, 09:54 AM
I was in an accident once so I feel the same about cars and people driving!

Did the person deliberately drive into you, trying to potentially kill you? If not, apples to oranges.

Steve
August 13th, 2009, 10:00 AM
A view from the other side...

Ready for the flaming!!!

There shouldn't be any flaming. :shrug: I've never been in that position, so I can't relate. I can say that I hope if it ever does happen that the actions of one scumbag don't cause me to loose trust in and fear everybody. That's no different from what the greenies do to us; if one person goes off trail, everyone does. It's an unfair portrayal in both cases.

Statistically, people with CCW permits are among the most law abiding people that exist. You have to have training, undergo a background check, pay a minimum of $100 and receive a permit from the Sheriff to conceal carry in CO. Criminals don't typically tend to go through such a process to carry a gun to commit a crime.

Loki
August 13th, 2009, 10:06 AM
Not being trusting of people is a reason to become legal and arm yourself for your own protection.

Is it going to be the answer in every situation? No, situational awareness goes a long way in keeping you safe as well. But the cops can't protect you, so like it or not that responsibility falls on you.

To get back on this topic... So the guy openly carrying around the president would have been ok, if the message on his sign was more benign???

Somehow I'm not believing that.

DADA_JEEP
August 13th, 2009, 10:10 AM
me neither.

Steve
August 13th, 2009, 10:13 AM
To get back on this topic... So the guy openly carrying around the president would have been ok, if the message on his sign was more benign???

Maybe, maybe not. We'll never know, will we? None of the rights in the Constitution are absolute, and some can and are taken away from some people in some circumstances, so what's your point?

Do you honestly believe that all of the rights in the Constitution should be absolute, all the time, with no restrictions ever for any reason?

Loki
August 13th, 2009, 10:21 AM
Maybe, maybe not. We'll never know, will we? None of the rights in the Constitution are absolute, and some can and are taken away from some people in some circumstances, so what's your point?

Do you honestly believe that all of the rights in the Constitution should be absolute, all the time, with no restrictions ever for any reason?

No its hard to believe in absolute rights in all circumstances. But I do believe in them for law abiding citizens. Meaning If I'm a law abiding citizen, I should be able to own fully automatic weapons without having to jump thru a ton of hoops and pay a lot of money, which is an infringement on my 2nd amendment right. Now if I do something to break the law, then my own actions have compromised my rights, and only then do rights cease to be absolute.

Steve
August 13th, 2009, 10:26 AM
Loki, I agree with you, but that doesn't address the topic at hand. How close, in your opinion, should a person be allowed to get to the President of the United States while carrying a firearm? Or is that right absolute for "law abiding" citizens and there should be no limit?

sweater
August 13th, 2009, 10:29 AM
No its hard to believe in absolute rights in all circumstances. But I do believe in them for law abiding citizens. Meaning If I'm a law abiding citizen, I should be able to own fully automatic weapons without having to jump thru a ton of hoops and pay a lot of money, which is an infringement on my 2nd amendment right. Now if I do something to break the law, then my own actions have compromised my rights, and only then do rights cease to be absolute.
I simply don't understand this level of all-or-nothing. I don't believe that fully-automatic weapons should be as easily to obtain as a .22 Marlin from Walmart. This is reinforced pretty much every single time I shoot around strangers at informal ranges.

Extremism benefits no one, and I'd rather not have my interests represented by anyone willing to go to perceived extremes in order to represent me.

- mike

Loki
August 13th, 2009, 10:41 AM
Well Steve like I've seen posted here, 100s of times, you don't have the right to not be offended. You also don't have the right of safety. Should there be an exception for the President? Is his life any more important than anyone elses'? We already have laws against murder, if you pass a law that guns cannot be around the president. Will that really stop a criminal who wants to kill him/her? Nope. If they are bent on killing the president, they will try no matter what law you have in place. So a law of this type only affects those inclined to obey it, the law abiding. Who arent a threat.

Sweater, there's no way I could ever represent you or your views. And whether you believe personally we should be able to have fully automatic weapons, the right says Shall not be infringed, and I believe that to be absolute, for every individual until that individual breaks the laws.

_CJ
August 13th, 2009, 10:53 AM
Gun control only effects law abiding citizens. Banning assault weapons or making people jump through hoops to own a shotgun with a barrel shorter than 18" has no effect on criminals. It's a complete waste of time and resources for all involved.

In most cases police don't stop crime, they just document it. Maybe find the people responsible. In the heat of a conflict, you're on your own. If a guy with a gun and a sign at a protest is of concern to me, I'm going to be glad that I'm able to protect myself. If people carrying guns are of concern to you, you should be looking to carry your own, not take away their rights.

Waifer2112
August 13th, 2009, 10:53 AM
There shouldn't be any flaming. :shrug: I've never been in that position, so I can't relate. I can say that I hope if it ever does happen that the actions of one scumbag don't cause me to loose trust in and fear everybody. That's no different from what the greenies do to us; if one person goes off trail, everyone does. It's an unfair portrayal in both cases.

Statistically, people with CCW permits are among the most law abiding people that exist. You have to have training, undergo a background check, pay a minimum of $100 and receive a permit from the Sheriff to conceal carry in CO. Criminals don't typically tend to go through such a process to carry a gun to commit a crime.

I'm not the most trusting person overall to begin with, not just because of that one experience. I've had 20 people try to fight me at once, had a knife pulled on me, etc. I was a different person as a punk kid. :D

But the other thing is, how do I know they've CCW permits? Is there some sort of glint in their eyes that distinguishes them from non-CCW people? Another point. I've read here many, many times how if they (the poster) were at the scene of the topic at the time, they'd have blasted the bad guy. Why would I want to be anywhere near someone ready (and in many cases, seemingly wanting ) to shoot at people?

sweater
August 13th, 2009, 10:56 AM
Sweater, there's no way I could ever represent you or your views. And whether you believe personally we should be able to have fully automatic weapons, the right says Shall not be infringed, and I believe that to be absolute, for every individual until that individual breaks the laws.
I'm not asking you personally the represent my views - in fact, I'm most definitely asking that I not be lumped in with William Kostric or any other person with that manner of addressing the issue. I cannot align myself with absolutes, basically.

