Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Open Carry Activists (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: Open Carry Activists
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This may be covered on another thread somewhere, but I'm curious if there are any supporters of this trend here. Tom the Dancing Bug sums up the obvious problem rather well, and I haven't heard a defense of it yet (not a cogent one, at least). I've heard people here argue that an armed populace would prevent tragedies like Newtown, because an armed bystander could have taken out the shooter before he unloaded on a school. How, then, should that same person react when they see someone carrying an assault rifle into a restaurant? Would "Stand Your Ground" laws protect someone who shot and killed an open carry activist? Do shootings like Newtown and Aurora make it reasonable to assume that someone taking an assault rifle into a non-gun-related public space might be about to kill a lot of people?
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
When have people carried assault rifles into restaurants? I haven't heard of that. All the reports I've seen talk about people carrying semi-automatic rifles in Texas because open carry of handguns is illegal there and that's all they can do. In other states open carry is usually restricted to pistol carry because when people are allowed to handgun carry they don't feel the need to long gun carry even if it's legal. And generally open carriers do not commit crimes. Criminals, including mass shooters, conceal their guns until the moment of committing the crime.

[ June 12, 2014, 12:07 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Criminals, including mass shooters, conceal their guns until the moment of committing the crime.
I'm curious how you know when they're just carrying, and when it's not a moment they're about to commit a crime.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
They generally start shooting...
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, that makes it easy to tell. It's a relief to know that everyone carrying a gun can be assumed to be a good person until they fire it.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
When have people carried assault rifles into restaurants?

Uh, recently?

quote:
They generally start shooting...
So, if I see someone openly carrying a long gun in public, I should draw my pistol, aim at him, but wait until he starts shooting before I take action, right? Seriously, the cartoon's sarcastic advice is more helpful than yours. Haven't you yourself argued that we need more gun carriers in order to defend against mass shootings? Are you seriously *also* arguing that we need to respect that person's 2nd amendment rights up until the moment they kill us?
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Uh, recently?
I saw the video, those weren't assault rifles. Don't fall into the media trap on making up fake terms...

quote:
So, if I see someone openly carrying a long gun in public, I should draw my pistol, aim at him, but wait until he starts shooting before I take action, right?
No, brandishing a weapon and aiming it at someone who isn't threatening or harming you is generally illegal, and will get you either locked up or justifiably killed in self-defense. Courts have ruled that someone merely open carrying is not threatening others, hence why it is legal...

quote:
Seriously, the cartoon's sarcastic advice is more helpful than yours.
Your opinion, not mine. I'd argue the cartoonist is an offensive jerk, and if this were LBGTQ demonstrations he was mocking instead of 2nd Amendment rights, he'd be sued or taken down by now. Funny how some rights matter more than others...

quote:
Haven't you yourself argued that we need more gun carriers in order to defend against mass shootings?
Yes. What does this have to do with it? Criminals don't open carry. If those mass shooters open carried they wouldn't have had surprise on their side the way they always do.

quote:
Are you seriously *also* arguing that we need to respect that person's 2nd amendment rights up until the moment they kill us?
Yes. This is also the same as respecting someone's 4th Amendment rights up until the time they finish building a bomb in their house to blow us up, the same as respecting someone's 1st Amendment rights to assemble until they finish planning with their group some major attack, etc., etc. What part of living in a free society has these kinds of risks do you not understand?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
stilesbn
Member
Member # 6842

 - posted      Profile for stilesbn   Email stilesbn       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Of course, if one is worried about needing to defend oneself from a shooter I think it would be wise to not open carry, or at least if you do, don't be the only one in the room who is open carrying and try to look like less of a threat than others. If a criminal who is concealing a weapon and planning to start shooting people, I suspect that you will be the first target. You will also be caught by surprise unless you have some sort of spidey-sense.
Posts: 174 | Registered: Jul 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Of course, if one is worried about needing to defend oneself from a shooter I think it would be wise to not open carry, or at least if you do, don't be the only one in the room who is open carrying and try to look like less of a threat than others. If a criminal who is concealing a weapon and planning to start shooting people, I suspect that you will be the first target. You will also be caught by surprise unless you have some sort of spidey-sense.
A few thoughts on this. The open carriers that I know are usually former military or law enforcement types who DO have that kind of enhanced awareness. However, the point behind normalizing open carry is so more people start doing it.

