Wednesday, February 16, 2011

To those that would rather fight than win

In the wake of two men openly carrying guns in the downtown branch of the Capital Area District Library, state Rep. Joan Bauer is preparing legislation that would add public libraries to the short list of facilities that are exempt from the state’s open carry law.
Good work, guys. Really. Thanks for your help.


Tam said...

NB Alanis: This is ironic. "A black fly in your chardonnay" is just gross.

founders said...

Big deal. There are bad actors in every legislature, and libraries ACROSS THE COUNTRY submit these bills year after year in states with preemption.

The problem here isn't the open carriers, it's the passive aggressive library staff trying to bully the folks with guns. That's irony.

When open carry started to take hold in states with concealed carry restrictions, there were similar outcries, cop calling, blood in the streets predictions. They subsided.

Agree or disagree with the open carriers here we should respect that whether it meets with our approval or not, pro-rights people should look at the black and white of the law:

Who was abiding by the law, and who was breaking it? Respectively it was the open carriers and the library staff.

SpeakerTweaker said...

Wow, Breda. I guess your gonna be wrong no matter what. I wonder if you'll still be wrong if the law gets passed and libraries there become gun-free zones.


Maybe you were right all along. Maybe it's not about the law.

Flies. Honey. Some assembly required.


Phillip said...

Figured that would happen. I made the comparison between some of the more vitriolic open carry advocates and the wild-eyed street preacher. If the street preacher makes enough people nervous, they'll find some ordinance to get rid of him. Sounds like the people carrying long guns made enough people nervous.

Great job, guys. Keep it up, you won't have open carry there at all. Learn to be polite while asserting your rights, and make sure you NORMALIZE the open carry idea, not make it look nuts.

And now, so I'm not being hypocritical, I'm going to have to drive an hour and a half to attend an open carry event down here, not to mention get a fishing rod and gear.

Justin Buist said...

It'd probably be better to change Michigan's goofy definition of a "handgun" so that some shotguns don't qualify anymore.

Bob S. said...

Let's use this to our advantage.

Let's frame the argument as "Person obeys the law, does nothing wrong and now people want to make a law against it -- so who is being unreasonable?"

I'm not saying we have to agree with their actions but we should defend them just as much as if we would if someone was carrying concealed or simply carrying a pistol.

Laughingdog said...

Tam, for this to be ironic, that would have to be an unexpected result of their actions. Seriously, who didn't see this coming.

I OC exclusively, except at work since that's illegal. But I understand that I am basically a salesman for gun rights when I leave the house. I strive to be a good salesman. Mr "I am going into the library with a shotgun" would fit in that other end.

Stan said...

Wow, badly written article is badly written.

For one there is no "open carry law" open carry is not expressly forbidden therefore it is legal.

Also Pistol Free Zones only apply to those carrying concealed pistols. A weapon carried openly is not covered. Therefore if this law had been in place at the time nothing would have been any different unless the police had decided to illegally arrest the guy.

Mike W. said...

Stan - The poorly written article doesn't change the fact that the actions of these OC'ers is what lead to this.

I'm sure no one could've seen this coming....

Good job guys! Way to advance gun rights!

Bob S. said...

Exactly how have they set back gun rights so far?

Has the law actually been changed?
Has public opinion crystallized against gun owners?

I'm sure there is some negative press and opinion on this -- but isn't that the case of even the most mild Open Carry Advocacy?

They have gotten people talking -- is that a bad thing?

Again -- let's not throw them under the bus quite yet.

Why not use the dialog as an opportunity to point out the lack of logic in the laws.

DirtCrashr said...

Really? Some retard carried around a shotgun?? Sheesh.

Kansas Scout said...

This is the result of some of these guys having the emotional intelligence of a four year old.

tanksoldier said...

So, if they DIDN'T open carry in the library for fear of a law being passed, then they wouldn't need to pass the law but it would have the same effect.

Where SHOULDN'T people OC out of fear that they won't be allowed to carry there?

Phillip said...

Tanksoldier,I don't think you understand where the problem lies. The problem's not with someone open carrying a pistol in a holster while using the library. It's with people who, no matter the reason, carried an uncased long gun into the library. A pistol in a holster isn't a threat. An uncased long gun is.