Taking a black-or-white stance on any issue leads nowhere. By your logic above, you should be just as upset about not being able to own any manner of weapons systems beyond full-auto since they are, by legal definition, "arms."

So where do you draw the line? At full-auto? At explosives? Launched explosives?

That sort of rhetoric polarizes. Polarization just leads everyone to throw their defenses up - both sides. Polarization ends with dramatic shifts one way or the other, as is evidenced by last fall. Why is this so hard to understand?

- mike

Steve
August 13th, 2009, 11:10 AM
Another point. I've read here many, many times how if they (the poster) were at the scene of the topic at the time, they'd have blasted the bad guy. Why would I want to be anywhere near someone ready (and in many cases, seemingly wanting ) to shoot at people?

I agree with you on this point. I got my CCW and carry to protect me and my family. Period. Not to be pseudo-law enforcement. My CCW class emphasized that strongly many, many times. Some people don't listen during that part of the class. ;)

Loki
August 13th, 2009, 11:12 AM
Sweater, The founding Fathers made this a black and white issue, when they wrote the second amendment with very strong, very clear terms. They had just overthrown an oppressive Govt, and wanted to guarantee future generations of Americans would have the ability to do that if necessary.

So yes I believe that all arms are included in that amendment, and see this view as being no more radical than our founding fathers. They didn't have to forsee the technological advances of arms, and limit them from law abiding citizens, because limiting cutting edge arms from the people would limit their ability to protect themselves from oppression.

sweater
August 13th, 2009, 11:21 AM
So yes I believe that all arms are included in that amendment, and see this view as being no more radical than our founding fathers. They didn't have to forsee the technological advances of arms, and limit them from law abiding citizens, because limiting cutting edge arms from the people would limit their ability to protect themselves from oppression.
OK - fair enough.

What lobbying groups support the personal, unlicensed purchase of M203's?

I'm really, seriously not trying to be flippant - I would be honestly impressed if there is a group of concerned citizens that are actively engaging themselves in the legal process to overturn any legislation that prohibits an individual's right to own an under-barrel-mounted 40mm grenade launcher, and would be seriously interested to see what the Supreme court has to say about it.

I think their response to such a lawsuit would enlighten a lot of people.

- mike

Waifer2112
August 13th, 2009, 11:23 AM
I agree with you on this point. I got my CCW and carry to protect me and my family. Period. Not to be pseudo-law enforcement. My CCW class emphasized that strongly many, many times. Some people don't listen during that part of the class. ;)

In the past 20 years of my life, I had a bad case of depression. I knew if I ever had a gun handy, I'd probably off myself when the depression really set in. So I've never considered getting one...until recently. And it's only a consideration. I have a crossbow at home that I feel pretty comfortable with for a show of force, should the need arise to protect my home. Otherwise, in every confrontation I've had that might necesitate a reason to carry a gun, I've been surprised. So I doubt asking the other person/people to "'scuse me, while I whip this out" :D would work very well.

Loki
August 13th, 2009, 11:26 AM
OK - fair enough.

What lobbying groups support the personal, unlicensed purchase of M203's?

I'm really, seriously not trying to be flippant - I would be honestly impressed if there is a group of concerned citizens that are actively engaging themselves in the legal process to overturn any legislation that prohibits an individual's right to own an under-barrel-mounted 40mm grenade launcher, and would be seriously interested to see what the Supreme court has to say about it.

I think their response to such a lawsuit would enlighten a lot of people.

- mike

I don't know that there is that kind of lobbying group out there. Most efforts at this time in our history, is to keep what we still have, and derail future infringements of our rights. Maybe someday this country will get back to what the Founding Fathers intended but that day is a long ways off.

DADA_JEEP
August 13th, 2009, 11:32 AM
so loki, would you be willing to give up your right to own an m-60 in the future to keep what we have now?

Loki
August 13th, 2009, 11:37 AM
No, I wasn't advocating that, just my view of whats going on with the Pro gun movement at this time.

Steve
August 13th, 2009, 12:05 PM
Let's carry the absolute to its conclusion: If all arms are included in the 2nd amendment, should a private citizen be allowed to posses a functional nuclear warhead if they can afford it? It sounds crazy, but if all 'arms' are included, why not?

ZappBranigan
August 13th, 2009, 12:05 PM
Sweater, The founding Fathers made this a black and white issue, when they wrote the second amendment with very strong, very clear terms. They had just overthrown an oppressive Govt, and wanted to guarantee future generations of Americans would have the ability to do that if necessary.

That's a popular view but it's 100% wrong.

Our 2nd amendment was heavily influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689) In fact, the wording is rather similar:

"That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;"

The English Bill of Rights even specified why the Protestant citizens had to be allowed to possess arms in its list of greivances explaining why the Bill of Rights was neccessary:

"By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law;"

So the notion that the 2nd amendment exists in order to allow for armed insurrection against the government is not supportable by any contemporary evidence.

Clearly the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to prevent the government from disarming its political opposition (as was done during the religious wars of the 17th century) but it's a far stretch to say that the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to provide a means for revolution. If anything, the concept of the citizen-militia is supposed to prevent violent revolution, not facilitate it.

Clint
August 13th, 2009, 12:12 PM
Let's carry the absolute to its conclusion: If all arms are included in the 2nd amendment, should a private citizen be allowed to posses a functional nuclear warhead if they can afford it? It sounds crazy, but if all 'arms' are included, why not?



:drool::drool::drool::drool::drool:


:homervoice: nuuuuuclear power..............aaaaahhhhhhhh:drool:

Steve
August 13th, 2009, 12:13 PM
:drool::drool::drool::drool::drool:


:homervoice: nuuuuuclear power..............aaaaahhhhhhhh:drool:

If I build one can we keep it in your garage? :D

Clint
August 13th, 2009, 12:23 PM
If I build one can we keep it in your garage? :D

can we shoot prairie dogs with it?

