Dozen armed with guns protest Obama's speech

[Zilmo]

If your not a plant from some anti 2A group sent here to be a troll.
And you really believe what you just stated here than I have to say
you have NO IDEA on why one would carry a gun!!

Do you feel threatening when you carry a gun!

Do you feel that you would use violence if someone with an opposing view didn't back down?

Do you intend to use violence to advance your political agenda?

If this is truly the way you feel ,when -YOU- carry a gun, then do the gun owners of America a favor and GET RID OF ALL YOUR GUNS!!!!!!

You ,,,,with your mind set is the reason anti gun people think ALL gun owners are crazy gun nuts!

Supporters of 2A rights would do better to distance themselves from people who think of guns like you do.
Because you are the best reason there is to totally ban all weapons!!

No one should think they are threatening because they are armed.
No more than they would feel they should drive like a nut because they are wearing a seat belt.
Take a class on CCW
And quit reading all the TACTICAL NINJA magazines out there!

Give a moment or two to the angry young man,
With his foot in his mouth and his heart in his hand.
He's been stabbed in the back, he's been misunderstood,
It's a comfort to know his intentions are good.
And he sits in a room with a lock on the door,
With his maps and his medals laid out on the floor-
And he likes to be known as the angry young man.

 

[Pasifikawv]

With every right comes responsibility.

All rights should be exercised with a dose of prudence. Those that exercise their rights without regard for the greater implications create an atmosphere that places that very right at greater risk of infringement.

Did the armed protesters violate the law? No. Was it a smart decision to open carry firearms near a Presidential event or political gatherings in no way related to the RTKBA? Not by a long shot. Did the protesters do more harm than good for those of us who support the 2A and work stem off any new, unwarranted restrictions? Absolutely: they hurt our cause.

Every right comes with responsibility and those parties who open carry their firearms near Presidential events create a perception in the MSM that ALL gun owners are as equally irresponsible and imprudent... Just because it is legal doesn't make it a smart thing to do... It merely fans the flames of the anti-gun crowd...

These folks who have open carried firearms near Presidential events and political gatherings have greatly weakened the strides we have recently made as gun owners in the rhelm of public opinion and political discourse... No if, and, or, buts about it. It has damaged the standing of responsible gun ownership...

 

[willy]

Willy,

(1)Pardon me for presuming that you could draw from the context of my first post the direct inference that I was speaking of public attitudes, not my own.

(2) I guess in the great leap from A-->B, you got lost someplace around the -->.






Bullseye


(3)P.S.: Your not understanding what I wrote is not evidence of my backing off my initial statements. It is evidence of your not understanding what I wrote.

(1) Please point out where you were reffering to public attitudes and not your own.

(2)Sorry for getting lost between A---B but I'm just not use to turning around and backtracking back to A before getting to B.

(3)My not understanding what you wrote is evidence you can not write what you mean.

 

[Bullseye 2620]

My grandpa once said to me, "Don't try to teach pigs how to sing. It's extremely frustrating, and annoys the hell out of the pig."

Sorry if I annoyed, you, Willy.

I think a poll of this thread will indicate where the overwhelming majority of sentiment lies on this issue. Rather than continue to build my post count in a fruitless effort to persuade the unpersuadable, I'm going to go load up some .38 Special wadcutters.


Ta-ta!


Bullseye

 

[38-44HD45]

Along the lines of Pogo, I've often said that our worst enemies are our friends. Poor judgment, in my view, even though legal.

However, I'd point out something here: The leftists, whether journalists, pols or otherwise, who condemn the legal carry of firearms by nonviolent, law-abiding citizens near these "protests" are the same folks, or their literal or figurative offspring, who thought that the violent protests of the '60s were hunky-dory. So, if I follow the rationale, it's perfectly okay to throw bricks or Molotov cocktails at the police or National Guard if one is protesting a war, but it is pure evil to openly, legally, nonviolently exercise a Constitutional Right within view of a public protest of a socialist program. Sure; makes perfect sense to me...

 

[Spotteddog]

Nope 38/44,
The rules are absolutely NOT different for one side as opposed to the other. Just ask Bill and Bernadine!
Brilliant observation counselor...

 

[willy]

Ta-ta!