Yes, if there was only one open carrier in an area they might get targeted first. But imagine if there are many open carriers and a criminal who intended to do evil comes along and sees that. They are going to change their minds and go somewhere else or just not do it at all, vs if everyone was concealing and he thought that meant it was safe for him to commit his crime and he goes ahead.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca,

quote:
Criminals don't open carry. If those mass shooters open carried they wouldn't have had surprise on their side the way they always do.
This is incoherent. They don't open carry, but if they did, they'd lose the element of surprise because then people would be anticipating the crime? So open carrying would alert people to the possibility of a crime about to happen? ...
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, open carrying would simply let other people see that they are armed and those people may mentally note it.

However, this goes deeper than mere function, it is a cultural issue and expectation that those with criminal intent generally do not broadcast either their intent OR their capabilities. Criminals conceal their guns mostly because culture informs them too and also because as most firearm crime is by convicted felons and police may recognize those felons, criminals conceal their guns. This mainstay of criminal culture repeated over and over in media and history has led to a general informed tactic of criminals always concealing until the moment of attack.

[ June 12, 2014, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You're still saying that we're less surprised if someone visibly carrying a gun suddenly uses it to commit a crime than we would be if someone hiding a gun uses it to commit a crime.

That amounts to some kind of implied threat when someone sees you carrying a gun. Do you like people being a little bit scared of you when they see that you're carrying a gun? Do you feel they are more polite, and is that nice?

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That amounts to some kind of implied threat when someone sees you carrying a gun
No, it's mere function, not threat related and without color of judgment or bias. For instance, if you saw some guy carrying a jack-hammer and then a few minutes later you heard a jack-hammer going off, you might connect the two logically in your head.

Now if it's a gun type situation, because we are so used to criminals hiding their activities one usually assumes the opposite about open carriers who are calmly walking around. If you see someone suddenly pulling a gun out FROM concealment, that is usually an indication that a criminal action is about to occur.
As far aw lawful open carrying, I have very few negative encounters, most people either don't notice or respond positively. Even in cities.

quote:
Do you like people being a little bit scared of you when they see that you're carrying a gun?
When did you stop beating your wife?

quote:
Do you feel they are more polite, and is that nice?
People in general are often polite or rude as a matter of their personality, but in general an armed society is a more polite society.

[ June 12, 2014, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
No, brandishing a weapon and aiming it at someone who isn't threatening or harming you is generally illegal, and will get you either locked up or justifiably killed in self-defense. Courts have ruled that someone merely open carrying is not threatening others, hence why it is legal...
If they're dead, then it's just your word against a corpses as to whether or not they were threatening you. Heck that kind of defense is currently successfully used against people that weren't even armed at all, since threat is generally almost entirely in the shooters perception, not base on any objective danger.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
in general an armed society is a more polite society
Let's finish that sentence:
...because evil dickheads will try to shoot you if they think you're rude.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
No, brandishing a weapon and aiming it at someone who isn't threatening or harming you is generally illegal, and will get you either locked up or justifiably killed in self-defense. Courts have ruled that someone merely open carrying is not threatening others, hence why it is legal...
If they're dead, then it's just your word against a corpses as to whether or not they were threatening you. Heck that kind of defense is currently successfully used against people that weren't even armed at all, since threat is generally almost entirely in the shooters perception, not base on any objective danger.
What are you referring to?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:

quote:
Are you seriously *also* arguing that we need to respect that person's 2nd amendment rights up until the moment they kill us?
Yes. This is also the same as respecting someone's 4th Amendment rights up until the time they finish building a bomb in their house to blow us up, the same as respecting someone's 1st Amendment rights to assemble until they finish planning with their group some major attack, etc., etc. What part of living in a free society has these kinds of risks do you not understand?
What I'm trying to understand is your logic. If, as you say, we should all comfortably ignore open carriers, then how is it even possible to use a gun to defend against gun violence?. By your standard, we have to wait until, at the very least, someone is pulling a gun from concealment (unless we are talking about James Holmes, who open carried from his car into the theater through a propped open exit). But otherwise, all open carriers are safe, right? Except for the outliers, of course, but who thinks statistical outliers are relevant in a debate about mass shootings?