Steve
August 13th, 2009, 12:26 PM
can we shoot prairie dogs with it?

Only once. :spit:

Clint
August 13th, 2009, 12:49 PM
Only once. :spit:

:drool: shoot ALL the prairie dogs........awesome........:D

Loki
August 13th, 2009, 01:05 PM
That's a popular view but it's 100% wrong.

Blah..Blah...Blah



Thats 100% your opinion.

I reject the idea that the Founding Fathers started a new country and then decided to copy the laws of the old country.

But you're entitled to keep that opinion. :flipoff2:

sweater
August 13th, 2009, 01:05 PM
Let's carry the absolute to its conclusion: If all arms are included in the 2nd amendment, should a private citizen be allowed to posses a functional nuclear warhead if they can afford it? It sounds crazy, but if all 'arms' are included, why not?
I wasn't going to take it that far, Steve, because that'd be polarizing the debate on the issue.

Or something. :D

- mike

ZappBranigan
August 13th, 2009, 01:34 PM
Thats 100% your opinion.

I reject the idea that the Founding Fathers started a new country and then decided to copy the laws of the old country.

But you're entitled to keep that opinion. :flipoff2:

The difference between your opinion and mine is that mine is based on history and yours is based on wishful thinking. ;)

BTW you can "reject" the law of gravity, too, but that won't do you much good if you fall off a cliff. :P

Loki
August 13th, 2009, 01:44 PM
The difference between your opinion and mine is that mine is based on history and yours is based on wishful thinking. ;)



Oh really?

HISTORY:

"In Virginia, anti-federalist Patrick Henry said during the opening debates of the Virginia Ratification Convention that arms are required to secure rights and freedoms from those who would take them away. He also questioned how the people could resist a tyrant if their arms had been taken from them."

I guess you don't consider Patrick Henry one of our Founding Fathers???

ZappBranigan
August 13th, 2009, 02:02 PM
Oh really?

HISTORY:

"In Virginia, anti-federalist Patrick Henry said during the opening debates of the Virginia Ratification Convention that arms are required to secure rights and freedoms from those who would take them away. He also questioned how the people could resist a tyrant if their arms had been taken from them."

I guess you don't consider Patrick Henry one of our Founding Fathers???

Which part of the Constitution did Patrick Henry write? Which part of the Declaration of Independence?

Patrick Henry was an orator, certainly he could be considered a "founding father" as one of the more strident advocates of the revolution, but there's no evidence that the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow for future revolutions.

You seem to be arguing that the Constitution contains some sort of permission for armed insurrection. How then do you explain Article IV, section 4:

"Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence. "

Do you think they were talking about wife beating there? :rolleyes: "Domestic Violence" = armed rebellion or insurrection.

Far from guaranteeing arms as a means of facilitating a rebellion, the Constitution specifically guarantees that it will protect the states from rebellion.

Loki
August 13th, 2009, 02:25 PM
So only the authors ideas of a Restricted Federal Government made it into the Constitution?

Ok Thomas Jefferson is credited with being an author... "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government."

Does that count?

How about Alexander Hamilton? "People should not fear a federal government, because they would remain armed."

Article IV, section 4: Simply Implies the Federal Government had the duty to protect the States. One of the few Duties granted to it by the way.

But my replies are intended to rebutt your implication that my opinion was based on wishful thinking. Where your's are based on History. :rolleyes:

Bringing other Article's and sections into the debate, is only intended by you to confuse the subject. :tisk:

Yucca-Man
August 13th, 2009, 02:51 PM
Gun control only effects law abiding citizens.Quoted For Truth.


"That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;"

The English Bill of Rights even specified why the Protestant citizens had to be allowed to possess arms in its list of greivances explaining why the Bill of Rights was neccessary:

"By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law;"Every time the English throne changed hands, the "papists" (followers of the Vatican) disarmed the Protestants (Church of England)...and vice versa. After all, an unarmed populace is a tamed populace... The English Bill of Rights sought to stop that nonsense with that section.

ZappBranigan
August 13th, 2009, 02:59 PM
Quoted For Truth.

Every time the English throne changed hands, the "papists" (followers of the Vatican) disarmed the Protestants (Church of England)...and vice versa. After all, an unarmed populace is a tamed populace... The English Bill of Rights sought to stop that nonsense with that section.


No, the "papists" didn't disarm the protestants, the government did.

The "papist" militias weren't government entities, they were more akin to street gangs - bands of armed thugs that terrorized the community.

What the EBOR was talking about was that the government wasn't neccessarily attacking the protestants itself, it was disarming the protestants so that other people could attack them.

Similar to the post-reconstruction laws in the South that prohibited blacks from owning guns, and thus allowing the KKK and other organizations to attack them without fear of getting shot.

In that sense, the right to bear arms was seen as a means for people to protect themselves against criminals, not to protect themselves from the government.

CYAN5DE
August 13th, 2009, 06:41 PM
sorry to break it away from the anti-federalist's but.....

no gun, just sign and arrested.

sign read "death to obama" and "death to michelle obama and her two stupid kids" or something along those lines......

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/politics/Death-to-Obama-Sign-Holder-Detained-53134147.html

_CJ
August 13th, 2009, 07:29 PM
sorry to break it away from the anti-federalist's but.....

no gun, just sign and arrested.

sign read "death to obama" and "death to michelle obama and her two stupid kids" or something along those lines......

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/politics/Death-to-Obama-Sign-Holder-Detained-53134147.html

I'm not sure if that's a crime or not. The only law I could find was that it's illegal to threaten the president via a letter sent through the mail. People have gone to jail for that. email too. Holding a sign at a rally? not sure. I am sure it makes you a nutbag.