Mike W. said...

The problem isn't that they carried, it's the manner in which they did it.

If you're going to OC as a form of activism, which is what MOC was doing, be smart about it.

Carrying an uncased long gun into a library in Suburban Michigan is their right, but it's not smart and it's not good activism.

If Delaware Open Carry members started acting like this I could see there being a backlash here.

RichB said...

"Carrying an uncased long gun into a library in Suburban Michigan is their right, but it's not smart and it's not good activism."

Sitting at a lunch counter rural Alabama is their right, but it's not smart and it's not good activism.

Sounds familiar.

Anonymous said...

Sitting at a lunch counter rural Alabama is their right, but it's not smart and it's not good activism.

Analogies always break down eventually. This one has a few flat tires.

Surely you recognize that guy-with-shotgun or guy-with-AR15 have checks in the "intimidating" public perception box which little black ladies sitting on the bus and people trying to buy lunch do not?

RichB said...

"Surely you recognize that guy-with-shotgun or guy-with-AR15 have checks in the "intimidating" public perception box which little black ladies sitting on the bus and people trying to buy lunch do not?"

It isn't about intimidation it is about perception of intimidation. Your feelings about my lawful actions are no more relevant than the racist people's feelings about the African Americans sitting at the counter.

And yet, in both cases people have tried and will try to say they intimidated them and will try to get them arrested.

SewerDweller said...

And the hits keep coming. From TFA- "Open Carry contends the downtown library is not a pistol-free zone because it is not technically a school, even though school activities are held there and the building is leased from the Lansing School District."

Which would imply it's pretty darned close to the school, -and- states that it has a higher than usual incidence of children. Which probably scared the shit out of a bunch of the Norms. good going guys , truely -stellar- planning.

On the whole 'we're just like black people' meme. Here, let me break that for you.

A dude wandering around in public might be an OC advocate, -or- he might be out to 'neutralize the Bargons from the dimension of Zuglex.' There is no way to tell from a distance. You have to take the risk of interacting with him. Key word here, is Risk. He might shoot me.

A black dude at a lunch counter buying a sandwich is...either a black dude 'fighting racism by buying a sandwich at the white lunchcounter' or he's...buying a sandwich. note that in both possibilities, he's...-buying a goddamn sandwich-. There's no possibility there that he's going to suddenly leap at you, and beat you to death with the salt shaker.

The 'OC crowd' in this instance made some serious mistakes, and we're very likely to wind up paying the price for their 'oopsie'.

Nice work.

RichB said...

The anti gunners always crack me up.

"A dude wandering around in public might be an OC advocate, -or- he might be out to 'neutralize the Bargons from the dimension of Zuglex.' There is no way to tell from a distance. You have to take the risk of interacting with him. Key word here, is Risk. He might shoot me. "

And if his jacket falls over the gun and covers it up, he is immediately a sheep dog hero who is far more tactically sound.

RichB said...

"There's no possibility there that he's going to suddenly leap at you, and beat you to death with the salt shaker."

I would certainly debate 'no possibility'.

If this was the case, what was all the fighting about?

I am pretty sure I remember PSAs and other propaganda around those times telling people that African Americans were running wild on 'the reefer' raping and beating white women. I am pretty sure that after that kind of brainwashing (the same kind that goes into "guns is bad!"), African Americans were seen as plenty intimidating and surely a threat to the people around them.

Of course those people were ignorant and just plain wrong to believe those things, but I would say not a whole lot has changed today other than focusing on inanimate objects instead of a race of people.

Me said...

This never stops, breda.

For as long as reasonable people have been trying to get gun restrictions lifted, the idiots among us have always sought to act like 4-year olds because it's more dramatic and fun to make other people uncomfortable, especially when you can claim to be doing it as part of a "fight for our rights".

But all they ever manage to do is turn the general populace against us and harden the opposition of those already determined to block us.

With "friends" like we have in our own midst(Larry Pratt of GOA comes right to mind), we really don't need an organized anti-gun movement.

Mike W. said...

The anti gunners always crack me up.