I can understand, even if I disagree, when someone supports universal gun rights for various reasons. There is a deep end, however, and those who not only support waltzing into restaurants strapped up with long guns, but actually go and do it; those people have dropped right off it. 2A can be interpreted a lot of ways, but its not a universal right to a weapons fetish, no matter how bad someone may want it to be.

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But otherwise, all open carriers are safe, right?
Until they brandish their weapon or unless a police officer recognizes them as a known felon, yes.


quote:
There is a deep end, however, and those who not only support waltzing into restaurants strapped up with long guns, but actually go and do it; those people have dropped right off it. 2A can be interpreted a lot of ways, but its not a universal right to a weapons fetish, no matter how bad someone may want it to be.
Generally I don't support public long gun carry, but in places like Texas where open handgun carry is illegal, that is their only avenue for political activism to try and get open carry of handguns legalized again. I don't blame them for using the only thing they have left.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Generally I don't support public long gun carry
Why not? Hunters need to come into populated areas. I wouldn't want to leave my rifle unattended in my car in an unfamiliar (or even familiar) area. And if it's an unfamiliar area, I might well want to have my weapon ready in case someone pulls a hidden gun from their back pocket (oops, that was a wallet. SORRY!!!!)
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
in places like Texas where open handgun carry is illegal, that is their only avenue for political activism to try and get open carry of handguns legalized again. I don't blame them for using the only thing they have left.

Out of curiosity; do you consider this an effective form of activism? Do you think it will lead to the outcome that those activists desire?
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
in places like Texas where open handgun carry is illegal, that is their only avenue for political activism to try and get open carry of handguns legalized again. I don't blame them for using the only thing they have left.

Out of curiosity; do you consider this an effective form of activism? Do you think it will lead to the outcome that those activists desire?
Maybe in the end people will legalize handgun carry because they'd rather have that to deal with than long gun carry. [Smile]
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
in places like Texas where open handgun carry is illegal, that is their only avenue for political activism to try and get open carry of handguns legalized again. I don't blame them for using the only thing they have left.

Out of curiosity; do you consider this an effective form of activism? Do you think it will lead to the outcome that those activists desire?
Maybe in the end people will legalize handgun carry because they'd rather have that to deal with than long gun carry. [Smile]
This kind of thing is a tinderbox; its only a matter of time before one of these "protests" turns into a tragedy. I seriously hope that it runs out of steam before that happens, but these protesters are *angry*, and they are not being well-recieved, even in Texas. As has been observed, when the NRA thinks you are going too far, you might have a legitimate claim to the moniker "gun nut". [Frown]
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
This kind of thing is a tinderbox; its only a matter of time before one of these "protests" turns into a tragedy.
Says who? Says what? Absurd slippery slope logic with no basis in reality. There have been mass gun rallies for decades, where's the long list of tragedies from them? Where are they getting "worse?" You just stated that without any factual support.

quote:
I seriously hope that it runs out of steam before that happens, but these protesters are *angry*, and they are not being well-recieved, even in Texas. As has been observed, when the NRA thinks you are going too far, you might have a legitimate claim to the moniker "gun nut"
Then you'd be in error. They are well recieved and the NRA backtracked after they realized that gun-control proponents had taken their statement out of context.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/nra-apologizes-open-carry-texas

quote:
In an interview on Tuesday with the organization's own news site, the head of the NRA's lobbying arm blamed a staff member's "personal opinion" for the content of an unsigned statement published Friday on the organization's website, and he apologized for "any confusion" the statement may have caused.

"It's a distraction," Chris Cox, the executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action, told NRA News. "There was some confusion, we apologize, again, for any confusion that that post caused."

quote:
Cox insisted that the NRA "unequivocally" supports open carry, and that the conflict with the activists was a distraction that the media "has had a field day with it."
So no, you don't get to make absurd claims the "even when the NRA thinks you are going too far," because you are wrong and that didn't happen.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
the NRA backtracked after they realized that gun-control proponents had taken their statement out of context
More accurately, the NRA backtracked when they realized that their donors are paranoid neanderthals. [Wink]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Paranoid neanderthal or Ivy league big city prosecutor, the NRA doesn't care. Donor was the important part and some of that money was considering going somewhere else.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
So no, you don't get to make absurd claims the "even when the NRA thinks you are going too far," because you are wrong and that didn't happen.