_CJ
August 13th, 2009, 07:31 PM
I hear O'bama is coming to Denver. Any of you guys going to go and carry openly? Or maybe just a sign that mis-quotes a founding father? :P

DADA_JEEP
August 13th, 2009, 07:37 PM
it is illegal to mak e any threats to the president's life, or any person in any position.

CYAN5DE
August 13th, 2009, 08:38 PM
it is illegal to mak e any threats to the president's life, or any person in any position.

i believe you are correct. if you are not, it is still across the dumb line and should not be protected speech to make threats on someone's life

Loki
August 13th, 2009, 09:50 PM
I believe this one is a direct threat as it mentions the president and his family specificly... The other one is not only historical, but much more general and not directly pointed at the president.

This idiot should be arrested, and I'm glad he wasn't packin.

DADA_JEEP
August 14th, 2009, 09:37 AM
i remeber when i was doing ambulance transports in philly that we went to the VA (many many times) ER and met with Secret Service guys that had to be called because a vet had made threats to the prez. the funny thing is, most of them still thought nixon and johnson were prez. viet nam era guys with PTSD.

sweater
August 17th, 2009, 02:58 PM
Further retardery at a health care reform rally in AZ:


A man, who decided not to give his name, was walking around the pro-health care reform rally at 3rd and Washington streets, with a pistol on his hip, and an AR-15 (a semi-automatic assault rifle) on a strap over his shoulder (http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2009/08/17/20090817obama-scene.html).

"Because I can do it," he said when asked why he was armed. "In Arizona, I still have some freedoms."

Found on Snowflakes in Hell (http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2009/08/17/just-because-you-have-the-right/), originally sourced from an anti-gun feed.

Fooking. Idiot.

- mike

Loki
August 17th, 2009, 03:52 PM
Further retardery at a health care reform rally in AZ:



Found on Snowflakes in Hell (http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2009/08/17/just-because-you-have-the-right/), originally sourced from an anti-gun feed.

Fooking. Idiot.

- mike

:deadhorse:

Jeffro600
August 17th, 2009, 04:29 PM
:deadhorse:

Yep...god help them if someone wants to exercise a constitutional right and not be politically correct... :rolleyes:

CYAN5DE
August 17th, 2009, 07:08 PM
This is an example of police showing restraint and people carrying weapons at a presidential stop

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9A4SU8G1&show_article=1

police watched the people carrying weapons to ensure they did not do anything retarded, and also to ensure no one in the crowd attempted to harm the individuals openly carrying firearms.

one guy was carrying a slung AR-15 as well. evil black rifles.

_CJ
August 17th, 2009, 10:27 PM
hmmmm, guns but no dumbass sign and nobody getting to excited. :shrug:

At first I thought it was lame how pro-gun guys were co-opting the healthcare thing for a political statement of their own, but now I'm seeing the light. People are becoming desesitized to open carry. :thumbsup:

Jeffro600
August 17th, 2009, 11:21 PM
People are becoming desesitized to open carry. :thumbsup:

As they should be!!

A gun makes a person no more of bad guy than a chick with big boobs and a short skirt makes her a whore...

ammodog76
August 17th, 2009, 11:59 PM
It was already determined he didnt break the law. The guy checked with everyone first. Was cleared by the Chief, and was on private property. His interview with Matthews and the tards talking about him on MSNBC shows what kind of idiocy gun owners are dealing with. There is NO issue with open carry where its legal any other time, and this should be no different. Gun owners have been made to feel we have to hide our guns, while the opposite should be true.

this!


Is hiding your guns, and being shameful of having or openly carrying them, supporting your rights to keep and bear them?

I think not as well.

A right not exercised is a right lost.

and this!


Steve, i think this may have brought some awareness to the fact that we still have the right to carry in most cases, i would have liked to see the majority of people packin, that would have been a message, and that message is this, i have the right to carry this gun, and i have the right to tell you to blow health care out your a$$. i think its facinating that while trying to create a perfect happy little world for all his sheeple, obama is actualy doing the opposite, to my knowlege in recent history no other president has been shown this much direspect, and im sure if he continues to infringe of our rights there will be plenty more.

CYAN5DE
August 18th, 2009, 09:12 AM
another story about the guys with guns at the presidential stop, including guy with AR-15.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/index.html

Although I see this as good for people realizing that people with guns is not the end of the world, I have one big concern.

There are people who wouldn't mind the president dead. white supremacists, the far far right lunatic peoples, etc. If the POTUS PSD becomes somewhat complacent (which I highly doubt) and someone does manage to take a shot at, or hit the Pres, while there are a lot of legal citizens open-carrying, guns rights are gone. bye bye have a nice day, we are up the creek, knee deep without a paddle. or a boat. They will have congressional support, public support, hell, just about all the support they could ask for to crack down on gun ownership by type, gun carry, permits, ammo, hell you name it...

this is my concern with guns in the general vicinity of the pres. It makes it easier for the wolf in sheep's clothing to screw it all up for the rest of us who just want to exercise our rights.

ZappBranigan
August 18th, 2009, 10:28 AM
this is my concern with guns in the general vicinity of the pres. It makes it easier for the wolf in sheep's clothing to screw it all up for the rest of us who just want to exercise our rights.

That's exactly my concern. The Gun Control Act of 1968 was signed into law because people got fed up with all the shootings and assasinations. JFK in 63, RFK and MLK in 68, riots all over the big cities - gun control advocates seized on all of these things to get the GCA passed. Then, like now, Democrats controlled the White House (LBJ) and both houses of Congress. The GCA68 is what gave us the BATF form 4473 to fill out, it also banned mail order firearms and ammunition sales and required registries of handgun ammo (the last two of these were repealed with a 1986 law.)

If someone at one of these protests does take a shot at the president, you can bet that we will see laws pass that will make us fondly remember how good we had it under the Clinton assault weapon and magazine bans.

It will also paint the NRA and other gun groups as havens for racist lunatics and severely undercut their lobbying power - which will open the door for ever more restrictive gun laws.