Bullseye

Coming from you, that reply doesn't surprise me at all

 

[willy]

With every right comes responsibility.

All rights should be exercised with a dose of prudence. Those that exercise their rights without regard for the greater implications create an atmosphere that places that very right at greater risk of infringement.



Every right comes with responsibility and those parties who carry their firearms to political functions and near Presidential events create a perception in the MSM that ALL gun owners are as equally irresponsible and imprudent... Just because it is legal doesn't make it a smart thing to do... It merely fans the flames of the anti-gun crowd...

QUOTE]



So we should relinquish our rights so as not to upset the anti-gun crowd?

 

[Zilmo]

With every right comes responsibility.

All rights should be exercised with a dose of prudence. Those that exercise their rights without regard for the greater implications create an atmosphere that places that very right at greater risk of infringement.



Every right comes with responsibility and those parties who carry their firearms to political functions and near Presidential events create a perception in the MSM that ALL gun owners are as equally irresponsible and imprudent... Just because it is legal doesn't make it a smart thing to do... It merely fans the flames of the anti-gun crowd...

QUOTE]



So we should relinquish our rights so as not to upset the anti-gun crowd?

No Willy. Just yours.

 

[shortranger]

Would you care to explain how not openly carrying a weapon into a potentially volatile situation is "relinquishing our rights"?

David

 

[willy]

Would you care to explain how not openly carrying a weapon into a potentially volatile situation is "relinquishing our rights"?

David

Seems as if I was going into a"Potentially volatile situation" I would want to be armed.
Me being armed isn't making the situation volatile on my part.
It is my right.
If it becomes volatile it is someone else's doing.

The relinquishing of our rights results when we give up our rights for fear of upsetting any groups who oppose them.

With your thinking ,would you be ok with a law banning firearms at any political meeting?
And would you vote to pass such a law?
If you think it's a bad idea to carry to any of these meetings.
Why not pass a law against it?
And if your against a law against it ,then why complain when people exercise their right?
BTW-Are you self conscious when you open carry a gun ?
Or don't you ever open carry?

 

[Pasifikawv]

So we should relinquish our rights so as not to upset the anti-gun crowd?

No.

We should exercise our rights prudently so that we may defeat unreasonable gun laws in the rhelm of public policy and public opinion.

At the end of the day, I'd rather win at defeating unwarranted restrictions to my rights than loose in making a misguided statement about my rights...

 

[cshoff]

The bottom line folks, is that a substantial part of freedom is allowing others to do things that we don't necessarily agree with. Just like you and I are free to go about our business carrying our concealed firearms while the rest of the world is unknowing, so to are these people free to go about carrying their firearms openly in a lawful manner. And I certainly wouldn't ask them not to in the name of political correctness, and find it odd that a number of my fellow gun owners would.

Living in a free society has it's price, and the freedom for these folks to exercise their rights in a legal way of their choosing far outweighs any political "cause" you or I may be trying to advance. Whether we agree with it or not is quite irrelevant. If we are going to make the claim that we support freedom, then we have no basis to want to step on these freedoms that others are exercising.

 

[Pasifikawv]

Are you self conscious when you open carry a gun ?
Or don't you ever open carry?

Not mine, not related to carrying at Presidental events, but I'll bite...

In the most general terms, I think open carry in public spaces is foolish unless you are in a uniform or passing thru in blaze orange.

Get a ccw and keep it to yourself.

Why advertise to the bad guy: "Hey, when you make your move, get the drop on me and make sure I am the first target to fall, eh? I'll be distracted by the cashier in just a moment..."

When most gun-owners conceal carry, they see their firearm as a defensive weapon and nobody's business but their own: they generally do not see it as an offensive weapons intended to openly intimidate or express power...

I like it when law-abiding cc-ers go about their business without making other folks uncomfortable or drawing attention to themselves; staying in yellow and knowing their surroundings; ready to protect their lives if needed, but prefer getting their family home safe with no incident...

 

[shortranger]

Seems as if I was going into a"Potentially volatile situation" I would want to be armed.
Me being armed isn't making the situation volatile on my part.
It is my right.
If it becomes volatile it is someone else's doing.

Not only do you not understand the meaning of "volatile," you are also attempting to absolve yourself of any responsibility regarding the outcome of circumstances that you, yourself, have contributed to. By any chance are you a member of Congress?