No, it *did* happen; the NRA just backtracked ("flip-flopped", if you will). Indeed, the group that actually organized this tactic in the first place has changed course: oops, maybe this wasn't such a bright idea.

And if you read the link, or any story about the open carry protests, you'll see that this isn't business as usual. These are people taking scary looking guns into restaurants and businesses, as well as government offices. They have so far been officially banned from Starbucks, Wendy’s, Applebees, Jack in the Box, and Chipotle, and now Sonic and Chili's have issued statements prohibiting open carry in their stores (which was apparently against the law in Chili's already). This kind of tactic is new, and its absurdly dangerous. If we take these people's statements at face value ("It's not safe to be here—we gotta go," when told that carrying long guns wasn't allowed), they are expecting to need to use those guns to defend themselves. How long before their "situational awareness" leads them to getting the drop on some guy who was digging for his wallet? Or someone with a concealed carry deciding that he isn't comfortable with angry rifle-toting activists sharing an enclosed public space with their children, and pulling on them? Its like the gun fringe is determined to prove themselves wrong.

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
No, it *did* happen; the NRA just backtracked ("flip-flopped", if you will). Indeed, the group that actually organized this tactic in the first place has changed course
No, the organization corrected something that ONE person accidentally wrote in false representation of the organization. Surely you understand this happens right? Shall I go back and pull up examples where SINGLE operatives of the Democrat party write stupid things and then say when the party repudiates it that the party is "flip-flopping?" That's absurd. Stop trying to act like this was an official position change, it wasn't. When a superior in an organization comes out and contradicts a statement from someone below them and says that it wasn't the position of the organization, then it wasn't their position! So enough, ok?

quote:
scary looking guns
What is a scary looking gun and why does it matter? Shouldn't the capability of the gun be what matters?

I'll never understand the stupidity of the media when they think a fully automatic AK pistol that has a wood stock painted pink is somehow better and less dangerous than a semi-automatic 22LR squirrel rifle that is painted black and is AR-style with a detachable magazine. (by the way, AR stands for Armalite, not "assault rifle)

quote:
They have so far been officially banned from Starbucks, Wendy’s, Applebees, Jack in the Box, and Chipotle, and now Sonic and Chili's have issued statements prohibiting open carry in their stores (which was apparently against the law in Chili's already)
Did all of those stores officially "ban" them or ask them not to come in but stop short of a ban? I ask because there is a difference and the latter happened in my state with SB. Also, why was it illegal in Chili's? is Chili's a bar only or does it have an under-21 restaurant section? In my state you can carry a firearm into a place that serves alcohol if you stay in the all-ages section of that establishment.

quote:
This kind of tactic is new, and its absurdly dangerous. If we take these people's statements at face value ("It's not safe to be here—we gotta go," when told that carrying long guns wasn't allowed), they are expecting to need to use those guns to defend themselves. How long before their "situational awareness" leads them to getting the drop on some guy who was digging for his wallet? Or someone with a concealed carry deciding that he isn't comfortable with angry rifle-toting activists sharing an enclosed public space with their children, and pulling on them? Its like the gun fringe is determined to prove themselves wrong.
Simple question, when has one of these open carry rallies turned into a situation like that? With thousands of them for years now across 44 states, surely there's been one right? Nope. Your slippery slope argument is bogus again.

[ June 12, 2014, 10:40 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:

quote:
scary looking guns
What is a scary looking gun and why does it matter? Shouldn't the capability of the gun be what matters?

I'll never understand the stupidity of the media when they think a fully automatic AK pistol that has a wood stock painted pink is somehow better and less dangerous than a semi-automatic 22LR squirrel rifle that is painted black and is AR-style with a detachable magazine. (by the way, AR stands for Armalite, not "assault rifle)


Actually, "scary looking" is *more* relevant than capability, considering that they are all lethal weapons. The danger here lies in the psychological impact of taking a gun into a place where people are not expecting to confront firearms.