So keep it up, dumbasses. You're doing Sarah Brady's job for her. :rolleyes:

sweater
August 18th, 2009, 10:33 AM
If someone at one of these protests does take a shot at the president, you can bet that we will see laws pass that will make us fondly remember how good we had it under the Clinton assault weapon and magazine bans.

It will also paint the NRA and other gun groups as havens for racist lunatics and severely undercut their lobbying power - which will open the door for ever more restrictive gun laws.

So keep it up, dumbasses. You're doing Sarah Brady's job for her. :rolleyes:

x eighteen brazilians

FWIW, it won't have to be a shot at the president. It can be a shot at anyone else nearby or a negligent discharge that'll get CNN and MSNBC atwitter.

- mike

ammodog76
August 18th, 2009, 10:53 AM
mute point, i have a right to have guns, deal with it, or by all means, come take it. you better exercise your right to bring yours!

ammodog76
August 18th, 2009, 11:00 AM
That's exactly my concern. The Gun Control Act of 1968 was signed into law because people got fed up with all the shootings and assasinations. JFK in 63, RFK and MLK in 68, riots all over the big cities - gun control advocates seized on all of these things to get the GCA passed. Then, like now, Democrats controlled the White House (LBJ) and both houses of Congress. The GCA68 is what gave us the BATF form 4473 to fill out, it also banned mail order firearms and ammunition sales and required registries of handgun ammo (the last two of these were repealed with a 1986 law.)

If someone at one of these protests does take a shot at the president, you can bet that we will see laws pass that will make us fondly remember how good we had it under the Clinton assault weapon and magazine bans.

It will also paint the NRA and other gun groups as havens for racist lunatics and severely undercut their lobbying power - which will open the door for ever more restrictive gun laws.

So keep it up, dumbasses. You're doing Sarah Brady's job for her. :rolleyes:

wow, just, whatever.........having a firearm is a right! questions?

ZappBranigan
August 18th, 2009, 11:16 AM
wow, just, whatever.........having a firearm is a right! questions?

Owning a firearm is a right. Carrying? Waving around? Using it to freak people out and make a point? Not the same thing.

People need to understand that gun laws exist at the intersection of law and politics. You can argue "my right, my right, my right!" all you want, but at the end of the day, that right can and will be limited by law and the law will be put into place by politicians who are driven by political forces.

That means that pissing people off, acting like a lunatic or an asshole will result in restrictive laws being passed, and as long as those laws don't prohibit ownership, it is likely that the courts will uphold them. Gun owners exercising their "rights" to scare people will only result in gun owners (all gun owners) being marginalized politically.

Maybe that's not the way it's "supposed" to be. Maybe your magical mind-reading time machine tells you that if James Madison or George Washington were here today, they'd think it was perfectly OK to walk around downtown denver with an AR-15 strapped to your back.

All that shit doesn't matter because that's not how laws are made in this country. Laws are not made by people consulting the magical crystal ball and trying to divine what the "founders" would have wanted, they're made by politicians who have to respond to their constituents, the people that voted them into office and who can vote them out.

If the opposition (the gun banners) can portray gun owners as a fringe element of crazy racist nuts, then the politicians will know they can ignore the gun owners and still keep their jobs, and they will act accordingly. Not only that, they will "peel away" the support of gun owners who want to keep their guns but who don't want to be associated with the crazy redneck lunatics. That will further marginalize the absolutists and render them politically powerless.

I understand the viewpoint of the absolutists, I really do, because I used to share them. But the fact is, they're not doing themselves any good, and it's only a matter of time before someone gets shot and then we'll all be fair game for the next batch of restrictive/confiscatory laws that come down the pike.

With freedom comes responsibility. Gun owners need to exercise responsibility or else they will see their freedoms disappear faster than they can believe.

Steve
August 18th, 2009, 11:27 AM
With freedom comes responsibility. Gun owners need to exercise responsibility or else they will see their freedoms disappear faster than they can believe.

QFT

Many states do not allow open carry, so saying that open carrying anywhere you want is allowed is simply not true. That's a right that could very easily be taken away.

Just because doing something is legal doesn't mean it's a good idea to do it in all circumstances.

sweater
August 18th, 2009, 11:32 AM
QFT

Many states do not allow open carry, so saying that open carrying anywhere you want is allowed is simply not true. That's a right that could very easily be taken away.

Just because doing something is legal doesn't mean it's a good idea to do it in all circumstances.

Please take a spin around CNN, MSNBC, TheDenverChannel.com, whatever.

Plain and simple, all of those outlets are noting that last week there was simply a guy with a handgun at a rally. This week it's a guy with a handgun and an AR-15.

Can anyone say that this isn't a case where news outlets are trying to portray this as the possibility that this behavior is escalating? And what do news outlets bank on? Fear. Fear that the next guy's going to be carrying... two rifles. Or that more people will be carrying guns. Or that the tensions will rise enough that some sort of event happens and someone gets hurt.

I would be that there is nothing else that some anti-gunners would like to see is one of these dips**ts hurt someone or let a round loose.

A lot of people bought up guns last fall because of some irrational fear of impending legislation. If anything, these assholes are doing more to make those fears come closer to reality.

- mike

Loki
August 18th, 2009, 03:24 PM
So we all should give up our right to open carry (where allowed) because some idiot might take a pot shot at the president? :shrug:

ZappBranigan
August 18th, 2009, 03:42 PM
So we all should give up our right to open carry (where allowed) because some idiot might take a pot shot at the president? :shrug:

No, we should judicially choose where and when to open carry otherwise we will lose our right to open carry.

sweater
August 18th, 2009, 03:47 PM
So we all should give up our right to open carry (where allowed) because some idiot might take a pot shot at the president? :shrug:

A point to consider (my emphasis added):


Understand this, because itís important: we are outvoted (http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2009/08/18/there-are-240-million-americans/). We only succeed when the vast majority of American believe in the right to bear arms. We only beat back gun control because the vast majority of Americans arenít passionate about gun control, and donít vote on the issue. We do vote on the issue, but weíre a minority of voters. Compared to the electorate as a whole, weíre a small minority of voters. There is no escaping that we have to convince others to support, or at least not oppose our position. So you have to care about how gun owners, as a group, fare in the Court of Public Opinion.

