Quote of the Day: Open Carry Infringement Edition

(courtesy wsbtv.com)

“In the real world, sane people do not confront armed men and women. They don’t argue with them over politics. They certainly do not put their kids in harm’s way in order to make a point. So when it comes right down to it, when you are in the presence of one of these armed citizens, you don’t really have any rights at all.” – Heather Digby Parton, “Look at my gun!” Why NRA’s scary “open carry” craze is not about freedom [via salon.com]

comments

  1. avatar AJ Peyerson says:

    All I hear is Cartman shouting “You must respect mah authoritah!”

  2. avatar Chris in NC says:

    In the real world I don’t seem to have many heated arguments with strangers. Maybe that’s just me though.

    1. avatar JoshinGA says:

      But you’re not of the same mindset as the rabidly anti-gun types; they seem to universally want to have someone else change so that they can be “happy” or less offended, often by using force if necessary.

    2. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      It’s a yuppie thing, normal people don’t usually care enough to argue with complete strangers.

      1. avatar murray says:

        Agreed, this guys world view is based on the false assumption that capability equals intent, or that all people who are armed with anything even if it it only that they are bigger and hence have greater capability are sociopaths and must be controlled.

    3. avatar B says:

      Our right to self defense infringes on their right to “feel” safe to harass perfect strangers for their life choices that don’t meet their approval.

    4. avatar John Galt says:

      Excellent piece that explains it all:

      Raging Against Self Defense: 
A psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality
      http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

      1. avatar Drew in Michigan says:

        I still don’t know where Galt is!
        But I love that piece over at JPFO. I have it printed out in a small booklet and give it out often.

    5. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

      When I’m at a range, out hunting or encounter other people carrying, I never have an issue. POTG are, by and large, some of the nicest people I meet. Heinlein was right – an armed society is a polite society.

      Here’s a self-defense tip I’ve figured out in my rapidly accumulating years:

      Know those cars that are plastered with bumper stickers? The ones that are festooned with dozens of trite, idiotic left-wing nonsense? Those people are, in my experience, the ones most likely to “blow up” at you in any disagreement or engagement, especially the older women in cars covered with idiotic bumper stickers.

      I avoid these people as much as I can. There aren’t many of them here in Wyoming, but what few there are have a well deserved rep in the community for being “difficult” people.

      I’d rather get into a fender-bender with a 6’5″ guy packing a hog-leg than one of these aging hippy chicks in a Subaru covered with bumper stickers. The big guy and I are likely going to have a nice chat about guns, beer, dogs and hunting areas, each of us pulled away only when we get calls from our respective Management, we’d likely trade business cards and then set up times to go shooting or hunting.

      The aging hippy chick? Lord Almighty, please spare me. I’ve been there, experienced that, several times, only one of which did I ask for. I’d rather not ever do it again.

      1. avatar pwrtrip99 says:

        They are certainly growing in number in Montana, much to my dismay. Bozeman is rife with self-righteous Subaru pilots sporting many an annoying bumper sticker, and spewing their know-better attitude. I always get a kick out of how many dirty looks I get for driving an AMG.

      2. avatar murray says:

        Agree with every word, except the bit about Subaru, Subaru cars cannot choose who drives them lol

        1. avatar Dyspeptic Gunsmith says:

          That’s true. They’re a good little car, and there are tons of them around Wyoming because they’re so capable in winter driving conditions.

          I have no idea why aging feminist harridans show so much preference for Subaru’s.

  3. avatar Paul G. says:

    Wait….don’t police open carry, and even have a badge of authority? But people argue and discuss things with police every day? Wow, those people must be crazy.

    1. avatar CLarson says:

      +1

    2. avatar Bruce L. says:

      So we don’t have any rights when we are in the presence of police? Perhaps he needs to read the constitution or at least get someone to explain it to him.

      1. avatar rick marlar says:

        Perhaps you should question a cop and see how fast you are put on the ground and then charged with many felonies WELCOME TO THE POLICE STATE

        1. avatar Paul G. says:

          I have questioned police numerous times, never been thrown to the ground and charged with felonies….never.

    3. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      Yeah, but the police are benevolent demigods doing the bidding of the almighty state.

      In others words, it’s ok for them to take rights away. But, only the rights he doesn’t like, of course.

    4. avatar Accur81 says:

      @Paul G,

      I was about to say the same thing. I clearly open carry at work, and get asked all sorts of questions.

      When I worked as an armed guard / money carrier / driver at Dunbar Armored, I open carried a Glock .35 and a .38 revolver. I got asked questions all the time – many for “free samples.”

      I all of my experiences to date with open carriers have been positive. I tried non-uniformed open-carry in Arizona, but it just seemed weird to me. I’m a CC guy unless I’m at work / court.

      Perhaps these open carry opponents should show us the videos of nasty OC people instead of judging them by their appearance.

    5. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Just about every time I have even leaned in the direction of arguing with a police officer, I’ve been offered a free trip downtown in handcuffs to have the discussion with a DA when he gets around to it. I consider this a poor example to proffer.

      1. avatar Paul G. says:

        It could just be you. I have never had that problem.

        1. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Give it time!

        2. avatar Paul G. says:

          I have already given it 5 decades.

        3. avatar gene says:

          You have been lucky, I have had cops put 10 outright lies in there police reports but was smart enough to record the conversation and get the case thrown out of court. I have been falsly jailed twice but never convicted of a crime. I dont trust the police anymore!!!!

    6. avatar PeterK says:

      Yeah, crazy was my first thought, too. They call US extreme for trying to uphold something enshrined in the constitution, but this? This is common sense (eye roll).

  4. I don’t remember NRA ever being “crazed” over open carry. With 30 states having some form of unlicensed open carry (and CCPs costing a bunch of money in some cases), concealed carry is where the logical businessman hangs his hat.