Also, are you aware of which calibre is responsible for the most fatalities in the United States? I grew up shooting rifles and skeet, and yes, I personally don't find a .22 very intimidating; it sounds like a cap gun. It also kills more americans than any other type of round. How are you defining dangerous?

quote:
Simple question, when has one of these open carry rallies turned into a situation like that? With thousands of them for years now across 44 states, surely there's been one right? Nope. Your slippery slope argument is bogus again.
Do you not grasp the difference between a gun rally, where a bunch of people get together and, I don't know, celebrate gun-ness, and this tactic, where people are marching into restaurants filled with people there to order hamburgers?
Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Actually, "scary looking" is *more* relevant than capability, considering that they are all lethal weapons.
Do you know what else is a lethal weapon? A baseball bat. A boxcutter. Scissors. Gardening shears. A syringe.

quote:
The danger here lies in the psychological impact of taking a gun into a place where people are not expecting to confront firearms.
In 44 open carry states, the courts have consistently ruled the point of open carry law is that the public should expect to see guns in public... Don't like it? Change the law. Good luck with 44 states.


quote:
Also, are you aware of which calibre is responsible for the most fatalities in the United States? I grew up shooting rifles and skeet, and yes, I personally don't find a .22 very intimidating; it sounds like a cap gun. It also kills more americans than any other type of round. How are you defining dangerous?
Interesting, didn't know that about the 22. However, wouldn't you say a select-fire weapon was more dangerous than a semi-automatic for sheer capability? The reason select-fire weapons don't kill more Americans is because select-fire weapons are largely illegal and extremely rare to find nowadays.

quote:
Do you not grasp the difference between a gun rally, where a bunch of people get together and, I don't know, celebrate gun-ness, and this tactic, where people are marching into restaurants filled with people there to order hamburgers?
Do you not grasp what open carry law is and means? 44 states and growing...

Still waiting to hear about an open carry meeting at a business that "went bad." There have been tens/hundreds of thousands of them, many of them reported here: http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/forumdisplay.php?76-Stories-From-The-States
Just go to the "events" subsection of each state and see all the weekly and monthly meets that go on, all without incident.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Do you know what else is a lethal weapon? A baseball bat. A boxcutter. Scissors. Gardening shears. A syringe.
I wholeheartedly support your right to carry some scissors for self-defense, Seneca.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just remember never to bring scissors to a baseball bat fight.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Funny thing is I don't have a constitutional right to bear knives or scissors...
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And until recent rulings by the SC, hundreds of years after the Founders wrote it, you didn't appear to have one to carry a gun anywhere you like, either.

Answer me this: How come it took over 2 centuries before anyone figured out what the Founders were trying to say?

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It didn't, everyone know that the individual right applied, and it took 200+ years of time passing for anti-gun proponents to make up a false narrative that there was no individual right and so the court had to rule on it when it had been understood for a long time.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Your conspiracy theories are now retroactive, I see. How amusing.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
Funny thing is I don't have a constitutional right to bear knives or scissors...

In as much as a knife is a weapon, you do. The right to to bear arms in general, not specifically firearms, which are just one particular type of personal weapon (which is what "arms" means).
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
However, it was rifles/muskets specifically that the 2A was addressing, because it was directed at maintaining fighting militias. Knives would only be personal weapons. Seneca has pointed to the key explanation for why recent rulings have changed the original meaning of the 2A. There are no state militias now, so for the 2A to have any meaning it has to be tortured to refer to individual protection, as knives were in the Founders' day and which they felt it was too obvious to mention.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 3319

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Statistics suggest that vigilantes in a mass shooting situation are more likely to get themselves killed than they are to take down the attacker.

Only because a mass shooting has never been stopped by an armed bystander, but several have been injured and killed in the attempt.

Law enforcement is also dead set against random citizens interfering in these matters, because they are often untrained, and because cops cannot immediately determine whether they are helping or helping the criminals, which makes them potential targets for both criminals and law enforcement.

Posts: 729 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not to mention, if there are many of them, each other.
Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Clackamas Mall incident blows that myth out of the water. Citizens can and often do know when to hold their fire.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1