Some might suggest I believe we ought to get back into the closet. Thatís not really accurate. I donít suggest that. But part of breaking down stereotypes and misconceptions about gun owners being deviant or abnormal is to act normal. Normal people do not walk around with AR-15s slung over their shoulders. You might have the right, and I donít think it should be illegal, but you wonít get people to see gun owners as normal by engaging in that activity. It would be roughly akin to trying to get the public to accept public nudity by running around in public nude. Itís not liable to change anyoneís mind.

- mike

BumperMan
August 18th, 2009, 03:50 PM
So we all should give up our right to open carry (where allowed) because some idiot might take a pot shot at the president? :shrug:

Okay, I have kept my mouth shut for 4 pages, but I gotta do it. Thread pixies. No we should not give up our right to open carry. However, if you are going to exercise that right, you should do it with some common sense. You do not carry a "Scary" gun to a function where the president is going to be. It sends the wrong message, and hurts our cause. wanna make a statement, carry an empty holster or something similar to send the same message.

I have a little experience with PSD (Protective Security Detail). This is a nightmare waiting for a place to happen, and WE (gun owners) are going to come out on the losing end. You can bet your ass that the PSD guys have been briefed to allow these people to exercise their rights. You can bet the farm that they will not hesitate to take out one of these legal gun owners exercising their rights if they feel that their charge is in danger. If that happens the chance that the legal gun owner will be a martyer for our cause is between slim and none, and slim is on vacation. This will gain us nothing. No good can come of it.

There are occasions when I open carry, but they are few and far between, and never in a crowded area, and NEVER anywhere where tensions are likely to get high. I will lay odds that this is not going to end well if it continues.

BumperMan
August 18th, 2009, 03:51 PM
I'm scared. I agree with Mike on this one.

Clint
August 18th, 2009, 04:17 PM
Okay, I have kept my mouth shut for 4 pages, but I gotta do it. Thread pixies. No we should not give up our right to open carry. However, if you are going to exercise that right, you should do it with some common sense. You do not carry a "Scary" gun to a function where the president is going to be. It sends the wrong message, and hurts our cause. wanna make a statement, carry an empty holster or something similar to send the same message.

I have a little experience with PSD (Protective Security Detail). This is a nightmare waiting for a place to happen, and WE (gun owners) are going to come out on the losing end. You can bet your ass that the PSD guys have been briefed to allow these people to exercise their rights. You can bet the farm that they will not hesitate to take out one of these legal gun owners exercising their rights if they feel that their charge is in danger. If that happens the chance that the legal gun owner will be a martyer for our cause is between slim and none, and slim is on vacation. This will gain us nothing. No good can come of it.

There are occasions when I open carry, but they are few and far between, and never in a crowded area, and NEVER anywhere where tensions are likely to get high. I will lay odds that this is not going to end well if it continues.



I can go with that Bud, glad you posted up. I think open carry shouldnt be such a big deal, and dont understand all the :eek: when people see it, but it is the president, and while I agree with the message these people are trying to get across, I do think you are right. Someone is gonna do something stupid and we all will suffer. I think an empty holster or some similar message gets the same point across.

Loki
August 18th, 2009, 04:25 PM
That's been my point all along, normal people acting normally while open carrying. This thread wasn't about Evil Black rifles when it started. :flipoff2:

sweater
August 18th, 2009, 04:43 PM
I'm scared. I agree with Mike on this one.
I think I just threw up a little in my mouth.

:flipoff2:

- mike

ZappBranigan
August 18th, 2009, 05:07 PM
That's been my point all along, normal people acting normally while open carrying. This thread wasn't about Evil Black rifles when it started. :flipoff2:

Normal people under normal circumstances (i.e. people not police officers, soldiers, hunters or others engaged in some activity which calls for the carry of a firearm) don't open carry.

Unless you're at a police station, a firebase in Afghanistan or Iraq, or a shooting range, open carry is not the norm. Therefore, you cannot "act normally" while open carrying because open carrying is, by itself "abnormal" in our society (and pretty much always has been, contrary to the TV-inspired depiction of the Old West as a place where people routinely strapped revolvers to their waists.)

Whether or not this is the way it "should" be is irrelevant. This is the way it is. And people who open carry under circumstances that are already tense and politically charged are the very definition of "abnormal."

Loki
August 18th, 2009, 05:17 PM
So you're saying give in to the stereotype. Gotcha.

Those of us, that don't see this as an issue are supporting changing that stereotype.

Steve
August 18th, 2009, 05:23 PM
Dude, please. Carrying an AR-15 over your shoulder in public, much less to a political event with the POTUS, is NOT normal. Never has been. Never will be. You will NOT change the stereotype by doing that. Ever. You'll simply reinforce it, which does not do us any good at all.

sweater
August 18th, 2009, 05:25 PM
So you're saying give in to the stereotype. Gotcha.
...who's giving in to what stereotype? That makes no sense.

- mike

Loki
August 18th, 2009, 05:25 PM
That's been my point all along, normal people acting normally while open carrying. This thread wasn't about Evil Black rifles when it started. :flipoff2:


Dude, please. Carrying an AR-15 over your shoulder in public, much less to a political event with the POTUS, is NOT normal. Never has been. Never will be. You will NOT change the stereotype by doing that. Ever. You'll simply reinforce it, which does not do us any good at all.

See my quote above yours.

Loki
August 18th, 2009, 05:28 PM
...who's giving in to what stereotype? That makes no sense.

- mike

Zapp said your not normal if you open carry. except in specific circumstances. So if you open carry out side of those circumstances you are stereotyped as being abnormal.

Sorry you're having trouble following along.

ZappBranigan
August 18th, 2009, 05:30 PM
So you're saying give in to the stereotype. Gotcha.