You know Rich, it is possible to take issue with the manner in which a person acts without also wanting to use the force of law to restrict said persons rights.

I haven't seen myself, Breda, or most of the other supposed "anti-gunners" commenting here espousing the viewpoint that folks shouldn't be allowed to OC, or to carry in a library.

Hell, Breda posted a pic of herself OC'ing, I occasionally OC as well, and yet somehow we are anti's and not on your side. With an attitude like that you're your own worst enemy. If you're this antagonistic with us how do you expect to win over fencesitters?

RichB said...

Mike W, I think you are taking personally something that wasn't addressed to you.

I have not called you anything of the sort.

Union said...

Technically he was carrying a pistol.

The issue is much bigger than guns in the library.

The issue is that the library refuses to follow state law. After being quietly informed that their continued harassment is unlawful, the board still refuses to comply with the laws of this state.

The library is owned by the city and the county, and these local units of government lack the authority to ban firearms.

People will continue to open carry in the library on a regular basis until the policy changes.

SayUncle said...

"The issue is that the library refuses to follow state law. After being quietly informed that their continued harassment is unlawful, the board still refuses to comply with the laws of this state. "

I agree. But there's a better way to challenge that.

David said...

I've gotten slammed on other forums for stating these thoughts, so why not here too?

I respect OC rights. I've done it myself a few times. And yes, it's also within everyone's rights to act like an ass, but it does not help the matter. Many OC folks do so simply for shock affect. They claim to espouse gun rights, but it's more about them feeling badass then universal rights.

Just a few weeks ago I watched an OCer in the restaurant where my wife and I were having lunch. On his way out, he stopped by the door, made sure his coat was pushed back, put his gun side leg up on a chair and proceeded to spend the next 2-3 minutes "tying" his shoe. It was all an obvious show. He was essentially blocking the door so anyone entering or leaving had to brush by him. Serious gun owners know you keep yourself between your gun and others. If he was not in it for the show, he could have faced the other direction.

Yep, he got everyone's attention, and he showed that gun owners can act like full on asshats.

Peter said...


Bobby Nations said...

"The problem's not with someone open carrying a pistol in a holster while using the library. It's with people who, no matter the reason, carried an uncased long gun into the library"

I'm a bit confused on Michigan's laws.

Is it still considered open carry if your long gun is in some sort of case, or would that that be considered concealed requiring a license of some sort? My point being that for the kid who carried the shotgun into the library, doing so uncased might have been his only legal option for challenging their illegal policies.

Breda said...

And he carried a shotgun because Dec. 11 was a windy day. “If my coat covers my firearm it’s a felony. I opted for something that is pretty much impossible to conceal.”

Nope, a shotgun was not his only option.

Joseph said...

Some people need to learn the difference between can and should.

You see the folks around you share in the real world (not the one your mind occupies) and while it is your constitutional right to do certain things, those around you also have the right to become indignant at your display of your right and subsequently get their elected officials to start changing rights.

You see, there's an unwritten part in all rights where it is assumed that we as a society won't substantially abuse those rights. When someone(s) sufficiently abuse a right(s), then the remainder of the populace is within their right to take that right away using the proper means.

Bubblehead Les. said...

Hmmm. Perhaps we should look at it from the angle of Exposure rather than Open vs. Concealed. Think of it like this: A small town cop walks into a store to buy some milk before going home. He's still in uniform, with his gear on. Most people in the store don't see him as a threat (unless they were planning on robbing it) , because the gun he is issued for work is holstered, but is still out in the open. Same cop come into the same store with the gun drawn, everyone panics.

400 hundred years ago in Italy, you could walk around all day with a sword, no hassle. Pull it out, SHTF. That's the situation that we are in. Americans see a Long Gun that is not being used in a Hunting Situation out in the Field, panic ensues, even though it might be legal. The old days of watching teenage boys heading down to the Dump with their .22s to shoot rats are gone. Sorry the Feds say you have to be 21 to have a pistol, but the same guy gets caught with with a glass of Bourbon, he's still breaking the law because of his age. I don't like it, but even though the shotgun was slung, it was still exposed, and there's the rub.