  5. avatar Martin says:

    What do anti’s know about the real world they live in a make believe world filled with rainbows, unicorns, and crimimals that obey “gun free zone” signs.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      And the absolute craziest of those is the criminals obeying gun-free zones.

  6. avatar 'Liljoe says:

    So the point is an armed society is a polite society?

    1. avatar JoshinGA says:

      Bazinga!

    2. avatar Taylor TX says:

      But sadly I think this one is more about the journey from A to B rather than where you ended up.

    3. avatar FlaResident says:

      That right there

    4. avatar Bob says:

      Liberals are not polite. They feel like if they are impolite to a person with a firearm they might get shot. This just speaks to their misunderstanding of people who carry guns. Guns = Crazy and Dangerous

      1. avatar ThomasR says:

        Yep; just look at the ad-hominem attacks they always use to attack gun owners. “They are wanna be John Waynes itching to start shooting any one for any reason because they a bunch of red necked racists that are compensating for a 2′ inch d–k”.

        So when they imagine themselves actually spewing that kind of hate and vileness at a gun owner, they imagine that the gun owner would do just that, pull out their gun and start blazing away.

        Of course; for 99% of law abiding gun owners, that would not be the case. There is that 1%, but those would be the leftist liberal types that would do such a thing.

        1. avatar Cliff H says:

          “…bunch of red necked racists that are compensating for a 2′ inch d–k”.

          Thomas, I’m pretty sure you meant “…2″ (inch) d–k.” (Otherwise he’d have to carry a Barret.)

          Anyway, I can’t figure this John Wayne thing out. I’ve probably seen all of his movies, including the modern era police dramas, and I don’t recall a single incident where he just went around blazing away just for the Hell of it. He was always the good guy and he always shot people because they REALLY deserved to be shot.

        2. avatar ThomasR says:

          Oops; (2″) is what I meant. LOL

          No, for a liberal; demonizing John Wayne makes perfect sense because he is everything they hate about Gun owners and why they are Liberals. John Wayne is the image of personal responsibility, maturity, doing what’s right no matter the cost; even if it gets him killed. Carrying a gun, and using it to protect the innocent, the helpless and the weak; especially when he uses that gun in a movie as a private citizen without depending on the government to do so.

          Liberals are liberals because they are helpless, weak and defenseless. They don’t take responsibility for anything, especially their own self-defense. And the idea of standing up to a bad guy and fight them on their own terms, with a gun, is a nightmare to them. They might get hurt or even KILLED.

          No, it makes perfect sense they would try to put gun owners down by suggesting we are being like John Wayne. In their own mind, it is the most frightening thing they could be.

          And this is the perfect image of the chasm that exists between the gun -grabber and POTG. We will never see eye to because the worlds that we live are the difference between night and day; the chasm between the world of free men and women and the world of the subservient, the submissive and the virtual slave.

    5. avatar JAS says:

      ROTM (Right On The Money)! Back in my day people used to be VERY courteous out and about. Everyone said “hello mam, sir” in the street. Very few if any arguments between strangers. People knew better.

      Now people don’t even look at each other.

  7. avatar RetLEO says:

    More crybaby nonsense from the anti-2A crowd.

    1. avatar JR says:

      “More crybaby nonsense from the anti-2A crowd.”

      Posted on salon.com, that bastion of high order thinking, who would have thunk it?

      1. avatar Akira says:

        “Salon.com” is exactly what it sounds like: a bunch of yappy women whining about stupid crap.

  8. avatar Tom says:

    In a real world, sane people also don’t argue with idiots. So, I guess when in presence of liberals I have no rights at all…oh, wait.

  9. avatar John L. says:

    Huh.

    Next thing you know they’ll blame the NRA for the national debt.

    1. avatar Oxygenthief says:

      No, they will just say it’s Bush’s fault, along with Obamacare and Benghazi…

    2. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      The NRA made me lactose intolerant and is the reason my dog drags his ass on the carpet, those ba$tards ruin everything.

      1. avatar Toby in KS says:

        that was a coffee spitter!

  10. avatar Jim R says:

    Once again, perpetuating the myth that anyone who owns a gun is a crazed lunatic looking for an excuse to shoot someone…

    1. avatar Johnny says:

      +1

    2. avatar KingSarc48265 says:

      Exactly, I have never strapped on a seatbelt looking for something to crash my car into. I carry a lighter and have never burned down a building. I have never made bomb threats with my cellphone.
      But carrying a gun somehow means that I am always looking for someone to murder.

      1. Nailed it. These people think gun = barely restrained murderous intent.

  11. avatar Mk10108 says:

    Interesting article. Open carry, which I discourage, is the new anti smoking campaign. If you smoke I can’t breathe, if you open carry, I can’t exercise my right to free speech. Never would think open carry is actually duct tape for the masses.

    Not one word about freedom to choose lawful self protection.

    1. avatar JR says:

      Which is a stupid premise on their part, anyway…assuming that we are all just waiting to kill someone over verbal disagreements or rude comments.

      They really don’t understand the commitment to the use of force continuum folks that carry maintain.

      It’s disgusting enough when they get real data wrong. It may even be worse when they make assumptions like this and don’t get challenged (enough).

      1. avatar Jim R says:

        If they were really that scared of us, you’d think they’d stop running their mouths…

        1. Exactly, you can’t be that scared if you’re approaching someone and jacking your jaw at them.

        2. avatar gene says:

          I am one of those crazed gun carriers. I have been carrying since 1971 and have never shot anyone, but I have stopped crimes just by having my gun. I just showed it and the cowards ran.

        3. avatar Rich Grise says:

          I wish there were some way to collect reports like this, or at least count them somehow.