Those of us, that don't see this as an issue are supporting changing that stereotype.

Well, it's making the news so it's an issue whether you think it should be one or not.

The world is what it is, not what we wish it was. :tisk:

Your rights will be determined by a lot of people who don't even own guns, much less carry them.

Bringing guns to a political rally is not "changing stereotypes" it's reinforcing stereotypes: The stereotype of the "gun nut" who packs heat wherever he goes.

Sweater's columnist had it right: If we push this issue we will be outvoted because there are more of them (non gun owners) than there are of us (and to add to that, the non-gun owners have the news media, the entertainment industry, and a gigantic political machine on their side.)

If we stick our guns in their faces (figuratively, not literally) by introducing guns into someplace where they shouldn't be, we will be the ones who suffer, not them.

Loki
August 18th, 2009, 05:35 PM
You chose then to give into them then, I chose not to.

/out

sweater
August 18th, 2009, 05:39 PM
Zapp said your not normal if you open carry. except in specific circumstances. So if you open carry out side of those circumstances you are stereotyped as being abnormal.

Sorry you're having trouble following along.
You can skip the belittling comments, thank you. :thumbsup:

- mike

Steve
August 18th, 2009, 05:39 PM
Zapp said your not normal if you open carry. except in specific circumstances. So if you open carry out side of those circumstances you are stereotyped as being abnormal.

Whether you want it to be that way or not, IT'S TRUE. Abnormal is simply something that's not the norm. Is open carrying firearms the norm anywhere? No, it's not. I was born and raised in CO where it's been legal to open carry for a long, long time. I've lived here a long, long time, and have owned firearms since I was a teen. How many times have I seen someone open carrying in a city (except for LEOs)? Never. Not once. Ever.

So, is open carrying any kind of firearm in a city the norm? No, it's clearly not. Open carry is not stereotyped as being abnormal, it IS abnormal. I know you don't like that, but it's true. Will I and many gun owners attempt to change that by open carrying in cities or to political events. Nope, count me out.

_CJ
August 18th, 2009, 07:39 PM
Chris Matthews (Hardball) did another segment on this today. Had Ron Regan and some 2nd amendment guy. Everyone agreed that open carry around the president was stupid.

One thing I hadn't considered is that what these guys are doing may give cover to groups that want to shoot the president. For that reason alone, I'm fully against this sort of protest. Can you imagine what would happen if some nutbag took a shot?.....with all the open carry guys and all the secret service guys in the area? One giant leap forward for the anti-gun groups.

ammodog76
August 18th, 2009, 08:24 PM
Okay, I have kept my mouth shut for 4 pages, but I gotta do it. Thread pixies. No we should not give up our right to open carry. However, if you are going to exercise that right, you should do it with some common sense. You do not carry a "Scary" gun to a function where the president is going to be. It sends the wrong message, and hurts our cause. wanna make a statement, carry an empty holster or something similar to send the same message.

I have a little experience with PSD (Protective Security Detail). This is a nightmare waiting for a place to happen, and WE (gun owners) are going to come out on the losing end. You can bet your ass that the PSD guys have been briefed to allow these people to exercise their rights. You can bet the farm that they will not hesitate to take out one of these legal gun owners exercising their rights if they feel that their charge is in danger. If that happens the chance that the legal gun owner will be a martyer for our cause is between slim and none, and slim is on vacation. This will gain us nothing. No good can come of it.

There are occasions when I open carry, but they are few and far between, and never in a crowded area, and NEVER anywhere where tensions are likely to get high. I will lay odds that this is not going to end well if it continues.

this!

walkin around with an ar is retarded, doing it at a political function is....well more retarded. It is however their right! and i personally dont think its my place to tell a guy with an ar hes retarded for exercizing his rights

ZappBranigan
August 18th, 2009, 09:16 PM
this!

walkin around with an ar is retarded, doing it at a political function is....well more retarded. It is however their right! and i personally dont think its my place to tell a guy with an ar hes retarded for exercizing his rights

When that person is doing something that can jeapordize my rights (and yours) I have no problem telling him he's retarded because he is.

BruzedXJ
August 18th, 2009, 11:01 PM
Long time listener...yada, yada, yada.

Everyone is throwing around what is normal and not "normal", but I would suggest looking at it from a different perspective...manners. One hundred years ago (give or take) open carry was "normal", but in several arenas (larger cities, church, mixed company, etc) hanging your gun belt was good manners. It was accepted that firearms were protection and a way of life in less "civilized" areas but there were certain social circumstances where guns weren't deemed unnecessary and so carrying was rude/anti-social (ironically, it was the open carry/willingness to use those firearms that made areas civilized).

Unfortunately, society has fallen out of touch with how to interact in respectful ways (cell phones, common courtesy, holding doors, ad nauseum...) as individuals. Is open carry a right, absolutely (no pun intended) but was it poor manners (gent with the AR), probably. It was for shock value and it worked, which brings me to the next point.

"Typical" liberals vs "typical" conservatives...some of many pertenant differences? Liberals are more apt to be vocal, activists, and a have willingness to "share" their opinions with anyone that will listen. Your "typical" conservative is going to be less vocal (leave me alone, worry about yourself) and not show any activist tendencies unless pushed hard (WWII?!?). I am not one to lable myself, but I know that I have never been as motivated to participate in our government, as I have been lately. I think the town hall "well dressed people" exemplify that too.

Following this thought process, as someone pointed out early about the liberals owning the media, we are at an immediate disadvantage. Conservatives, as I define above, are individualist and finding a common discussion point is difficult (as this thread has demonstrated, we agree on the main topic but everyone fragments in the details). These fragmented details become liberal fodder. ANY little thing that can be broadcast as a sound bite or a viral video is going to work in "their" favor. We need to be smarter than that, don't give them something to latch onto.

Proceed with good manners, take the high road (yet be willing to take a stand), and give them little ammunition to use against us (pun intended).