The relinquishing of our rights results when we give up our rights for fear of upsetting any groups who oppose them.

No. The relinquishing of our rights occurs when we allow people who oppose them to vote them away. Not offending people hardly equates to allowing them to take your rights. If it did, you would be able to defend your 1A rights by spouting obscenities in public.

With your thinking ,would you be ok with a law banning firearms at any political meeting?
And would you vote to pass such a law?

You seem a little confused as to my thinking. First, I said nothing about carrying a firearm in general, only about openly carrying one. Second, just because I think it is a bad idea to openly carry at a political meeting does not mean that I think it should be illegal. Wherever did you get such an idea? Do you always turn what people have said into what you wish they had said?

If you think it's a bad idea to carry to any of these meetings.
Why not pass a law against it?

Why not? For exactly the same reason I wouldn't pass a law against you having a keyboard.

And if your against a law against it ,then why complain when people exercise their right?

For exactly the same reason I am complaining about you using a keyboard.

BTW-Are you self conscious when you open carry a gun ?
Or don't you ever open carry?

Self conscious? Kids with pimples are self conscious. What has that to do with open carry?

In any case, I haven't openly carried for years. I live in a city and work with people who are better off not knowing that I carry. I'm not interested in making statements - political or otherwise - and my needs are best served by remaining discrete. Even so, discretion has not stopped me from carrying every day of the last 40 years or so.

How has open carrying all of the time worked for you?

David

 

[Pasifikawv]

The bottom line folks, is that a substantial part of freedom is allowing others to do things that we don't necessarily agree with. Just like you and I are free to go about our business carrying our concealed firearms while the rest of the world is unknowing, so to are these people free to go about carrying their firearms openly in a lawful manner. And I certainly wouldn't ask them not to in the name of political correctness, and find it odd that a number of my fellow gun owners would.

Living in a free society has it's price, and the freedom for these folks to exercise their rights in a legal way of their choosing far outweighs any political "cause" you or I may be trying to advance. Whether we agree with it or not is quite irrelevant. If we are going to make the claim that we support freedom, then we have no basis to want to step on these freedoms that others are exercising.

Well said... cshoff. Insightful as always...

Don't think of my objections as a philisophical objection or an effort of political correctness. Rather, as a practical objection so that we do not loose the high ground we have gained in defending the RTKBA from unreasonable restrictions...

We just had our rights to CC reinstated in federal parks, a solid majority (albiet 2 short) vote our way in regards to national reciprocity, about 30 Attnys-general supporting incorprating the 2A to States in a brief to SCOTUS, ConservaDems openly opposing the re-instatement of the "assault" weapons ban....

Politicians will bend with the wind. I want to keep in blowing our way...

With this open carry near Presidental events, the Brady Bunch is salivating at the visuals, Chris Mathews is making the GOA look like fools of cable TV, and gun-grabbers are refining their policy proposals...

Nobody's getting near the Pres with a emergency seat-belt cutter on their key chain much less a firearm... There was no direct threat and the oc-ers did not break any laws. They did not enter and never attempted to enter the secure area. The oc-ers acted within their legal rights, but in the grand scheme of things, they hurt overall efforts for gun rights with perhaps a well-intentioned, but very misguided open display of firearms close to a Pres function... While it was certainly legal, I just don't think it was a responsible move strategically...

 

[Evil One]

Why advertise to the bad guy: "Hey, when you make your move, get the drop on me and make sure I am the first target to fall, eh? I'll be distracted by the cashier in just a moment..."

When most gun-owners conceal carry, they see their firearm as a defensive weapon and nobody's business but their own: they generally do not see it as an offensive weapons intended to openly intimidate or express power...

I like it when law-abiding cc-ers go about their business without making other folks uncomfortable or drawing attention to themselves; staying in yellow and knowing their surroundings; ready to protect their lives if needed, but prefer getting their family home safe with no incident...

When home I open carry about 50% of the time.
Now... I want you to dig up the tons of news stories about people getting shot up by criminals because they were open carrying their weapon.
If you like I will save you the time and let you in on a secret.
You will not find this huge stack of reports, that you would find if your assumption was true.
Open carry is a deterrent.
I carry a 1911 on my hip pretty much anywhere I go in the US.
Uncovered a lot of the time where its legal to open carry.
Here is another thing that may surprise you... most people dont see it.
You know who spots it every time?
Criminals.
I have SEEN shady characters spot my sidearm and change course of action.
If all the people who could open carry decided that they shouldnt, how easy would it be for the lawmakers to use the fact that "since people dont do it... they are not losing anything" in their arguments to remove a right?
I will continue to open carry.
I will continue to take time out of my day to answer questions and inform people who are curious.
When I go out I am an ambassador for sidearm carry.
I dress nicely, I am polite, I always smile.
I am the opposite of what people assume a man carrying a gun would be.
Give up your rights if you will.
But dont say that I should also.


Jim

 

[cshoff]

Well said... cshoff. Insightful as always...

Don't think of my objections as a philisophical objection or an effort of political correctness. Rather, as a practical objection so that we do not loose the high ground we have gained in defending the RTKBA from unreasonable restrictions...

We just had our rights to CC reinstated in federal parks, a solid majority (albiet 2 short) vote our way in regards to national reciprocity, about 30 Attnys-general supporting incorprating the 2A to States in a brief to SCOTUS, ConservaDems openly opposing the re-instatement of the "assault" weapons ban....

Politicians will bend with the wind. I want to keep in blowing our way...

With this open carry near Presidental events, the Brady Bunch is salivating at the visuals, Chris Mathews is making the GOA look like fools of cable TV, and gun-grabbers are refining their policy proposals...

Nobody's getting near the Pres with a emergency seat-belt cutter on their key chain much less a firearm... There was no direct threat and the oc-ers did not break any laws. They did not enter and never attempted to enter the secure area. The oc-ers acted within their legal rights, but in the grand scheme of things, they hurt overall efforts for gun rights with perhaps a well-intentioned, but very misguided open display of firearms close to a Pres function... While it was certainly legal, I just don't think it was a responsible move strategically...

I tend to agree with your take, Pasifikawv. They are probably not providing a lot of help to our "cause". But so long as they continue doing so in a lawful manner, I will not ask them to stop or discourage them from doing so.

Having said that, I also fully support arrest and prosecution for anyone who crosses the legal line here. If you are going to go out and make a statement with a firearm, more power to you, but you dang sure better do it within the confines of the law.

 

[Bullseye 2620]

Thanks

Willy,

Let me thank you for setting aside this special time to humiliate yourself in public.

In the world that you inhabit, do you have any magical powers?


Bullseye

 

[Pasifikawv]

When home I open carry about 50% of the time.
Now... I want you to dig up the tons of news stories about people getting shot up by criminals because they were open carrying their weapon.
If you like I will save you the time and let you in on a secret.
You will not find this huge stack of reports, that you would find if your assumption was true.
Open carry is a deterrent.
I carry a 1911 on my hip pretty much anywhere I go in the US.
Uncovered a lot of the time where its legal to open carry.
Here is another thing that may surprise you... most people dont see it.
You know who spots it every time?
Criminals.
I have SEEN shady characters spot my sidearm and change course of action.
If all the people who could open carry decided that they shouldnt, how easy would it be for the lawmakers to use the fact that "since people dont do it... they are not losing anything" in their arguments to remove a right?
I will continue to open carry.
I will continue to take time out of my day to answer questions and inform people who are curious.
When I go out I am an ambassador for sidearm carry.
I dress nicely, I am polite, I always smile.
I am the opposite of what people assume a man carrying a gun would be.
Give up your rights if you will.
But dont say that I should also.


Jim

Nicely stated, Jim.

I was speaking in generalities and there are solid arguements for oc. In some areas, it is your only option... Open carry certainly is a deterrent - espcially when a badge goes with it. I also open carry sometimes - especially when engaged in outdoor activities where it is more practical and comfortable: i.e. hiking, camping, just walking down an old dirt road, etc. I read a recent article about folks in Commifornia who were open carrying as "amassadors for sidarms" as you put it and I fully support their efforts. I don't wig out when I see someone open carrying and it doesn't bother me. But in many instances and many locales, cc is likely the wiser approach... not to imply that oc is necissarily inappropriate everywhere.