    2. avatar Cliff H says:

      Simple solution to the problem (possibly too simple for them to contemplate) – They also have the Constitutional right to carry. If armed people they disagree with and want to argue with frighten them so much they only have to strap on a pistol of their own to level the playing field.

  12. avatar Duke of Sharon says:

    Sounds like an anti cop statement. I thought we were the anti cop people.

  13. avatar Jeff Dege says:

    What is it that they want to do, that armed civilian prevents? Robbery? Assault? Murder?

    1. avatar JR says:

      Right.

      But remember that dumb a$$ op-ed piece that professor (in Idaho, if my memory serves) wrote a while back and shooting students and such…and students shooting each other in the line at the coffee shop over who gets served coffee first?

      That’s how they think. They think the gun just wants to shoot and kill people, and if we have one of those things NEARBY, why, we can’t help ourselves.

      It’s ludicrous on it’s face…and patently ridiculous. They should be openly derided and mocked for making such assertions.

      1. avatar Bob says:

        Correct. They think this because liberals are just generally filled with hate and anger.

        1. avatar Jim R says:

          More importantly, a lack of impulse control.

      2. avatar PeterC says:

        It’s called “projection.”

  14. avatar CLarson says:

    Replace “armed man” with “black man” in Heather’s story, and it sounds really similar to screeds written in the 60’s against desegregation.

    “Imagine you’re sitting in a restaurant and a loud group of black men come through the door. They are ostentatiously displaying their presence, making sure that everyone notices them. Would you feel safe or would you feel in danger? Would you feel comfortable confronting them? If you owned the restaurant could you ask them to leave?”

    Just sayin…

    1. avatar JoshinGA says:

      Any time I come across a particularly anti-gun comment that is based more on derogatory and baseless claims, I love inserting “black people” or “a gay man” everywhere they used “gun owner” in the commentary. The result nearly always shut the original comment maker down in their tracks.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      That really is excellent. Wish I could just once remain calm enough to say such a thing when so confronted, instead of simply murdering everyone as usual. Oh, wait, when DID that happen?

  15. avatar Paul G. says:

    I did have an employee at Lowe’s argue with me once while I was open carrying. He started by telling me my Glock 19 was a cool-looking cell phone. When I assured him it was not a phone, he suggested it could not be loaded, or that I was breaking some law. When I assured him otherwise, he was argumentative. I then confirmed that he was relatively new to the store, and asked him to speak to the other employees about the “scary long-haired guy with the gun” that frequents the store. Many of them had discussed their gun preferences with me upon seeing my own gun, I guess seeing a firearm didn’t scare them off either.

    1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      long-haired guy

      Well, there’s your problem. :>)

      1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

        I hate to say it, but I probably would have just said, “thanks, it’s my favorite cell phone.”

      2. avatar Paul G. says:

        The beard and biker attire might have had a hand in it as well.

  16. avatar jsallison says:

    So if I’m openly armed you’ll be hesitant to get in my face and insult me when you assume my political views don’t align with yours? I’m not seeing a problem here. Save me from having to get medieval on you with my quarterstaff.

    1. avatar JR says:

      Yep. Sounds like a win.

      In downtown Denver a few years ago, my wife, children and I were walking on the sidewalk going to a restaurant for lunch. A college age woman standing on the corner asked if I wanted a flier from her eco-terror group du jour.

      When I politely said, “No thanks” and tried to be on my way, she got within my personal space and started yelling at me for not caring about the environment enough. (Huh? She knew nothing about me, how we lived and what we did, daily, to ‘help the planet.’)

      I stopped walking and faced off with her. This allowed my family to continue on and ‘separate’ from her nonsense. I don’t remember what I said to her, but I said something then disengaged myself.

      She hurled a few epithets at me as she returned to her corner and began eyeballing her next mark.

      Had I been open carrying, I’ll bet money she would not have done ANY of that. And, as stated…win-win from my perspective.

      1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

        “Had I been open carrying, I’ll bet money she would not have done ANY of that.”

        Or if you had been a large, scary looking, black man, you should’ve tried harder to be black-er that day.

        1. avatar JR says:

          I”ll have to work on that. Any suggestions for someone of Irish / German / Russian heritage?

        2. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

          Facial tattoos. Maybe put corn syrup on your shirt, so as to look like dried blood.

          People tend shy away from “those people.”

  17. avatar Tim Freeman says:

    Wow, the linked article makes me want to puke.

    The anti gun lobbyists sincerely hate us and want us destroyed, no doubt about it.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      For them, it is all about the violence!

    2. avatar Yellow Devil says:

      Yeah they are a certain degree of “special” alright. I made a comment on a forum not long ago that anti-2a politicians make laws that only hurt the law abiding citizen and ultimately doesn’t address the core problem. Next thing I know, I get a response from a hoplophobe saying that there was no such thing as “law-abiding” citizen, chastised my perceived lack of girth and width and ended it by saying he hopes I shoot my children (which I don’t have) with my firearms. It was brilliant.

  18. avatar Alan Longnecker says:

    Typical liberal b.s. They want to murder everyone who disagrees with them, so we must want to also.

    1. avatar General Zod says:

      Exactly. Most of their anti-gun arguments boil down to them projecting their own insecurities and lack of self-control onto others.

      1. avatar JR says:

        Most of their arguments on ANY topic bely their utter contempt for humanity in general.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        And hate. Although it is obvious, we must remember to mention their hate. Sometimes it seems that everyone who protests against 2A should be declared prohibited persons as a result. And placed on the no-fly list.

    2. avatar JR says:

      “Typical liberal b.s. “ from salon.com.

      That site is nothing but democraticunderground dressed in (slightly) fancier clothes.

    3. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      Interesting how commonly people get that vibe. A few months ago a leftist colleague (most of mine are) was going off on a list of people he’d like to beat up. When I told him I know several people I’d prefer to avoid but didn’t wish violence on any of them, he genuinely looked taken aback, as if he either didn’t believe me or couldn’t fathom how I could think that way.

      1. avatar JR says:

        “going off on a list of people he’d like to beat up. “

        Um. Wow. What the…

        And they say WE are the ones with the problem? Ah, projection; I see.

        1. avatar General Zod says:

          Liberalism is based on jealousy and anger. This sort of thing is hardly surprising.

        2. avatar ThomasR says:

          Yep General Zod; but their jealousy and anger is based in feeling powerless, ineffectual and inadequate.

          The POTG are the image of self-sufficiency, responsibility and maturity; everything they are not; and they hate us for that. and they want us dead. because of it.

  19. avatar peirsonb says:

    I’m just getting tired, in general, of the “OMG! NRA!” crap that they keep floating out. Any more when I read a piece anthropomorphizing the NRA all I hear is: Token yelling: “Jessie Jackson IS NOT the president of black people!”

    1. avatar doesky2 says:

      We’re under their skin and messing with their (pea sized) brain.

      Lovin it!

  20. avatar Clark says:

    As more than one parent noted, what disturbed kids and parents was the carrier’s obvious effort to provoke reaction. I agree with the mother who observed that if he had just sat down and watched the game with others it wouldn’t have bothered most people.

    On the other hand, the teary mom who reported how frightened her son was at bed time, wondering if the man “wanted to kill me,” presents a lesson for all parents: Don’t let the scare-mongers shape your children’s view of guns. I’ll bet she has taught her son how to be safe crossing the street and that he doesn’t have to panic every time he sees a car. I’ll bet he knows when and where it’s safe to swing a bat and when it becomes a dangerous weapon. Lots of people have been killed with bats, but that boy wanted to hold one and play with one. Moms (and Dads) need to teach kids about guns the same way they do about cars and bats.

  21. avatar Danny Griffin says:

    NRA’s scary “open carry” craze

    LMAO. The NRA is against open carry!

    1. avatar Izmosis says:

      Work the name of the Bogeyman in at every opportunity…whether it’s factual or not, relevant or not, that’s the MO.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Absolutely … the first and most important tactic of gun grabbers and progressives is to demonize the “enemy”.

  22. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

    “So when it comes right down to it, when you are in the presence of one of these armed citizens, you don’t really have any rights at all.”

    I don’t carry to protect your rights, I carry to protect mine. And it made you leave me alone, see, it worked.

    1. avatar Johnny says:

      best.answer.ever!

  23. avatar former water walker says:

    I guess perception is reality. Carry on & don’t act like an a##hole.

  24. avatar launchpadmech says:

    If that’s what it takes for these power control nuts to leave me alone fine.

  25. avatar cwp says:

    You shouldn’t confront a man with a gun. In fact, you shouldn’t “confront” anyone. If you can’t approach someone in a friendly and nonconfrontational way then don’t bleeping approach them. Say it with me: “Avoid doing stupid things with stupid people in stupid places.” Nothing good is going to come of “confronting” strangers with obvious strong feelings about politics that are opposed to yours.

    George Zimmerman almost got sent to the big house for doing something less breathtakingly stupid than what this author implicitly suggests is a good idea. If your plan of action makes George Zimmerman‘s judgment look good by comparison, then you need to rethink your ideas about appropriate ways to deal with people.

    1. avatar ThomasR says:

      So cwp; in what way was GZ being “breathtakingly stupid”? Until the Liberal media got ahold of what they thought was a white man shooting a black man for assaulting him, (then GZ became the “white Hispanic”), the police and the AG didn’t see any reason to charge GZ with a crime, they had determined that GZ was justified in using lethal force in defense of himself from an unprovoked assault. Then a jury of his peers, also determined he was justified in defending himself from an unprovoked assault.

      And if you read the jury trial and the actual facts of the case; any reasonable person,(underline reasonable) would determine GZ was justified in using lethal force in defending himself from an unprovoked assault.

      Basically, GZ is very a good example of the Liberal/progressives agenda to demonizing gun owners as being white racists and that they are out of control maniacs just itching to shoot minorities and liberals.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Agreed, without exception. Well said.

        And, given that the widely predicted race riots did not materialize, I’d guess all segments of society agreed, save some rabble rousers looking for publicity.

        1. avatar Steve Truffer says:

          I thought he meant the dunk driving/ speeding across state lines that happened afterward.

      2. avatar cwp says:

        The problem with George Zimmerman’s decision-making happened before he decided to defend himself: he shouldn’t’ve been out following “suspicious characters” around in the first place. Had Zimmerman stayed home with his wife that night, he wouldn’t’ve had to kill someone, he wouldn’t have been put through the stress and expense of a jury trial for murder, and he wouldn’t now have a lot of people thinking he got away with murder. No matter how justified he was in shooting, I can’t help but think that if he could go back in time and do it differently, he’d do so and save himself a whole lot of anguish.

        I believe in defending myself and my family when doing so is necessary and justified — but I also believe in doing my best to ensure that I don’t have to do so. I’d rather be tried by twelve than carried by six, but I’d prefer not having to choose between those two. Zimmerman chose to do something that, while well-intended, ultimately resulted in his having to make that choice. That wasn’t smart. It’s not nearly as stupid as what the author of Salon’s article suggests — starting confrontations with strangers over their politics — but it was still dumb.

        1. avatar Shawn F. says:

          THIS^^^^

        2. avatar ThomasR says:

          What you are showing cwp, is that you didn’t read the facts of the case. The police did, the jury did, there was nothing in GZ behavior that provoked the confrontation. Which is why he was fully absolved of ALL charges.

          GZ was in a Neighborhood Watch program approved by his HOA. GZ was known by the local police as such. GZ had made a number of calls to the police in similar situations about people acting suspiciously because their had been a number of break ins of the apartments in the complex.

          GZ never made face contact to TM. GZ was walking back to his truck when TM, after doubling back from his own apartment, confronted GZ and started beating GZ head on concrete.

          But if you want to blame GZ for the bad decisions made by TM, that’s your choice; but it doesn’t change the facts that if TM had simply continued to his apartment instead of doubling back and initiating the physical assault on GZ, TM would be alive today.

        3. avatar cwp says:

          I think we’re talking past each other.

          Let’s stipulate that I’m not saying that George Zimmerman committed a crime. (He certainly didn’t commit second-degree murder — an absurd overreach by Angela Corey.) I’m not saying Trayvon Martin didn’t make any bad decisions (boy, did he ever). I’m not saying Zimmerman initiated the confrontation — hell, even if he had initiated a confrontation, he might still have been justified in using force to defend himself. Just because someone walks up to you and asks what you’re doing doesn’t give you the right to beat their head against the sidewalk.

          What I’m saying is that it’s better not to be tried than it is to be acquitted. It’s better to avoid having your life in danger than it is to defend yourself successfully when your life is in danger. However laudable George Zimmerman’s motives were in going out to look for criminals, neither his life nor his family were in danger, and he put himself in harm’s way despite that. It was a bad call. It would have been a bad call if he’d never been arrested, charged, or tried. It would have been a bad call if he’d never even encountered Trayvon Martin. It just wouldn’t have been as newsworthy.

        4. avatar ThomasR says:

          Well,cwp; it really comes down to what does a person believe what is a citizens roll in helping to provide safety and security to ones community. My belief is that a societies safety starts with an individual taking responsibility to help provide that security as the first line of defense.

          This is why I have been a volunteer fire fighter and I plan to be again. This is why I have called the police to report on suspicious characters, just as GZ did. This is why I intervened when a man was trying to kidnap and possibly kill his ex-girlfriend.

          This is the idea behind the citizens arrest; it is based on the idea and belief that the citizen of ones community is the first line of defense in stopping and even arresting a person committing a crime.

          This is what is the basis of being citizen militia; it is to provide security and protection to ones community. whether on an individual basis in confronting and even arresting a single criminal; up to and including fighting as a well trained and equipped fighting force on the battle field.

          But there are a lot of people that believe like you cwp; and we are a more savage; brutal and less civilized society because of it.

        5. avatar LarryinTX says:

          CWP, There was a lot of ranting about Martin having every right to wander the neighborhood in the middle of the night, and much less notice of the fact that Zimmerman also had every right to do what he was doing. Whether I would do the same would depend on the situation, which we will never determine because everyone is telling a different story. Where they all come together is that neither Zimmerman nor Martin hd done anything illegal until Martin, a fan of MMA action physically attacked Zimmerman, who was doing nothing wrong. Everyone agreed, and that was what the trial rotated around, and the only reason for the trial was the media circus trying to create a riot.

          I would accept your condemnation of Zimmerman as an idiot after you walk a few miles in his shoes.

        6. avatar Jack Brown says:

          He shouldn’t have been going grocery shopping? Because that’s where he was heading.

    2. avatar Rich Grise says:

      Yeah, what he said.

  26. avatar Kyle in CT says:

    You get a lot of people randomly coming up to you on the street and starting an argument? ‘Cause I don’t care who you are, that’s unacceptable behavior. In fact, if someone starts randomly “confronting” me in public, I won’t be interested in what they have to say, I will be trying to figure out if THEY are about to attack ME.

  27. avatar launchpadmech says:

    I also feel that ALL! The people like him hang out at bars and discuss guns while getting drunk, smoking pot and driving home. This is MD.

  28. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

    Actually you have the right to go buy your own gun and open carry it. Is that too hard for the anti? Ohhh wait, it is… Look at this baby!

  29. avatar ValleyForge77 says:

    I didn’t have to read past the first word in that article… “Imagine”

    That’s what they do… They imagine ….All the people. Holding hands and singing kumbayah in perfect harmony.

    I as much as anyone wish that could be reality, but unfortunately reality dictates otherwise.

    But they are not concerned with reality… only what they can ‘imagine’ and ‘feel’, in their imaginary little world.

    I guarantee you the first time any of these elitists ‘imaginaries’ gets assaulted, their loved one raped, etc… they will get a nice slap in the face with reality and will be the first ones screaming for their rights back.

    Like little retarded children. They can’t see past their own little bubble. I wish they would just stay in their own world and lick the windows, and leave me and my rights alone.

    1. avatar JR says:

      Which is all well enough, truthfully, so long as they are willing to live in the imagined world they create.

      But, they don’t stop there…they somehow think they have the ‘right’ to dictate that the grown-ups live in that world, too.

      It’s really kind of solipsist if you think about it…beyond narcissistic.

      1. avatar ValleyForge77 says:

        Damn JR. Made me look up solipsist. Excellent usage sir.

  30. avatar launchpadmech says:

    Our day is coming. Politics can’t use the race card anymore as a smoke screen so it’s guns. I want to know what they are hiding. Hmmm.

  31. avatar New Continental Army says:

    Salon.com. Yup.

    1. avatar Mediocrates says:

      another reason to relegate Microsoft to the dung pit of history.

  32. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    At first I thought he was saying that all cops and everyone in the military were insane, but then I realized he was just talking out of his ass.

  33. avatar Bob4 says:

    Hmm, up until February, I lived in a liberal state. Now, I live in Arizona. In Oregon, I had to watch what I said, for stating an opinion contrary to the Democrat viewpoint could have cost my job, friends, and more. in Portland, they have groups who will try to provoke violence on people with different opinions. Now that I am in Arizona, I have never felt so free to speak out, to debate if necessary, and guess what, AZ has constitutional carry. I see people open carry and “print” every day, and guess what, they are friendly and respectful of others.