Too bad we Americans aren't used to seeing cops carry H+K MP-5s Subguns like they do in Europe, but when in Rome...

And as for the lunch counter analogy : Never heard of a group a guys riding up to a house and lynching the owner because he carried an AR into a 5 and Dime. And yeah, I know, Waco and Ruby Ridge, but I still don't see Cross Burnings taking place outside Gander Mountain. Of course, that don't mean Japete and her buddies ain't Wishing they could put all us gunnies into Re-Education camps, but even they realise we might just shoot back, as DID happen at Ruby Ridge and Waco. But some of these Commies seem to have short memories.....

I just think of the old Freedom of Speech Ruling: My Freedom of Speech doesn't mean I can yell "Fire" in a Crowded Theater just because I can. Use what's between your ears until WE can Re-Educate THEM, keeping in mind there are a lot of Sheeple who won't change.

James said...

First this is like the magazine bills introduced in Congress after Tucson. Said rep is an extreme liberal who will be ignored.
Second, open carry is completely legal in Michigan and none of the described actions were against the law.
Third, everybody is still referring to an account by antigun media, any of you actually check more than one source or check with Michigan Open Carry for a more complete story?
Lastly, decrying perfectly legal actions because someone might be offended is to make your own prison and is the height of moral cowardice. JN

David said...

Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's the smart thing to do. Breda's right.

Mad Saint Jack said...


In 1967, California's first major modern gun legislation, sponsored by Republican Assemblyman Don Mulford, was signed into law by Governor Ronald Reagan. The law, created to disarm the Black Panthers, banned the carrying of firearms in public.

Those who don't learn from history.. aw never mind.

tanksoldier said...

A pistol in a holster isn't a threat. An uncased long gun is.

Is it?

_I_ wouldn't do it, but if we act as if the law had already been passed... then what's the point?

You don't take a shotgun to the library, out of fear they'll pass a law saying you can't take a shotgun to the library.

Bob S. said...

Also, there are way too many people who want to make the argument that a pistol in a holster IS a threat.

We need to make sure we are focused on the lawful, peaceful actions of the person carrying - regardless what (s)he is carrying.

Stick said...

I don't see where you can defend those who try to tweak the noses of those more "sensitive" to guns than we are.

Every time an open carry advocate goes and does increasingly ignorant things, though still "following the law", it pisses off the segment of society we need on our side. Those Americans who truly don't have any specific feelings about guns, or gun owners. We already have the pro and anti gun sides, but there's a helluva lot that don't get upset. Until some asshole decides to "show everyone" he's carrying a gun. That BS will piss off the folks who truly don't give a shit to push legislators to pass laws banning open carry.

And come the hell on, comparing the effort to open carry to the civil rights fight? That's offensive to me, and I'm an old white guy. Or, did I miss where open carry people got beat down by the cops, and knocked down with the stream from the fire hoses? Or got lynched for open carrying? If that happened, it must have been California open carry, where you have to carry your gun unloaded or something. Cause I'm pretty sure my concealed carry gun can come out quick enough to make the lynchers change their mind about hanging me.

Breda is right, open carry advocates need to make the public consider open carry of firearms to be a completely normal thing to the public. Being total assholes doesn't do that, and sets back gun rights efforts immensely.And I'd tell these idiots the same if they were right beside me.

Mikael said...

It's also legal to jump from the roof of a tall building, doesn't mean it's wise, and eventually people get fed up and you end up like the empire state building that has armed guards to prevent people from doing it.

Joshkie said...

Those that OC as a form of protest lose the initiative. If those that feel the library is violating state and federal law had filed a law suit stating such, They would be a head of the game. Now the otherside is ahead and we are on the defensive as we have now to petition the law makers or fight/block this new law from getting passed or in the courts if it does.

One step forward. Two steps back.


Joshkie said...

Mikael -

It's against the law to attempt suicide. Which is what you would get charged with and held for psychiatric evaluation that is if you happen to survive.

Just saying,

Clint said...

“Sitting at a lunch counter rural Alabama is their right, but it's not smart and it's not good activism.”

You have it backwards! Sitting at a lunch counter rural Alabama was ILLEGAL for blacks back then. They PLANNED on being arrested so they could challenge the law.

“Civil disobedience” Is NOT about getting away with it, nor being left alone. It is about publicly challenging a law and being willing to go to jail for it. As in “Sitting at a lunch counter rural Alabama was illegal, but it was smart and good activism.

Furthermore, a bit about rights;
We have a right to say what we please BUT we have ZERO right to force others to listen.

And vice versa

Nancy R. said...

I think the "Lycra Rule" covers this.

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

RichB said...


I don't see the difference between challenging a law and challenging a faulty rule in a municipal building.

Could you please show me the law that made it illegal for black people to sit at a lunch counter in Alabama?

Mike W. said...

And come the hell on, comparing the effort to open carry to the civil rights fight? That's offensive to me, and I'm an old white guy.

Why is it "offensive?" Civil rights are civil rights and there are obvious parallels.

instinct said...

Rich, here's a history lesson for you.

Andrew said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jtaylor said...

My only thought is a legal one... If it IS legal for them to carry as they did, why is it anyone should say they shouldn't so carry? I agree you and others think it wasn't wise, but a legal right is a legal right. Instead of in-fighting, use the publicity to put your argument for legal OCing forward. Don't let the anti-gun crowd win this one...

RichB said...


Thanks for the good lunchtime reading.

Joshkie said...

jtyalor -

It's about winning over the middle ground.

If we're going to use the lefts tactics. Let's go all the way let's have some OC sit/love in's. Let's organize a OC perade where we wear assless chaps and pistols only. Lets burn our CHP's.
Because you know every time I see this stuff on tv it just makes me want to side with them. I know we generally arn't that obnoxious, but even a little bit is to much for me.
There is this misconception that the only way to challenge a policy, city ordnance or law is to be up in the face of the enforcing them. Not true.
The easiest thing to have done in the case of that library would of be to have a lawer seems the a letter stating that they where inviolation of the law and if they did not comply that you would file suit. You never know they could of complied problem solved.

Why do people insist on making things more difficult than they need to be.


RichB said...

When can MOC expect your generous contribution to the legal fund necessary to for the lawsuit you keep promoting?

Or are we to assume you will just take of the bills by yourself?

Are you prepared to lose that money when they dismiss the case because you have no dog in the show because you have not yet been arrested or detained?

Mike W. said...

There is this misconception that the only way to challenge a policy, city ordnance or law is to be up in the face of the enforcing them. Not true.

Yep. There was an illegal NCC parks ordinance here in DE that banned open carry. That ordinance was dealt with by a few e-mails, letters, & phonecalls by members of Delaware Open Carry. No "in your face" activism needed.

Joshkie said...

RichB -

I have enough to deal with in my own state. Plus the OC group that organized the event and the gentalmen in question must of felt like they had suficant funds for any legal bill they might have incurred.
My point was why waist the money on defending yourself incourt just file a law suit if it's that important to you.


Ps. Up side you also spend less time in jail.

RichB said...

Let me know how that works out for you.

Joshkie said...

Also in civil case them not following a law is enough you don't have to show damages. If that's not enough them enfringing on your civil libirties I would asome constitutes damages, but I'm not sure on that one as I'm not a lawer.

So I could be wrong so any lawyers out want to correct anything I've said feel free.


Joshkie said...

Asome.... Sigh.

Sometimes I wonder about me.


jtaylor said...

I hear your it is about winning the middle ground," but do we say people using their 1st amendment right have to have oxford shirts and must fit some social norm or do we tell society to act rational and to respect the rights people have. Now, what is right for you is to not make waves by OCing as the gent did. However, we should be fighting for his rights, our rights, rather than say we should limit our rights to not upset those that might want to limit our rights. That is just my opinion, and I respect your right to disagree and think differently. Now, why must you seem to think that exercising my right is making it difficult? Seems to me those that are being difficult are those anti-gunners or others limiting our existing rights-whether 1st, 2nd, or other Amendment-protected right. He wasn't wrong or contrary to the law... We should fight for a legal right whether the exercise of that right is wise or not... Just my 2¢, everyone's mileage may vary. That is what makes this country great imho...

staghounds said...

Channel Sarah Brady. Do you like, or hate, what this fool did?

You are a patron in the library when this happens, with no opinion at all on OC, never heard of it. Who in this event made you feel nervous, uncomfortable, or otherwise intruded on your otherwise peaceful day?

Same, but not a witness- you go to the library sometimes where you live. As you imagine suddenly seeing a man with a shotgun in front of you as you look for a book, do you feel good or queasy? Do you wish this had happened at your library last time you went? Do you hope it will happen next time?

Q. E. D.

Normalization is a process. It means making people COMFORTABLE. The lunch counter people were intentionally only doing one thing- trying to buy a sandwich just like white folks. The idea was that the ARREST of these quiet, ordinary people would make the other patrons uncomfortable and disrupt their day. As white people, they would begin to question on whose side they were. People from non Jim Crow places would see this as something they didn't like going on in their country. They think, "If that happened in front of me, I would have spoken up." To the neutral, the black man is the good guy.

In this case, the actions of the OC fool were the disruptive and scary things, the arrival of the police and the taking away of the scary man were the things that gave the witnesses good endorphins.

If Rosa Parks had been yelling and screaming, demanding affirmative action quotas, she would not have even been a footnote..

Joshkie said...

jtaylor -

There is a standard of conduct that must be applied to our use of the 1st Amendment. I can't just say, "you a cross dressing moma's boy that likes to wear her panties." Unless I have pictures and proof. The most famous example is the "You can't just yell fire in a crowed movie theater unless there's is a fire."

There is a saying buy one of the Founders I forget which on that goes like this, your right to freely swing your arm around is at the tip of my nose.

All we are doing is suggesting a standard of conduct be applied to the 2nd Amendment, open carry and the general handling of guns in public. We are not trying to make it mandatory, but just realize that their are some that are going to look at you strangely and avoid you.

I see this as an etiquette and manors issue.

If you go out to eat in a public, even though you might be a slob at home, eating with your hand and belching loudly is not giving a good accounting of yourself. So, if your stated goal is to win over friends and show how normal you are, how is acting with poor manors furthering you agenda?

Just because you can and have 'right' to do something doesn't mean we should do it,

Joshkie said...


Well said.


Joshkie said...

Opps missed a word. ".... your right to freely swing your arm around 'ends' at the tip of my nose.

Sigh, :-(

jtaylor said...

The problem with your process of normalization is that how do people get used to guns in libraries if they never see guns- in a library or not?

Look... I see your opinion differs from mine. I don't think you are wrong because you disagree with my opinion. Why do I feel as if you are bothered because I don't agree with you?

If the anti-gunners get upset and think we are wrong, what makes you think their opinion will change? My mother is dead-set against anyone carrying, and I know there is nothing I can do to change her mind. However, I don't presume to tell her she is wrong-she is right for her. So, feel free to disagree with me. If you think your reasoning is going to change my mind any more than mine is changing yours, you are mistaken... I am okay with that and WANT others to be able to decide for themselves.

You are right for you. You may not be right for me. Surely we can be friends and disagree? If not, we all need to work on that...

About the belching or the building of the mosque near ground zero... It is like him carrying OC. He has a legal right to so carry. I try to not belch in public--if I do I am as quiet as I can be. I would not build a christian church next to a site where christians killed 1,000 Muslims, and I don't carry openly... I don't think doing so is wise :) I never said doing so is the best way to get support for our rights... My position is that I fight for someone's right even if I disagree with how that right is exercised.

Joshkie said...

jtaylor -

Just so you know this got started by a previous post on this blog titled "manners matter." I did not get involved in that discussion is I was involved in one at Borepatch's blog, post titled "Open Carry FAIL" which had a link to "manners matter." (Breda if you must blame some for me being here blame BP. ;-) )
There's another post, on this blog, that comes after this one titled "worth a thousand words" were I made this post in reply to Tanksoldier, sorry if I didn't state my position clearly in this post comment section.

"Tanksoldier -

If the stated goal of the OC movement is to normalize the perseption of gun carrier as normal and non-threatening.
How does wondering around armed to the teeth do this?
Our arguement is not is it legal or should it be baned, but the wisdom carrrying things that might alarm the public.
Let's get the public used to seeing us carry hand guns before we up the anty to the big guns.

Let's not knock the fence sitters off the fence into the yard of gun control by being obnoxious.

Let's keep the horse before the cart.

February 18, 2011 9:46 AM"
(This repost should clarify and is my answer to your question in your 1st and 3rd paragraphs.)

Borepatch had another post linking to this one titled "Open Carry: Pistols vs. long guns."
To sum up I've been having this discussion with multiple person over 2 blogs and 4 post.

Now on to the meat of your comment.

You said - "Look... I see your opinion differs from mine. I don't think you are wrong because you disagree with my opinion. Why do I feel as if you are bothered because I don't agree with you?"
It's wishy wash feal good crap that annoys me. You obviously feel you are right which by default makes me wrong. I'm ok with that, but don't tell me you think I'm right cause you don't want to hurt my feelings. We can't bothe be right that's that every body gets a ribbon loser mentality crap that they're teaching in school now day. This leads me to another thing of course; I'm bothered by what you and some others are saying if I didn't that would mean I agreed with you and we wouldn't be having this discusion.

You weren't giving me the it's ok to be me speach were you?
To me a friend is some I trust with my life and we barely met over the Internet, and I've been pretty friendly, well for me anyways.

To last statement if I called fire in a crowed movie theater knowing that there was know fire cause I was joking with a friend about how much fun it would be to cause a panic, and a pregnant woman and a little old nun were trampled to death; you would defend my right to free speach?


Breda said...

Okay, guys. Thank you for your involvement but that's enough now. My blog is not your forum nor a place for a your personal one-on-one. Don't make me shut down comments.

Will said...

if I might add a final comment:

This discussion has wandered all over the map, and has lost sight of the important focus of the subject.

Is what was done improper for the situation? Not if legal or illegal.

Suppose a train had crashed while transporting a couple dozen big cats (lions, tigers, etc,) and the police were carrying long guns as they went about their normal affairs. In this case, if you wander into the library while slinging a long gun, the majority will view you with favor, because you fit the new normal.

Absent this unusual situation, you don't look normal. That is the important point. You don't look normal. You look very un-normal. Plus, you look like a threat. Humans don't like this AT ALL! You now have TWO strikes against you, and it only takes violating one of these hard-wired mental rules to establish you as a PROBLEM in the mind of observers and bystanders.

Most of us can deplore the actions of the staff vs any gun, and think they need to be stepped on, and still find fault with the long gun carrier.

If you don't understand this, you are working under a severe handicap. NOTE! I'm NOT saying you are retarded, stupid, or anything of the sort. I'm saying that you lack some of the hard-wired (built-in) rules that most humans come with. Not understanding this can put you at a severe disadvantage when dealing with the rest of the world.

Alternatively, you do understand the opposition we have with the situation, but you don't care. Some humans are like that, too.

Will said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Glenn B said...

You should all be supportive of these guys, draw the line in the sand now and stand toe to toe with them

Andrew said...

(This is a repost of an accidentally deleted post from February 17.)

Breda, your rules are pretty good. I open carry a lot, and I have some additional rules:

1. Dress at least a little better than average. You're representing, right or wrong, all gun owners. Make a good impression.

2. Wear a retention holster and stay very aware. Concealed is concealed, but when you're OCing, a gun grab (by a thug, a cop, or an idiot security guard, in ascending order of likelihood) becomes a real issue to consider.

3. Tip well, if you're in a tipping joint.

4. If at all possible, bring expectation-confounding companions. Alone, I'm a man with a gun. Accompanied, I'm a doting daddy to adorable elementary-school kids, and I just happen to be carrying.

5. If you're involved in political, competitive or other gun groups, have a handful of cards or brochures in your pocket.

6. If you want to be really sharp, carry a copy of the law or opinion that shows that your carry is legal. Some people need the reassurance.

7. Smile. Again. A lot. It matters.

8. If you want to wear camo, scowl a lot, be rude, unshaven, messy, cheap, or angry, please conceal. Not everyone is cut out to be a diplomat.