My two cents after a Nyquil and some Makers Mark...good night :D

ammodog76
August 18th, 2009, 11:41 PM
When that person is doing something that can jeapordize my rights (and yours) I have no problem telling him he's retarded because he is.

So fly your happy ass out there and tell him, crying about someone that did something COMPLEATLY LAWFULL on some forum is also retaded IMO


Long time listener...yada, yada, yada.

Everyone is throwing around what is normal and not "normal", but I would suggest looking at it from a different perspective...manners. One hundred years ago (give or take) open carry was "normal", but in several arenas (larger cities, church, mixed company, etc) hanging your gun belt was good manners. It was accepted that firearms were protection and a way of life in less "civilized" areas but there were certain social circumstances where guns weren't deemed unnecessary and so carrying was rude/anti-social (ironically, it was the open carry/willingness to use those firearms that made areas civilized).

Unfortunately, society has fallen out of touch with how to interact in respectful ways (cell phones, common courtesy, holding doors, ad nauseum...) as individuals. Is open carry a right, absolutely (no pun intended) but was it poor manners (gent with the AR), probably. It was for shock value and it worked, which brings me to the next point.

"Typical" liberals vs "typical" conservatives...some of many pertenant differences? Liberals are more apt to be vocal, activists, and a have willingness to "share" their opinions with anyone that will listen. Your "typical" conservative is going to be less vocal (leave me alone, worry about yourself) and not show any activist tendencies unless pushed hard (WWII?!?). I am not one to lable myself, but I know that I have never been as motivated to participate in our government, as I have been lately. I think the town hall "well dressed people" exemplify that too.

Following this thought process, as someone pointed out early about the liberals owning the media, we are at an immediate disadvantage. Conservatives, as I define above, are individualist and finding a common discussion point is difficult (as this thread has demonstrated, we agree on the main topic but everyone fragments in the details). These fragmented details become liberal fodder. ANY little thing that can be broadcast as a sound bite or a viral video is going to work in "their" favor. We need to be smarter than that, don't give them something to latch onto.

Proceed with good manners, take the high road (yet be willing to take a stand), and give them little ammunition to use against us (pun intended).

My two cents after a Nyquil and some Makers Mark...good night :D

excellent point.

jeeplvr79
August 18th, 2009, 11:51 PM
just cause I don't wanna read too much tonight...

was the gun loaded?

ammodog76
August 18th, 2009, 11:52 PM
just cause I don't wanna read too much tonight...

was the gun loaded?

no

BumperMan
August 19th, 2009, 12:00 AM
I think I just threw up a little in my mouth.

:flipoff2:

- mike

I know I did


just cause I don't wanna read too much tonight...

was the gun loaded?

Does not matter


no

Then why carry it?

ammodog76
August 19th, 2009, 12:04 AM
Then why carry it?

because he can:D

Clint
August 19th, 2009, 12:04 AM
no

in the interview with him, he never answered, but asked what good it would be unloaded, which implies it was loaded.

ammodog76
August 19th, 2009, 12:17 AM
in the interview with him, he never answered, but asked what good it would be unloaded, which implies it was loaded.

im talking about the o.p. i dont know about the ar idiot

BumperMan
August 19th, 2009, 12:19 AM
because he can:D

While I understand that, I am a firm believer that the only reason to carry a weapon is for protection/hunting. Therefore, he was merely packing it to make a statement, and he loses points from me for that.

ammodog76
August 19th, 2009, 12:22 AM
While I understand that, I am a firm believer that the only reason to carry a weapon is for protection/hunting. Therefore, he was merely packing it to make a statement, and he loses points from me for that.

i agree, hes an idiot, but its his right to be an idiot, he did nothing "wrong"

Clint
August 19th, 2009, 12:30 AM
im talking about the o.p. i dont know about the ar idiot

me too. guy packing on his thigh

potter
August 19th, 2009, 12:32 AM
i agree, hes an idiot, but its his right to be an idiot, he did nothing "wrong"

thus, him being an idiot is the problem


......If anything, this kind of thing allows the biased news media to label all anti-Obama or anti-government-health-care people as gun-toting crazies. It allows them to marginalize what should be legitimate opposition.

It's a standard tactic of a biased media.

It works like this: For the side the media supports, they find a reasonable, well dressed, articulate person. It works even better if the person is from a group that would normally be thought of as being opposed to the position you want to advocate. (For example, on the war in Iraq, they find a veteran, reasonably dressed, articulate, who is opposed to the war.) For health care reform, they find a doctor or a business executive or someone else who you would normally think of as being opposed to socialized medicine, and have them parrot the party line about reduced costs, greater coverage, helping the uninsured, blah blah blah.

Then, to present the "balance" they find a lunatic who opposes your desired position. In this case, they find someone dressed in camo, someone packing a gun, someone ranting and raving about sinister government conspiracies or black helicopters or secret internment camps or whatever. They then allow this crazy person to rant and rave.

They have now presented "both sides" of the argument and can say they have done their duty as "objective journalists", wheras in reality what they've done is to take the most extreme advocate of the opposition and characterized that person as being typical or representative.

I think what Steve is saying (and I agree with it) is that packing a gun or carrying what can be thought of as a threatening sign to a rally like this plays right into their hands.

This issue will be decided politically, and if we allow the media to marginalize the opposition it will make it politically impossible for the opponents of socialized medicine to succeed.

ammodog76
August 19th, 2009, 12:38 AM
thus, him being an idiot is the problem

you 2 have something in common

DADA_JEEP
August 19th, 2009, 12:39 AM
the first guy said something to the effect of an unloaded weapon being useless, but never outright said it was loaded

ammodog76
August 19th, 2009, 12:57 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXQW78bFR48


i was wrong, it was loaded, he makes some good points. and some bad points.

potter
August 19th, 2009, 01:17 AM
you 2 have something in common

http://goddam.net/buddy_christ.jpg

ammodog76
August 19th, 2009, 01:21 AM
lol:flipoff2: