101986099-watts.1910x1000

“It’s official,” Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America jefe Shannon Watts pronounces at huffingtonpost.com, “the phrase ‘open carry’ has entered the American lexicon. That’s because gun extremists from Virginia to Washington to Texas and all across the country have started showing up in restaurants, state capitols, and other public places openly carrying loaded semiautomatic rifles. Occasionally donning kilts or gas masks and other attention-getting attire, these extremists look as though they are headed to battle instead of visiting their legislators or picking up milk at their local Kroger grocery store.” And so it begins: a rant that reveals what really worries Watts . . .

Shannon’s use of the term “gun extremists” is the first clue that she’s running scared. Deploying it here is a calculated risk, or, if you prefer, a desperate gamble. Watts is hoping the term will drive a wedge between America’s gun-owning silent majority — who’d no more open carry that appear naked in public — and gun rights advocates. At the same time, she’s appealing to her base: non-gun owners who see guns as an unnecessary evil.

Yes but . . .

Do gun owners who don’t open carry oppose open carry? I doubt it. Do gun-averse Americans share Shannon’s virulent antipathy to open carry? Probably not. In the deeply deluded heart of gun control-friendly America, open carry is a non-issue. It just doesn’t happen, Out of sight, out of mind. Blue state anti-gunners are less concerned about open carry than they are about ebola.

So why does Shannon bother crusading against open carry? Because it’s a visible, direct and growing threat to her civilian disarmament jihad.

Why are we seeing these open carry displays more and more often? Because the radical rhetoric of the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) leadership tells us that “the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” And that myth propels the idea that a loaded AK-47 is necessary when dining at Raising Cane’s Chicken Fingers, just in case you encounter a bad guy.

Again, I smell desperation. Watts’ attempt to portray open carriers as deeply paranoid people powered by the evil gun lobby — standard-issue anti-gun agitprop — fails the smell test. Open carry advocates schlepping rifle into fast food joints and down city streets may look a little or a lot scruffy around the edges, but they don’t shoot people. That’s a big problem for an anti-gunner hell bent on open carry demonization.

Thanks to the gun lobby’s insidious and formerly unchecked influence in our state legislatures, open carry is legal in more than 40 states. And in a majority of those states, it’s perfectly legal to open carry a long gun with absolutely no training, permitting, or even a minimum age requirement.

See what she’s doing there? Because people who open carry aren’t criminals or crazies Shannon has to prove that they’re potential criminals and crazies. It’s the same strategy employed by the Coalition to Prevent Gun Violence; who labels anyone who isn’t an obvious gang banger who shoots someone “another good guy with a gun.”

Truth be told, Watts’ anti-open carry hysteria is completely manufactured. Again, where are the legions of open carry killers stalking the land? Nowhere. When it comes to “gun crime,” open carry is a non-issue. The following paragraph reveals that Watts understands the need to frame open carry in a wider context, to make it scarier.

Add to that cocktail of crazy the fact that our lax federal gun laws allow criminals and other dangerous people to easily access firearms. Given that millions of guns each year are sold without a criminal background check, there is no way to know if a person who is openly carrying a semiautomatic rifle is a responsible gun owner, or if that person is a threat to moms and our children (and the gas masks don’t help either).

Open carry is a scary thing – right until it isn’t. At some point, anti-gun observers realize that an openly carried firearm is not a threat to their life or liberty. At some point, the sight of a gun on the hip of a fellow citizen becomes normal. It may take a bit longer for the public to become comfortable with a slung AR, but yes, that too.

The more law-abiding people who open carry, the less guns cause fear amongst non-gun owners. The less fear they have, the less likely they are to join a political crusade against firearm ownership or carry. Open carry normalization could sound the death knell of anti-gun extremism – if you forgive the expression.

Open carry extremists have shined a bright light on the NRA’s vision for the future of America, and it’s not pretty. Moms won’t let the concerted efforts by the gun lobby and open carry extremists to put our families and communities at risk go unchecked. With rights come responsibilities, and for the safety and security of our restaurants, state capitols, and other public places, we must push back on armed intimidation. After all, there are no panic buttons for the public.

Hang on. If there aren’t any panic buttons for the public — assuming 911 service is down — doesn’t that leave the public defenseless? Shouldn’t they have a tool that allows them to defend themselves against a lethal threat? And if they had that tool, wouldn’t it be a good idea to carry it openly to deter attacks, and protect their right to have it by exercising that right publicly?

Shannon gets it. And it terrifies her. Reason enough to open carry, I reckon. You?

Recommended For You

202 Responses to What Really Scares Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America’s Shannon Watts

  1. I make it a special point to speak to open carry guys while I’m on duty whenever possible, and to thank them for exercising their rights. I would do it myself sometimes if department policy didn’t forbid it.

    • I’d open carry, but considering King County and especially Seattle are primarily responsible for passing I-594, it would be a good way to have a lot of annoying conversations I’d prefer not to have. If attitudes were different, I would definitely be on board.

      • +1000, every time I have open carried down town at places like Pike Place or Union square I get accosted. Blows my mind that someone would be dumb enough to pick a fight with someone open carrying a gun. Thankfully I’ve kept my cool every time but on more than one occasion I’ve had some idiot come after me for carrying down town. It’s gotten pretty attention getting. Best to go concealed.

        • Handgun or rifle?

          If people are gonna OC rifles it’s probably better in groups where it’s pretty obviously for political demonstration reasons. Handgun, easier for people to understand the self defense piece. I never thought of seattle people as the kind to accost someone though.

        • Interesting. My experience has been completely different. But Pikes Place, if it’s in Seattle?, probably explains it. The Liberal/ Progressive crazy is strong in that area.

          I carry in Albuquerque, NM. You get a fair amount of tree hugging gun hating liberal types, especially around the University, but no one has approached me about OC’ing a pistol in the last seven years, beyond some that thanked me for doing so. Cops haven’t bothered me. Nor tried “swatting” me.

          Yep, NM, a Desert (gun owners) Paradise.

        • Somehow I find I’m not surprised that a lack of sense of self up reservation goes along with the rest of the enforced helpless liberal mindset…

        • Well yeah, Pike Place is smack dab in the middle of downtown Seattle. You will get shit for OCing.

          Just a year or two ago, a guy was OCing a wheelgun just a few blocks down from Pike on 2nd st, trying to get on a metro bus. Somebody followed him onto the bus, heckling him the whole time, and actually tried to start a fight with the guy over his pistol. Wish I could find the story, but Google isn’t being very helpful on this one.

          The behavior of anti-OC people is sometimes completely bizarre. They accuse people legally carrying a firearm of being violent and unpredictable by hassling them and trying to start a fight.

        • I never had the desire to OC in King Co. Too many crazy progs and I don’t want to get hassled. I have seen exactly one person OCing in 3 years here. When King Co went all in on I594 it confirmed my decision to keep my arms on the down low.

        • Interestingly, the folks in the WA State forum at opencarry.org seem to think King County and even Seattle itsel is pretty OK with open carry *on the law enforcement side of things*. No accounting for just plain idiots wandering around in public, of course.

        • I used to live near Portland Oregon, a garrison of Progressive true believers. Some will attack you for anything you do that goes against their ideology. With the halls of government in these enclaves controlled by Progressives, these radicals feel they are immune from some of our most basic laws.

      • Ah. You’d do it if it were popular. That’d help. I’d do it if it were legal, not a lot of help either. What I won’t do is complain about those that do.

        • “. . . King County and especially Seattle are primarily responsible for passing I-594 . . . ” Hmmmmm. So, the good voters of King County couldn’t be troubled to read all the fine print in the referendum they forced down gun-owners’ throats. They couldn’t be troubled to listen to their gun-owner neighbors. Well, fine; then they can pay attention to the news reports of their pissed-off neighbors OC’ing in their neighborhoods.
          Likewise, the good voters in Texas couldn’t be troubled by their neighbors preferring to OC handguns? Or, at a minimum, avoid being arrested for an inadvertent display of a gun-but sticking out from under their polo shirt? Maybe they will be inspired by the news reports of OC’ing rifles in their neighborhood.
          The Civil Rights marches and lunch-counter sit-ins were not so much about use of the streets or lunch-counter stools. They were about other issues; mostly profound issues of social prejudice. Society was called-upon to consider the profound issues when they were presented in-your-face by flamboyant protests that could be staged without violence.
          OC’ing might be a practice that is required to draw attention to our 21st Century Civil-Rights issue. Wherever/however it is legal it is a non-violent protest that seems to get attention.
          The Civil-Rights movement in the 1960s didn’t succeed over-night. It was not immediately and universally accepted as just by polite society and by legislators. It was rowdy, raucous; people got arrested and went to jail. Some, such as Williams, the Deacons and the Panthers both implied and acted on the use of violence in self-defense. Some of these went over-board and may have damaged their cause; others were recognized as acting perfectly within their common-law and statutory rights.
          The role these latter few played in the outcome of the 1960s struggle is yet to be widely recognized. Nevertheless, there may be a lot for us to learn from books such as:
          – Negros and the Gun; the Black Tradition of Arms
          – This Non-violent Stuff’ill Get You Killed
          – Negros With Guns

      • I open carry in seattle. I open carry everywhere, every day, all day. You may generate conversation, but you will allow others to see you, a normal human, going about your business. Normalization is the goal.

    • I believe Washington state averages 12% CPP per county with the exception of King county where Seattle is which is 4%. King county is the San Francisco of Washington State, a lot of authoritarian progressives.

    • I don’t open carry because the police here make a special point of harassing / falsely arresting anyone who does. Their sad little egos can’t handle peasants being treated the same as cops.

        • Well, the taxpayers get the city .gov they want, so they should feel it in the pocketbook whenever things like that occur. If enough people get tired of paying for violations of another’s right, maybe they will crack down on the local PD to cut that s**t out.

      • Suppose we have such a jurisdiction where its perfectly legal to OC handguns but it’s unheard-of to do so. The cops are known to be hostile. How could we penetrate such a place?
        Suppose we start with a regular Saturday afternoon demonstration in a particular venue (the town square) OC’ing empty holsters. In so doing, that ought to get the conversation started: What are these guys up to? How far will they carry it? After 6 weeks the cops won’t be able to maintain plausible denial.
        Next, 4 weeks of OC’ing holsters with real bananas. Obviously, these are not dangerous. More conversation; obviously, this is going to escalate.
        Then, 3 weeks of OC’ing holsters with facsimile guns made of foam rubber or styrophome. The next steps are predictable.
        Finally, a series of weeks with one guy and then another among the facsimile guns carrying 19th century exempt guns, then single-shot and finally six-shooters. This time, tell the cops that this Saturday there is going to be one guy with an exempt gun. Next Saturday a guy with a single-shot. Following Saturday a guy with a six-shooter. Thereafter, more guys with six-shooters.
        The chief of police will have been given ample opportunity to study up on his State laws and municipal code. If he has someone arrested he won’t be able to release them by claiming that the individual officer involved didn’t know. He will look like a fool if he tries to claim his department was caught off-guard. He will also look like a fool if he tries to arrest any carrier at any point in the gradual escalation of the presence of real guns. The one guy in the middle of the pack carrying a real gun – surrounded on all sides by guys carrying facsimile guns – was “brandishing” or “disturbing the peace”? After weeks of one (or a few) guys carrying real guns, seeing one guy on the periphery of the demonstration with a six-shooter was “brandishing”?
        It seems quite likely that the townspeople will recognize the developing entertainment value of watching their local constabulary get their boxers-in-a-bunch. If the chief is smart he won’t let himself get suckered in. Thereupon, that town will have been converted into an OC-Normalized-Zone.
        On to the next neighboring town where the whole process could probably be accelerated.

  2. I sincerely hope that these bills pass the Texas lege and get signed by Gov Abbott. Robert is exactly correct. Once the sight of weapons carried openly becomes commonplace the hysteria will die down.

  3. Actually, OC is the presumably unintended consequence of the extreme anti-gunner’s activism. If it wasn’t for the Bloomberg-bankrolled Pathetic Moms and similar groups out on the streets, there’s be no reason for the politically-motivated OC movement. Even among the OC crowd, it’s unlikely that they’d be lugging a carbine to Kentucky Fried for some nuggets unless they are making a political statement. This is completely contrary to Ms. Watts claim – OC folks aren’t paranoid, they are simply political activists too, but paid far less than Shannon.

      • Agreed. Shannon’s political activism is ok but OCers political activism is “extreme”. I’d consider defense of a right a whole lot less extreme than trying to eliminate a right. So throw on your Mom Jeans and make me a sandwich.

    • I’ve pointed that out a few times to some gun grabbers. Which of course they refuse to believe because some have been brain washed to think that anyone with a gun is a bad person. They also have a hard time grasping that they were the first aggressors and the OC laws is a reaction to their years of aggression on peoples civil liberties.

  4. I think when little mikey hired her, she thought this was going to be a piece of cake.
    Rally all moms and poof! All guns are gone.
    She a failure at this game, and she’s beginning to realize it.
    Time to go back to monsanto…

    • While Shannon may not be accomplishing her professional obligations in this role, she’s certainly not “failing” in the sense that she is still bringing home millions of bucks with this gig. She’s got a good thing going for herself, and she’s not likely going anywhere.

    • I don’t think she thought it would be easy. I also don’t think she plans to ever win. She plans for this to be a forever job, even better than a weatherman, you don’t have to be right, ever, you don’t have to produce anything, just keep on collecting Mikey’s money. Of course, there may be a little humming you have to do from time to time, but hey …

      • There are moments when I think all of us PotG should thank Mayor Bloomberg for spending his personal fortune on publicizing the importance of the 2A. Imagine all the dues we would have to pay the NRA to attract this much attention to the 2A! Half the battle of marketing an idea is just getting your audience to pay attention to the issue; the other half is selling the merits of your take on that issue.
        Watts is doing her part on Bloomberg’s dime; getting attention drawn to the issue. Now, all we have to do – in the most efficient way we can – is make our case.

  5. I would prefer if Shannon would just state, like her boss did, that armed Negroes scare her. And that blank lifeless stare. . . . God that gets me 🙂

  6. I used to open carry. I personally found it easier and safer (NO one knows I have a gun) to conceal carry know. However if I ever get the desier up again, I will get dressed in my business suit and open carry again. I do it that way because I feel the way you look to others while open carrying can help or hurt the cause. As for shannon, open carry here in Washington state has been legal for a lot more years then even thinks.

    • AND if she or one of her pet harpies sees you OC in a business suit it will make her head explode. C’mon, admit it.

    • As for shannon, open carry here in Washington state has been legal for a lot more years then even thinks.

      Yup. I asked a couple members of the Federal Way PD about it. They said that after a couple of incidents involving hires out of California departments, everyone on the force got a training session on how OC was legal in Washington State.

  7. Open carriers are not a threat to life and limb, but they are the “other” to Watts et al. The other — in this case any American who not only disagrees with gun control but is not bound by the same social controls that bind her and “the expert class” — is always perceived as a threat to one’s existence. The more of them (us) there are, the less valid she is.

    I am one (urban college grad professional in the arts) for whom open carry is not socially acceptable. But the more extreme and intolerant Ms Watts becomes, the closer I grow to the open carriers. Liberty — it is a difficult concept, eh?

  8. Does Shannon write anywhere besides HuffPo any more? That’s kind of a clue itself as to the state of her “grass-roots movement”.

    • That “grass roots” movement includes several thousand fake Twitter and Facebook followers, all bought and paid for.

  9. Robert, that desperation you smell is probably Shannon’s fear of receiving a pink slip from the people that write the checks.

    Shannon probably isn’t getting the desired results which puts her cushy job, salary and media adoration on the line.

    • that and as her midget benefactor pointed out, the gun “problem” is not in suburbia. . . . Shannon is rallying the wrong moms. . . . . But we all know she would never venture into the ‘hood. she might have to associate with us icky Negroes.

      • When she goes into Chicago and starts working in the Englewood, Garfield Park or North Lawndale ‘hoods she might be worthy of attention.

        However, the odds of that happening are significantly less than the number of times the letter “r” appears in “fat chance”.

  10. MDA moms are scared to death over people openly carrying. Yet many of them are ok with people concealed carrying. The only difference here is the visible presence of the gun. It’s very clear their fear is the gun not the person holding it.

    • Actually, she’s NOT ok with concealed carry.

      Evidence: Her over-the-top histrionic reaction when she learned Alan Brooks was carrying concealed when she posed for a picture with him.

      EVERYTHING she says is “produced.” That’s her trade…to ‘sell’ an image to people she assumes don’t know any better. If she says CC is okay, that’s just the message of the day. If she says OC is bad, that’s just the message today.

  11. She refused Robert’s request for a polite dialog. She deletes any and all opposing comments on her Facebook page no matter how polite. She then bans the users from her page. If she became president of the U.S. she would be the most likely person short of Boombirg (misspelling intentional) to become the next hitler.

  12. Is open carry akin to “coming out of the closet”? I mean. We all champion diversity, right? No more hiding our passions just because the ‘phobes hate us. Gun Pride, honey!!! Sorry, the kilt stays, laddie.

  13. I agree with Shannon. We need to stop these extremists now.

    NO MORE KILTS!

    No one wants to see your hairy legs, and transvestism is unseemly anyway.

    Put your 1911 on your hip and wear some blue jeans. We’re Americans, not denizens of some far off Euro trash islands.

    Stop the kilts!

    • Aye, there is always someone not man enough to wear a Kilt who wants to complain about them! Just because it is my choice for formal wear doesn’t mean I should be deprived from carrying my 1911 at the same time. LOL

      • A Scott colleague told me that the kilt is perfectly appropriate for everyday ware. Saw a man in Hamilton Bermuda waring a kilt on the street; based on his companions in suits and ties, I took it that he was dressed in what was considered business attire.
        In any case, it seems to me that OC while dressed in a kilt would add to the festivity of the demonstration. Would be nice if a piper could be located to attract a crowd.

  14. To steal a phrase from Henry Makow, the Huffington Compost, and it’s pretty dam accurate. Nothing credible comes from the compost, it is some of the most egregious propaganda out there.

  15. Her talking points are stale and incredibly forced-sounding, like listening to an old Mike Dukakis speech.

    That kind of phoniness is expected in politics and corporate PR, but I would think that most moms find it insulting and manipulative. The few who are searching for affirmation an meaning to fill the voids in their lives — well, there you have MDA’s “millions” of “members.”

    • The few who are searching for affirmation an meaning to fill the voids in their lives… turn to drugs and alcohol.

      There, I accurately completed the thought for you.

  16. What really scares Shannon Watts is losing funding by Sugar Daddy Bloomberg. I think she and Gabby, er, Mark, are losing credibility with their plutocrat sponsors. Oh well, back to selling Agent Orange…

  17. Ive always been a little ticked off at some folks down here in Florida.
    As much as Marrion Hammer has done for us here. She gave up the citizenries right to open carry for concealed back in 1987ish,
    A deal was made with the devil and it might be a long time if ever, before we get open carry back here in Florida.
    As much as Im for it. I don’t see it happening any time soon.

    • The group that backed Hammer on that for some odd reason think that if we get open carry that for some magically reason we will end up with no-gun signs having force of law. It didn’t happen in Ga.

    • Go fishing. You can carry a damn belt fed across your back if you feel like it. Shoreline saltwater licence is free and you get to spend time outside.

      • Good point. Florida’s exemption for fishing provides an opportunity analogous to that provided by Texas’ exemption for long guns. Floridians who fish could make a point of OCing while carrying. Problem might be getting enough State-owned-media attention.
        Could be a little boring to stand on a pier watching a bobber just to display your (gun) but to passers-by.

        How about a demonstration stroll through town down to the pier while OCing? A 30-minute walk to the fishing venue; drop the line in the water for 10 minutes, followed by a 30-minute walk back to the car.

        • Prior to the passage of the CHL law, TX had several such idiosyncracies, dunno if they were changed, some were in state constitution. Going to and from the range, going to purchase ammo (I loved that one), travelling, stuff like that, you could carry without a permit, OC or CC, loaded or unloaded. I guess the concept was that you needed to show the gun to the store so they could tell you what ammo you needed, or something. If that “purchasing ammo” is still around, meeting in a parking lot and OCing to a store selling ammo would be a cool protest here in TX! BTW, “travelling” was completely undefined, state officers asserted that it meant crossing some number of county lines, which occasionally changed.

  18. Do gun owners who don’t open carry oppose open carry? I doubt it.

    On the whole, no. But there are exceptions, and they seem to fall in a few “buckets:”

    1) People worried that overly… er… flamboyant carry will hurt the cause of gun rights by scaring fince sitters onto the wrong side of the fence. Now this is NOT an urge to dictate to people just because someone is a tin pot dictator personality; the concern may be misguided but it’s still there and their motivation is to prevent you from hurting them, not to just arbitrarily dictate what they can and cannot do.

    [As an aside, I make a distinction between Open Carry so that you can be armed, and Open Carry to make a point. Both are right and proper at times (almost always in the first case). I generally just carry to be armed; as such I don’t bother with the rifle unless I’m headed for a higher than normal likelihood of conflict. This option, I know, is closed in certain places. I’ve also done OC rifle parades, though. Flamboyancy is open carry for the explicit purpose of being noticed OCing, i.e., for a demonstration, and at least theoretically can cross the line into objectively unsafe and threatening behavior. That’s where I’d try to get someone to stop.]

    2) There are people who think OC is tactically unsound. So long as they don’t advocate forbidding it, they aren’t really a problem.

    3) People who think it’s a dumb idea, who ALSO have that Urge to Dictate. One Paul McCain comes to mind. Yes, gun owners can get the Dictator Urge too.

    I think it’s very important when dealing with a gun person who is anti OC, to figure out which one of these buckets they are in. Bucket 3 deserves condemnation, the other two deserve education (and I can let Bucket 2 go, actually, since he’s not trying to exert pressure on me to change my behavior).

  19. You know though if everyone opened carried in nice shirt and ties and slacks we’d have a better leg to stand on. Presentation means a lot, and every time I see an idiot with a gas mask I think that’s the dumbest thing I’ve seen all day.

    • “You know though if everyone opened carried in nice shirt and ties and slacks we’d have a better leg to stand on. “

      Wrong.

      People should open carry wearing whatever the hell they want to wear.

      Liberty is messy, eh? The other guy might not want to wear what you want to wear, or wear what you think he should wear.

      Shoot, he might be the wrong race or sexual orientation. Or he might be a she. Or the hair is too long. Or too short. He might have a beard or missing an arm. Or…whatever.

      Why do YOU get to the be “OC Clothing Police.” See Steve’s comment above … the Bucket 3 Dictators.

      I might agree with your statement to a point if you are talking about an organized event specifically geared toward attracting the ‘right kind of attention,’ but you said “everyone.”

      • Actually, I kinda figured him for bucket one, worried about getting the wrong kind of attention. He’ll still be making statements in the imperative but his rationale is different.

        I imagined Bucket Three being full of people who dictated against open carry because open carry, not because scruffy looking.

    • I really wonder how much presentation matters. Every time I have been carrying openly I have been dressed nicely and looked clean-cut. I make an extra effort to be friendly, courteous, and smile. And I often have my family with me.

      You would think it would be obvious that a nicely dressed, friendly, courteous, smiling person with their family in tow is not a criminal about to rob the local hardware store — especially when you are walking out the door and not into the store. Nevertheless one person would not get near me in that situation. While holding my young child in my arms on the way out — again something that an armed robber would never do — I held the door open for them. They would not walk past me.

      In every other case, however, other people either didn’t notice or were curious and asked sensible questions. I truly believe open carry is a good, effective tool to reach out and humanize us.

      • There are hard core hoplophobes that nothing will reach.

        I’ve no doubt that you care with presentation has had a positive net effect vs. doing nothing at all. I do think it’s a plus for us not to look “grungy” though I won’t say don’t carry if you do. (I might go a little further for demonstrations, but even there, I’d be giving advice, not orders.)

        • Agreed; presentation makes a great difference. We have to remember who are audience is here. Are we so delusional as to imagine we will convert a card-carying Mom? Of course not. What we want to do is normalize guns in the minds of the uncommitted public; the voters.
          Imagine, for a moment, that we OC’ed dressed-up in our go-to-meeting best and paraded to church on a Sunday morning in AZ. If a gun-owner OC’ed in a forrest would you hear a sound? No; of course not. If the demonstration (grand or petit) attracted no attention it would have no effect.
          At the other end of the spectrum, if we dressed up as ISIS we would attract lots of attention; bad attention. The Moms would be there reading the narrative to the media and the uncommitted public would be scared off.
          Perhaps what would be ideal is to start with a corps of dads, moms and kiddies dressed in their Sunday best salted with a few people in costume. A couple in 18th century dress for the historically-minded audience. A few clowns for the children in the audience. A few Legionaries for the patriotic minded. And, a few grizzlied 30-somethings in unkept beards wearing cammo . We need the Moms there to attract the media and embarrass themselves calling attention to the long-guns. Meanwhile, the media shows pictures of the mix of people. To be sure, the foreground will always be the most objectionable image – the guys wearing cammo. But, remember, the audience will also see others in the background who will have the normalizing effect.
          Without our beloved Moms, who would bring the media? Without our beloved Moms making fools of their message, who would be making a point to which we make our counter-point? We need our Moms like an OCier in the forrest needs an audience. Without Moms and the State-owned-media, we would be wasting our shoe-leather.
          Still, we need to fine-tune our choreography. We ought never allow the media to capture a picture filled edge-to-edge by grizzlied 30-somethings in unkept beards wearing cammo . We have to be a “well regulated” group with the eccentric demonstrators salted-in among the guys in suits+ties, mothers with children, and Legionnaires.
          Some of the OC demonstrators might not have gotten it quite right in the first episodes; but, we can refine our techniques as we go alone and control our message if we just get a clear idea of the image that would be most effective.

        • MarkPA,

          I really like what you are saying. In a nutshell: use the “weapons” of the gun-control industrial complex against them.

          Goad the gun-grabbers and mainstream media to show up to our events because they will not knowingly/willingly show up to promote our message. And then make our message plainly evident — that we are good, decent people and the message of the gun control industrial complex is a lie. It seems simple and effective in my book.

        • MarkPA,

          At the one rifle-oriented event I went to most people were dressed ordinarily (Westcliffe CO, last July 4). No suits that I recall. No slobs either.. One guy geared up in camo carrying a shotgun and an AR-ish gun and he got a proportionate amount of photographs published. One guy raining candy on the kids. I think he’s actually a state legislator, and one I’m not worried about. A lot of people carrying traditional-style rifles, and of course a few “black” ones as well. A couple of Mosin Nagants (which are military, but traditional looking); I got along with them because I also wasn’t carrying a .223/5.56 shooter, mine was 7.62×51.

          Hundreds of spectators were watching approvingly. There was exactly ONE counter protest (I hesitate to call it a counter protest, because we weren’t protesting, we were celebrating), a woman holding up a small cardboard sign I actually had to break out of ranks to walk up to and read. Talk about marginalized!

  20. What really scares her is the fact that gun control is and has been losing public support and hemorrhaging money for years, and particularly amongst most Democrats (except hard-core neo-liberals) and minorities who have made the largest exodus from her cause.

    She realizes that the only thing even keeping her afloat in the first place is Nanny Loonburg’s billions after he basically bought her and her opinion lock, stock, and barrel (pun intended). A lot of anti-rights organizations are in the same boat she is, too, with even grants from the Joyce Foundation getting smaller and smaller year-on-year.

    There is a specific and undeniable reason for this: more and more Americans seem to be wising up to her and her antics and are slowly realizing that there are simply bigger fish to fry for now. Like, say, the economy for example, which still hasn’t come out of The Great Recession despite whatever the talking heads on your TV have said. Especially since crime of all kinds are less than half as common as they were 25 years ago. Congress is largely singing that same tune as the public has slowly become more cognizant of that. As horrific as the last few public tragedies were, and they ironically being a byproduct exclusive to neo-liberal gun control and economic policies that deliberately facilitated such slaughters to begin with, they barely moved the barometer in favor of gun control outside initial shock and anger.

    It could be argued that the days of this current fad are numbered. One can only hope…

    • And as craven as this sounds, the media has, by trivializing the phrase “mass shooting,” reduced the “shock and anger” value of those actually rare events. ISIS is helping with that trivialization too, I’m afraid.

      • Kind of sad, isn’t it? In their zeal to stampede the masses into Gun-control Canyon by publicizing every non-gang shooting they can find across these here United States, the national media have actually kind of de-sensitized the public at large to the whole issue. And at the same time, in some quarters at least, I think they have kind of become “the boy who cried wolf”, constantly harping about a never-ending flood of “school shootings” that simply isn’t happening.

  21. What scares Watts more than open carry is minorities openly carrying. Boy what would happen if people caught on that gun control was aimed at them, to give the police another tool to stop and harass them?

  22. C’mon gun lobby I want my open carry in Illinois! At least she used the term semi-automatic(and no ghost gun 30boowits in a second and the shoulder thingy that goes up…)

    • Oh, it is much bigger than that. Look at this line from her article,

      “… there is no way to know if a person who is openly carrying a semiautomatic rifle is a responsible gun owner, or …”

      She is even tacitly admitting that there is such a thing as a “responsible gun owner”. Can you imagine any gun-grabbers admitting anything like that 5 years ago?

  23. I guess it’s our fault for letting open carry fall into disuse. It used to be a pretty common thing. I recall carrying an FN-49 through downtown to get to the gunsmith’s shop because there wasn’t a parking space nearby, and nobody gave me a second glance (the thing ate firing pins like they were potato chips!). Then, in the early 90’s coke-head gang-banger era, we went underground to avoid provoking even more restrictive legislation.

    It seemed like a good idea at the time.

      • And it wasn’t much of a thing before then, either. The black panthers seized on it as a technicality because there was no law about it… at least partially because normal folks back then didn’t strut around the capitol with long arms.

        • “And it wasn’t much of a thing before then, either.”

          Guess that entirely depends on where you were.

          I remember growing up seeing guys walk around with rifles and shotguns. It was no big deal.

          That’s what is partly funny to me with all the contemporary angst over OC’d rifles. It USED to be commonplace and no one cared. Dudes with rifles did not shoot up restaurants or stores.

          I STILL see it occasionally…someone walking down the road with a rifle or shotgun. It still creates/feeds the cognitive dissonance that the CLAIM “everyone with a gun is a murderous spree killer” does not mesh with observed reality.

          So…OC has been ‘normalized’ in the past. It was not a big deal. The gun is not some agent of death with a will of its own…OC’d, CC’d or at home in a drawer. People see that every time they SEE a gun NOT shooting the place up.

          OC will be “normal” again…as our population regains some of its … eh … common sense.

  24. Open carry yes. Just be friendly, the normal guy or gal next door. You don’t have to be extra provocative, people will either get it, ignore it, or throw some sort of hissy fit with calls for violence like the supporters of Moms Demanding Assassination of Gun Owners in America are incredibly prone to do.

  25. When I was in officer candidate school, if someone referred to one of our M1 Garand rifles as a “gun” the drill instructor made that candidate run up and down the battalion hallway with the rifle held over his head in one hand, and the other hand down his pants, screaming “This is my rifle and this is my gun, one is for killing and one is for fun!”

    I don’t believe anyone in polite society should walk around with either hanging out.

    • Here is the problem JohnF: “polite society” can vaporize instantly any time, any place. All it takes is one violent criminal, spree killer, or terrorist to start their attack. Some people want the option to respond to unprovoked aggression with the best defensive tool available. And the best defensive tool available is a rifle or shotgun depending on the particulars of any given situation.

      I wonder how many patrons were glad that none of the patrons at the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado had long guns?

      • I’m sure they fervently wish the perp had not had one. I read an article where they interviewed survivors. Not one mentioned they wished people in the theater had been carrying.

        The cops don’t open carry long guns except in the extreme circumstances. It should be the same for civilians,

        • One, cops are civilians.

          Two, openly carried long guns are not used to commit crimes. You would prevent more crime prohibiting the open carry of hamners or baseball bats.

          Three, rights aren’t subject to others’ preferences.

          Four, in re Aurora: a similar incident happened in Dallas in the 1960s. A man climbed up a tower and started sniping people. Perhaps you’re familiar with it? He was stopped primarily by ordinary people carrying their own long guns, who returned fire and suppressed the killer long enough for police to storm the tower and kill him.

    • “Polite society”?

      At one time, it was considered impolite to be out in public without a weapon openly carried to show that you, as a citizen, were ready to defend you, your loved ones and your fellow members of your society from harm.

      It was the “bad people”; the ones that lacked honor and integrity to conceal a weapon or not to carry a weapon at all.

      “Polite Society” is what a society decides is polite. I personally prefer a society where the individual publically states by the open carry of a personal side arm, if they are willing to put their lives on the line for their fellow citizens.

      The old code was lost because people stopped following the code. I’m doing my part to change society back to what I consider to be a more honorable way of living.

      • Actually, a large number of carriers explicitly state they WON’T get into a fight to protect a third party. I suspect that’s because drawing your firearm (much less shooting it) puts you at legal hazard these days; you might just run into the zealous cop or prosecutor who is tired of what they think is “vigilantism.”

      • “At one time, it was considered impolite to be out in public without a weapon openly carried…”

        Sounds like a time period called make-believe.

    • Through almost all of history, it has been very common for men to carry weapons in public (though many societies restricted this to free men or the nobility). If you look at the history of swords in Europe, you find huge numbers of weapons that are almost useless on the battlefield but are light weight, stylishly decorated and well suited to protecting yourself from bandits. Your carry pistol is a modern rapier and I would love to see it come back in style.

  26. First it was a nudge, than a push, than an attempted shove. It seems that the more they attempt to “shove” the more it blows up in their face. Remember what Eric Holder’s greatest regret is. Gun Control. Reasonable of course,… for the children.

    Good…… More folks are tooling up, stocking up, and wising up. The MDA sicophants cannot comprehend “little” things like the Constitution when it doesn’t fit the narrative they dictate. It’s simply our duty to not comply with unconstitutional diktats.

    How’s that registration compliance, BY LAW, in CT, and NY? Uh,… last check was 85% NON COMPLIANCE.

    Fot those panic buying, your late to the party, I can respect your decision to pay almost a dollar a rd., for something 1/3 cheaper a bit ago,….but you get an I told ya’ so as well..

    • “First it was a nudge, than a push, than an attempted shove.”

      That strategy is known as ‘nudge’, an old favorite of the left…

      Get your victories in small bites.

  27. Seriously, I wonder how much people like her and Ladd Everitt make from these anti gun .orgs each year.

    Heck, if i could make 6 figures doing, i would campaign against guns. It isn’t hard to act like them. Lie, rinse, repeat.

    Then secretly buy a large spread and lots of guns….

  28. Might be something to this notion that the OC debate terrifies the Antis. Suppose we PotG wanted to spark a debate about carry. What State would we pick to try to make the best impression? Maryland? Mass? Bad legal environment. Bad optics; solid Blue States. Everyone would be shocked to imagine carry in these States.
    How about Texas? People in the rest of the country would EXPECT Texas – of all 50 States – to have people walking around with guns. Lots of Texans to support the campaign. Only thing we would need is for Texas to have the right legal environment, like, say, prohibit OC of handguns but permit OC of conspicuous long-guns. What, you say this is Texas law? Perfect.
    So, we have the perfect stage – Texas – to conduct our public demonstration. The whole country expects carry in Texas; they aren’t shocked (really) to hear that there is gambling at Rick’s Cafe. It’s inevitable that OC will win in Texas – slowly – so that the debate carries on for a long period of time.
    Only question is how flamboyant to be. If the demonstrators were all dressed up in suits and ties we might not get any news media to cover them. If they parade in the nude wearing body paint it might go just a little too far. Hard to get this just exactly right; but we could try to push the edge a little. What would Americans expect of Texans? Ten-gallon hats? Cowboy boots? Vests and chaps? OK, try something along those lines; just a little edgy but not out-of-line with what most Americans wouldn’t have seen at the county fair or on July 4th.
    The more I think of the demonstrations in Texas the more it seems to me that it was the perfect place and just about the right tactics (albeit perhaps not perfect) to take the lead.
    After Texas passes OC of handguns all the demonstrators switch to carrying handguns rather than rifles. The whole debate about scary rifles goes away. Americans see Texans with six-shooters just as they have always imagined them.
    What do we do next? How about mothers with children OCing? How about women without children?
    I used to live in NJ. I saw exactly 2 people OCing in street cloths in NJ in 25 years. Both women; one in her 40’s, another in her 20’s. (One was a police detective; the other a currier with an armored car company.) No one paid any attention to either one. I’d love to see the Mom’s protesting against these two women. If it could happen in NJ without public outcry we could make it happen in any State where OC is already legal (e.g., Delaware).
    All we would need is some volunteers. Suppose we get volunteers in pairs of towns 25 miles away from each other. Volunteers from town A go to parade in town B; those from B parade in town A. No one gets kicked out of the PTA or the knitting club. Couple of women shopping together. Couples with or without children with the woman carrying; man not carrying. If the Moms won’t come to counter protest and bring the media we will have to adopt some more flamboyant costumes.
    Eventually, the Moms will grow weary of huffing and puffing and getting no where with the general public.

    • If they parade in the nude wearing body paint it might go just a little too far. Hard to get this just exactly right; but we could try to push the edge a little.

      Unfortunately, I don’t think FEMEN would be willing to take up the cause.

  29. Consider this before you crucify poor Shannon…

    She’s nothing more than a highly paid media whore.
    If she was being bankrolled by a Pro-Gun sugar daddy
    she would be our “darling”. If I won that Half-Billion dollar
    lottery the other day I could offer her 15% more than she
    is making now and and she would bail on Everytown faster
    than you can blink an eye. For that kind of a raise she would
    probably drop them. spread them, and bend without being asked.

    • Soulless whore, yes, but you’re mistaken if you think hitting the lottery could even come close to
      Competing with the money and benefits the .1% has.

    • So, you are saying we should cut her a break because she is a professional liar.

      And that we should, if we could afford it, hire our OWN professional LIAR?

      Sorry, but no. We have “right” on our side – authentic people that just want to be left alone. We have the real essence of “grassroots,” not a bought and paid for IMAGE of grassroots.

      The minute we start hiring PR hacks to shill for us…hacks that go simply to the highest bidder…is the instant we lose ALL credibility we presently have. People sense the truth (even if they don’t admit it out loud) based on what they can see with their own two eyes, and if we start playing that PR game…it’s done. It WILL become solely about who can outspend the other for the flashiest TV/Twitter campaign.

      She picked a side; it’s not JUST the paycheck. She could have told Bloomberg, “No, I don’t believe in that cause and I’m not going to speak out for it no matter how much you pay me.”

      You know…integrity and honor, those pesky little things that are too easily dismissed these days.

      • Yes, people like to claim she’s just whoring for Bloomberg, et. al., but her hysterical behavior during that concealed carry incident you mentioned earlier indicates to me that most likely she’s a true believer.

      • JR, maybe it’s medication time. I did not say or imply any of the points you responded to. Not even sure you responded to right post? Slow down and calm down.

        • Maybe it’s time you took yours.

          You read the indents wrong, he’s replying to the same John E. Smith you were.

  30. Open vs. concealed to me is simply a matter of convenience (or sometimes inconvenience). I open carried today at Burger King simply because I wasn’t expecting to be walking in the door from work, then turning right back around out the door with 2 of the kids in tow for some grub. So my under-the-winter-jacket paddle holster went from concealed to open in about as long as it took to realize BK likes to roast children in the play place.

    No problems for me, and nobody made a fuss. Funny how that works. Sane, normal people are generally believed to be sane and normal, even if they are carrying a weapon.

  31. Perhaps the folks over at OpenCarry.org are making headway.

    From the OpenCarry.org Press Kit page (http://www.opencarry.org/?page_id=26):

    Anthropologist Charles Springwood sums it up nicely when he commented that open carriers are trying to “naturalize the presence of guns, which means that guns become ordinary, omnipresent, and expected. Over time, the gun becomes a symbol of ordinary personhood.”

    OpenCarry.org believes that “a right unexercised is a right lost,” and increasingly gun owners are agreeing – it’s time gun carry comes out of the closet across America!

  32. Here in Delaware it is not uncommon to see men with holstered pistols at convenience stores or gas stations. Open carry is legal, except in the state capital of Dover. Some major businesses prohibit it and will ask you to leave, such as the local mall, but I have never seen anyone freak out about it.

    I have seen it three times and I do it myself, but not that often… it is complicated. Most recently I saw a fellow at a local gas station late at night and several people noticed his Glock and chatted with him about it. It actually triggered friendly social interaction with strangers!

    Open carrying pistols is reasonable and sociable behavior. I can say based on first hand experience, that an armed society is indeed a polite a society. This is the reason it drives them crazy: It shows that we, the armed have nothing to hide.

    People should really chill with the rifle thing and understand that is just not practical and it gives these scumbags ammunition in their twisted crusade. You want to OC, do it with a handgun. The rifle has a purpose and it needs to stay in your house or vehicle until something really bad happens.

    • In general, I would leave my rifle at home, because it’s quite impractical. However, there are deliberate demonstrations, and there is Texas, where only rifle OC is legal.

      And besides, whether I’d leave my rifle at home for my own reasons, has no bearing on whether someone else will or should.

    • Fug,

      Like I replied above, a situation can go from wonderful to horrific in the blink of an eye. When a violent criminal, spree killer, or terrorist attacks, good people want the best self defense tools available … which are rifles and shotguns depending on the situation. The only reason so many people carry handguns is because they are much more convenient to carry.

      What do you care if someone has a rifle or shotgun slung over their back? As long as they have not threatened you and are simply going about their business, why is it your business to tell them whether they can or cannot have a long gun?

  33. “Because the radical rhetoric of the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) leadership tells us that “the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.” And that myth propels the idea that a loaded AK-47 is necessary when dining at Raising Cane’s Chicken Fingers, just in case you encounter a bad guy.”

    The hell does she think stops a bad guy with a gun? Happy thoughts?

  34. I would like to OC, especially here in South Carolina in the Summer when the temperature and humidity are both in the 90s. It’s bad enough with just a T-shirt, and then to wear another shirt over that to CC, even a light-weight nylon shirt, one can get drippy in a few minutes. But the RINOs and Dems in the State Legislature keep killing it in committee. Time to move to Arizona, I guess.

  35. I open carry because when I got mugged a few months ago while unloading my car, the man who stuck a gun in my face demanded that I walk him to my car so he could take everything valuable out of it. He said “Don’t you dare pretend you don’t know what I’m talking about, I’ve been watching you,” when I hesitated about walking with him (technically, it became a kidnapping at that point).

    Now anyone watching me sees a well-dressed man in khakis and a polo with a full sized M&P on his hip. For me, open carrying isn’t a political statement so much as a hard-learned lesson.

  36. I do not OC but fully support open carry.
    Watts has to recognize those OC’ers never seem to break into a band of mass firing squad mayhem, which is exactly what she wants the public to believe they do, or certainly just might. But they don’t, the proof is clear, and she hates it. So keep up the OC, political assembly is best in my opinion as it drives the message home and can’t be refuted.
    Speaking of words which are abused, I’m sick of the leaning on “Mom”. A Mom is interested in her children’s safety, sure. And Shannon wants everyone to believe if you are a good “Mom” you’d not allow guns to exist. Who would want to be labeled a BAD MOM?
    In truth and function guns are proven to have protected more of those kids than they’ve even come close to taking. So hey Watts, lay off the using of the word “Mom” to depict a female who hates guns, because in fact this is not fact and a gun is not creating imminent danger for a kid of any age. Deplorable, really. Truth be told, a BAD MOM would be a Mom who would take away options for self-defense and safety thereof. Therefore Shannon, you are the BAD MOM. Get it straight, okay?