  34. avatar Pascal says:

    This is a perfect example of “learned fear” — the media, Hollywood et al have helped frame this mindset.

  35. avatar rlc2 says:

    Couple observations:

    1. Never can tell the facts any more with most news reporting. Especially based on hearsay afterward.
    2. However, if this guy WAS walking around and boasting about OC then he was an idiot who again while entitled to carry and entitled to his free speech is still an idiot. And if we responsible gun owners dont point that out from time to time we lose the respect of anyone with commomn-sense who has NOT been following 2A rights and doesn’t see:
    3. Salon is not a news outlet. Its a far left echo chamber for the wannabe kool kids klub who are typicaly younger nitwits who cant think for themselves and need to know what the slogans are to belong. The author is simply a slightly sharper tool in that very dimly lit shed playing along for a few bucks, and if you follow the links to her site in Santa Monica called hullaballoo you will see the same stale half baked ranting you heard on the news during the Occutard protests. Some rich mommys tattooed over-self affirmed precious snowflake trust fund kid, most likely. Yawn.

    1. avatar Noishkel says:

      No one should forgot that Salon hosted an article advocating socialism/communism. I really enjoyed the claim that communism didn’t actually killed over a 100 million people in the 20th. I guess they just all fell over. Or maybe they think that it was capitalist assassins that did it all.

  36. avatar sota says:

    “I DO NOT WANT THEIR PROTECTION.”

    Why do antis always assume that I want or desire to protect anyone but myself?
    Perhaps they failed basic English?
    PERSONAL Protection
    SELF Defense

    My goal and desire is not to protect the public or society. I am not paid to “serve and protect.” I am to protect only myself, my family, and if they are with me at the time my friends. You as the randomly encountered sheeple are not what I desire to protect.

    1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      I like to think that we are good, honorable, and decent people — and those qualities mean we will at least make a minimal effort to help each other out when disaster strikes.

      Notice that I said, “when disaster strikes” … I did not say “rescue each other from foolish choices”. If I see a violent criminal attacking a person who is obviously unable to legally carry concealed or who has disabilities which would greatly hamper their ability to responsibly and effectively use a firearm for self defense (such as an elderly person or a mom with a baby in her arms), I am inclined to help out IF I was 1000% certain who was the attacker and who was the victim.

    2. avatar ThomasR says:

      I was running in the neighborhood when I saw in the distance a local gang-banger dragging a woman kicking and screaming into his car; another woman was screaming “he’s gonna kill her!

      “So what should I do? Not get involved? Intervene and maybe get hurt or killed? He is a gang-banger, Hmmm. Decisions, decisions. Maybe I’ll just keep running and F–k all on getting involved, screw it, I don’t care if maybe she’s a mother, maybe she’ll be raped and tortured for days before until she’s finally killed, Maybe she deserves it. Naw: I won’t get involved.”

      This is the mind set of way to many people, and I feel ashamed to call such people fellow human beings.

      So I intervened; the man stopped trying to drag the woman into his car; I didn’t need to get physical or draw a gun; the women ran to their apartment up the street. I followed them to make sure they get to safety, the gang banger didn’t try to engage me. The cops showed up, I gave a report and I never heard anything more. I was making sure to carry an extra gun and kept an under-folder AK-47 handy just incase the GB and his gang tried anything for the next six months.

      It turned out the woman was trying to break up with the man and he was doing his “machismo” thing and would rather kill the one he loved rather than let her go. (Go figure).

      I would do it again.

  37. avatar Defiant Deity says:

    Salon….That’s the same rag that printed an article telling us why we have it all wrong about communism and everything we know about it is a myth. They then go on to tell us how great communism really is.

  38. avatar launchpadmech says:

    Thanks I needed that.

  39. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    “So when it comes right down to it, when you are in the presence of one of these armed citizens, you don’t really have any rights at all.” – Heather Digby Parton

    I have something that is sure to make Ms. Parton’s head explode: every single person she passes in public could very well be armed (carrying concealed) — and a good number of them could be violent criminals or felons. Does that mean she “don’t really have any rights at all” anywhere in public?

    1. avatar Old Ben turning in grave says:

      ‘ Does that mean she “don’t really have any rights at all” anywhere in public?’

      She would probably agree that this is true. Open carry is particularly icky to them because at least concealed carry lets them soothe themselves by playing pretend. And to the brains behind the soccer moms, it helps them normalize the idea of a gun-free society. What’s not for an authoritarian to love here?

      Sorry, preaching to the choir.

  40. avatar TXGal says:

    There is nothing in the Constitution to the right to feel comfortable with the legal actions of others in public. Really fed up with these candy ass people, .
    Have to wonder if the same panic would happen if it had been a woman open carry in the same situation (assuming reports of brandishing were false) seriously doubt it.

  41. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    Soooo…….I’m guessing this guy has never hung out at the local gun shop (or TTAG, for that matter)? Massive arguments play out daily there over calibers, brands, actions, materials; not to mention the political discussions over OC vs. CC, common sense vs. absolutism, you name it. Hell, even discussions where two parties agree on every point can become animated. That’s part and parcel of being passionate about a serious subject. Yet, never do these exchanges result in gunfire, nor are such exchanges preempted for fear of gunfire, despite the ubiquity of armed participants. Curious, that.

    1. avatar Danny Griffin says:

      Perhaps the author has been watching James Yeager videos. Maybe we should give her the benefit of the doubt. 😉

    2. avatar General Zod says:

      I guarantee this guy would never, ever darken the doorway of a gun shop. After all, with all those icky guns in there, he’s bound to get shot!

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Well, he only thinks that because of the overwhelming evidence that proves everyone who goes into a gun shop DOES get shot.

  42. avatar Gyufygy says:

    I can’t remember where I saw it, but I recently read that the initial story about the Georgia park incident was misleading as all hell because the fellow in question NEVER ONCE shouted anything about his gun. The article was quoting a woman’s INTERPRETATION of his ACTIONS, i.e. openly carrying in the park. However, every numbnuts reporter since hasn’t bothered to note to distinction and has ran with the misrepresentation that he was shooting his mouth off (pun slightly intended).

  43. avatar Shandower says:

    This is one of those things where I keep thinking that thing about “if us ‘gun bullies’ were actually as bad as they say we are, then how are there any of them left?”

    1. avatar RockOnHellChild says:

      If gun people were as “uncivilized” and “barbaric” was we are described by our detractors then we would have killed their men, taken their land, and turned their women and children into slaves long ago.

      That’s how real “uncivilized barbarians” roll.

  44. avatar dh34 says:

    My darling Ms. Parton,

    I sense that your constitutional dilemma is really an emotional dilemma, and may I suggest that you turn to the classics for help. I once read a great essay by VADM Stockdale about how he coped with his captivity in North Vietnam through his study of philosophy, in particular stoicism. You see this fear you have resides within you and you control it. You should not be compelling an individual exercising their right to compromise because you are unable to control your emotions. Beyond that, you should perhaps seek counseling.

  45. avatar DerryM says:

    I find this argument that “when you are in the presence of one of these armed citizens, you don’t really have any rights at all.” to be insidious. It has all the elements the anti’s typically employ to become another standard in their repertoire that demonizes lawful gun owners. It implies that an “armed citizen” would readily and likely use the carried Arm to threaten or harm an unarmed citizen who dares “confront” them over any matter disagreed upon in public. It ignores the fact that at bottom line such an action would be illegal in the first place.. It paints armed citizens as basically irrational and criminal. It aims at evoking unreasoned fear and loathing and flatly states any armed citizen has an agenda of intending to deny others their rights.
    This argument has the potential to gain traction with the uncommitted because it presses all the buttons of emotionalism, fear, stereotype, victimization and denial of established facts.

    1. avatar Paul G. says:

      But what about MY right to not have to hear their bullsh$t? (sarc on).

      1. avatar DerryM says:

        Well, just pull out your gun and tell them to STFU or you’ll kneecap the 4 year old!

  46. avatar Sixpack70 says:

    I’ve almost never been confronted and debated about anything in public. Am I missing out on some random street debates that people are having?

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Well, once or twice I have been “confronted” by someone clearly utilizing controlled substances, on subjects I was not certain of except that they contained many and varied affronts to him for which I should give him money. And that was before I started carrying every day, and a good portion of WHY I started carrying every day.

    2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      I don’t open carry, because that’s illegal in Texas (for handguns), but occasionally I’ll wear an NRA t-shirt or sweatshirt. With the prevalence of concealed carry here, a guy in NRA apparel is probably assumed to be carrying. I’ve been approached a few times while wearing and carrying, sometimes by antis, and it’s gone well. Not that they come away suddenly pro-gun, but maybe with some new data points to account for, which might get them to do some thinking later on. Sometimes the key to persuasion isn’t to compel belief, but to suggest doubt.

      1. avatar dempsterdumpster says:

        I like the way you put that.

  47. avatar Hannibal says:

    ““In the real world, sane people do not confront armed men and women…”

    First of all, bullshit. Second of all, what about the insane people?

  48. avatar C says:

    She must not be able to trust herself not to try to kill those with whom she disagrees. You know who else liked to do that? Stalin.

  49. avatar M. J. says:

    After reading that article on Japan and their gun control laws. I say we ship all the Antis there and they can experience a true ploice state. They will have no opinion that matters there and they may go to jail for expressing them.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      The concept of a “police state” in Japan is amusing. The police are not armed, the people are not armed, the MOB is armed (Yakuza). So if a police state exists, the police are not part of it.

  50. avatar John in Ohio says:

    There is disagreement among some gun owners over exercising the right of open carry. Crafty antis exploit this and, I believe, we will see this become more of a campaign. The crafty ones are pushing the emotional masses of useful idiots in an effort to use open carry to divide and conquer. It’s a strategy that has worked well for them on other targets.

  51. avatar Toby in KS says:

    The video was edited to make a big deal of nothing… because the parents at the game made a big deal out of nothing.

    The officer said they would not tolerate threatening behavior, AND they didn’t do anything about the man with the gun because he did nothing threatening. The parents at the game are the people who felt threatened, and by “barricading” their children and themselves behind a nylon screen (the stupidity of this is incomprehensible. On several levels. Stupid is the only word for it), they built fear into their children… who thought the man with the gun wanted to kill them. That’s not the gun owner’s fault. That is the fault of the parents.

    This is one of the dumbest things I have ever seen on the news. The real story is the herd mentality overreaction of the parents at the game. Not the guy with the gun.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I kinda gathered the overreaction was from ONE parent. The others, not so much. Might be wrong, wasn’t there.

  52. avatar Stuki says:

    But as long as the scary open carry guy is also member of a group of taxfeeders with a history of having their random, unjustified kills dismissed then everything is a-ok in progtard land…..

  53. avatar Ian says:

    The fact that they refuse to acknowledge and continue to deny like bleating sheep is that a person in todays society that open carry’s in a casual manner in public has a far greater chance of being level headed and casual than the population as a whole. When they open carry they accept that they have a good chance of being confronted by the police for no justifiable reason, and they are probably prepared to explain themselves. Likely, they look forward to a conversation on the topic.

    On the flip side, people who’s minds are unable to grasp this simple reality are often of the mindset that they should be able to go wag their finger angrily in the face of anybody they disagree with. They yell at their neighbors when they put their trash cans out to early or park an RV in front of their house for more than 8 hours. They name call and harass people who disagree with them peacefully at their protests. In short, they are afraid to go accost people who are carrying because they are unwilling to go talk with them in a civil manner.

  54. avatar Alpo says:

    I posted this on Salon’s facebook:

    Prejudice, Intolerance and Irrational Fear in the Gun Rights Debate.
    (cliff notes at the bottom, if you’re in a rush)

    Starting with the article’s opening paragraph:

    “Imagine you’re sitting in a restaurant and a loud group of armed men come through the door.”
    -Happens every day. Often, they’re even wearing really cool costumes.

    “They are ostentatiously displaying their weapons, making sure that everyone notices them.”
    -At the moment, that’s probably true. Many of these citizens are activists and are trying to make a political statement. I expect that as they gain ground and exposure, the sight of a non-uniformed American carrying a firearm the way that uniformed Americans do will become normalized and the “ostentatious” displays will go away.

    “Would you feel safe or would you feel in danger?”
    -Generally quite safe. I know some people get nervous around police even if they haven’t done anything. That’s probably justified, given the history of police brutality and intimidation, but I tend not to worry about it too much. And if the men AND women in question are just legally armed citizens, I’d be even less worried[1].

    “Would you feel comfortable confronting them?”
    -Why would I want to confront them? Also, does that mean the author feels comfortable confronting unarmed people? What’s going on here?

    “If you owned the restaurant could you ask them to leave?”
    -Again, why would I want to? Because I disagree with their political views? What kind of intolerant garbage is that? Moreover, would that restaurant owner also be inclined to ask police officers to leave? If not, his/her naiveté in buying into the official line about cops = good guys / citizens = bad guys is beyond belief.

    “These are questions that are facing more and more Americans in their everyday lives as “open carry” enthusiasts descend on public places ostensibly for the sole purpose of exercising their constitutional right to do it. It just makes them feel good, apparently.”
    -That’s like saying that a gay couples[2] being all “public” about their relationships, let alone suing for the right to marry, are just doing so because it “makes them feel good”.
    It’s a ridiculous assertion that both belies the prejudices of the author and treats a natural, civil and constitutionally protect right as if it’s mere caprice, just because she happens to not like how it makes her feel.
    Talk about bigotry.

    The rest of the article is more of the same: I don’t like to see guns (except on cops), so these people are oppressing me.

    Honestly, if you substituted gun owner with any racial minority, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation and didn’t change a single other word, this article would fit right in with your standard neo-nazi rhetoric.
    Really shameful.

    [1]I say less worried because study after study has confirmed that citizens with carry licenses are FAR less likely to commit crimes than both the general public and even police officers.

    See for instance- http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba324
    -5.7 times less likely to be arrested for violent offenses than the general public
    -14 times less likely to be arrested for nonviolent offenses than the general public

    And also- https://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/10/dean-weingarten/cops-more-likely-to-murder%E2%80%A8/
    -Police are 3x more likely to commit (an unjustified) murder than are citizens with carry licenses. Of course that number is skewed by the fact that police shootings are more likely to be ruled “justifiable”.

    [2]This is an apposite analogy because:
    A. The right to keep and bear arms for self-defense is FAR more long-standing, clear and settled than the right of gay couples to marry.

    B. People who oppose gay marriage are generally dismissed as bigots who ignore empirical data and wish to deny others their rights simply on the basis of prejudice and an emotional/visceral response to homosexuality.

    Well, it turns out that there is much less evidence about the harms of law-abiding* citizens being able to carry firearms (in fact, the evidence is almost entirely on the pro-2nd Amendment side) than there is about the harms of gay marriage.

    I won’t bore you (even further) with a bunch of additional data, I’ll just leave this link that you can read at your leisure, should you be so inclined- http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/gun-facts/
    *This is an important distinction. Those of us who’ve never committed a crime and have gone through the vetting process to obtain a carry license are of no danger to our fellow citizens and, as the data linked above indicates, we’re actually much safer to be around than the average citizen or law enforcement officer.
    Further, the notion that denying us our right to carry will somehow prevent criminals and madmen from committing crimes with guns is almost as bad claiming that preventing gay couple from marrying will somehow reduce prison rape and pedophilia. It’s a baseless, illogical and offensively ignorant argument.
    I say almost, because there is actually a strong correlation between the issuance of carry licenses and crime REDUCTION.

    Cliffs:
    -The right to armed self-defense is a basic, human right. Such rights are not subject to popular opinion.
    -Citizens with carry licenses are of no threat to the public and are probably a strong deterrent to actually criminals.
    -Anti-gun activists have forsaken facts, reason and accountability in favor of uninformed opinion, prejudice and the primacy of THEIR feelings.
    -Anti-gun activists are privileged bigots, seriously.

  55. avatar Lolinski says:

    What a conundrum.

    If you OC they are too scared to verbaly attack(=confront) you. If you CC they don’t know thus you miss out on a fun and heated discussion.

    First world problems 🙁

  56. avatar Anonymous says:

    So when it comes right down to it, when you are in the presence of one of these armed citizens, you don’t really have any rights at all.”

    You don’t have any rights over them… that is correct. You don’t have a right to make them do what you want to do, make them believe and say what you want them to believe and say. Everyone has rights, you included, but you don’t have a right over them.

  57. avatar Dr. Kenneth Noisewater says:

    Heather Digby Parton? Didn’t her uncle write the bulk of the TV series _Branded_?

    She’s as dumb as her cousin Larry…

  58. avatar scoolbubba says:

    All I have to do to get people to never bother me is wear a gun in plain sight?

    Sign me up.

    I like dogs…they know when to shut up.

  59. avatar DougR says:

    It appears Ms. Digby feels that removing the right to openly carry will not impact the right to bear arms.

    I wonder if she would feel the same way if we dismantled her right to free speech piece by piece the same way.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email