    • I do not OC but fully support open carry.

      Yeeesh, another one of those folks with “but” in that first sentence. I’m just absolutely sick of “but”ers.

      …..

      Oh, wait. This is the good kind.

      Never mind, carry on. 😀

  37. Hey guys, I would strongly recommend going back and spell/grammar check your articles. I think this is like the 5 article in the past couple of days with some typos. (Not to be a grammar nazi, but still.)

    “who’d no more open carry that appear naked in public”

    • “Hey guys, I would strongly recommend going back and spell/grammar check your articles. I think this is like the 5 article in the past couple of days with some typos. (Not to be a grammar nazi, but still.)”

      It should read … this is like the 5th article in the past couple of days…

      5th article, not 5 article.

      “(Not to be a grammar nazi, but still.)”

      Oh, the delicious irony… 🙂

      Ever hear about glass houses and stones?

      • On the other hand, he’s not producing a product that should be of high quality. He’s not calling himself a writer a lot of people will want to read, he’s a commenter. The other day I saw an article here on a particular gun sight (the kind you aim with, not the kind you go to to read things), and except for the very first time, it consistently used the spelling “site.” That’s beyond an occasional typo, because it’s consistent, so the writer didn’t do his job, and an editor doing his job should have caught it. Editors are there in part to backstop the mistakes made by writers (who should, nevertheless, try to not make them). Now in this instance, the OP has a few typos in it but it’s not a huge catastrophe; the article isn’t shot through with site/sight type errors.

        Heck, I read what was otherwise a very good book the other day, but the author would say “discreet” when he meant “discrete” and vice versa, with perfect consistency, wrong 100% of the time. And both words came up a lot; sometimes more than once a page. Where was his editor? Worse, it’s possible the author had it right in the manuscript and the editor “corrected” him. I’ve read other books atrociously edited (a Special Forces man using “ordinance” when he meant “ordnance”; he should know better–and if an editor did that, that editor is the worst one I’ve ever seen, because that’s just one of the spectacular array of bad decisions made in that book.)

        The fact that I can’t quarterback a football game doesn’t mean I can’t spot a bad job by someone who IS quarterbacking a football game. As soon as you call yourself a quarterback, you are expected to do the job better than someone who isn’t, and “let’s see you do it better” isn’t really a defense if you are doing the job poorly (unless, of course the guy said “Daang, I can do it better than that!”). The complainer is better than the incompetent, because the complainer knows better than to do something he’s incompetent at, whereas the incompetent is out there doing it and is doing damage.

        As soon as you start publishing, you are rightly held to a higher standard.

        • I agree. We ought to have some perspective on the degree of editing we expect depending upon context. Do we insist on spelling, grammar and usage correctness in: text messages? e-mails? We should expect it in professional journals, books, magazines. Not so much in blogs.

        • “Blogs” includes both the blog post itself and the comments. Did you mean that? Personally, I’d hold the post to a higher standard than the comments, particularly when the post can be fixed after the fact. In the case of this blog, there are submission standards people are expected to follow, to boot, and if memory serves they specify that you should get your grammar and spelling right.

          So it’s not out of order to complain about mistakes.

        • “He’s not calling himself a writer a lot of people will want to read, he’s a commenter. ”

          Yeah, but the POINT was he was calling out typos while committing the very ‘offense’ he was pointing out!

          THAT is fair game. Hell, my writing is sloppy as hell, at least I’m aware of it…

    • So Mike, you seem to be implying that if you are in a theater, or a fast food restaurant with your AK and hundreds of kids come in doing one of these “flash robs,” you are planning to empty a few 30 round mags at them. Let’s think that through. You’d probably have to shoot at least a dozen teenagers. You could probably prove a few of them were about to do you bodily harm, but most of them were probably just making noise. There would be a lot of over penetration and I daresay at least a few innocent patrons would get hit also.

      I’m not justifying anything about the Florida incident, but no one got seriously hurt. In your scenario the only people that would have gotten seriously hurt would be by you. You would be famous, you would go to prison and several gun control laws would get passed based on the furor over the incident. And you wonder why we don’t all support open carry.

      • Random chance that nothing worse happened. Some among those 800-900 mobbing teenagers were shooting guns outside.

        If I’m there with my wife and young kids, the mere presence of that size mob rampaging through the theater can potentially constitute reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm.

      • “And you wonder why we don’t all support open carry.”

        What the heck does Open Carry have to do with the scenario you describe.

        You are conflating an openly carried firearm with the USE of that firearm. You then go on to stack the scenario to fit your outcome (begging the question fallacy), further compounded by the straw man of “emptying a couple of 30 round magazines into a crowd of teens” which Mike never said.

        He simply said that in that circumstance, he’d like to have an AK with him. Nothing more.

        PERHAPS he was thinking the visible presence of an AK may have deterred said teens – or at least some of them. Or, perhaps he meant he could use the rifle to cover his (and others’) escape, as was done in one of the Charlie Hedbo simulations with armed attackers. Or, perhaps he DID mean shooting, but with deliberate, aimed fire SOLELY at the leaders doing harm, or about to do harm, to others.

        But no…let’s just say if someone wants to OC a rifle that it must be to murder a bunch of “children.” That’s much easier. And…it sufficiently fits right in with the anti’s message, making cynical old me a bit curious if there’s a bit of astroturfing going on.

  38. I’m starting to think that the reason we are always accused of getting our every last idea from the NRA is not just a calculated strategic taking point, but getting ideology wholesale from a central source is all the anti-gunner knows.

    • Interesting thought there. I’ve often suspected most of the “opposition” (i.e., opposition to the correct, i.e., my, stance on an issue) of being fed talking points. But it forces me to consider the possibility that many of the people on my side are, indeed, operating the same way.

      Which is to say, you’re probably right about them taking their points and arguments from a central source. But many of us do too, I am sure.

      • But do wet tend to form out overall opinion and choose or side based only what fired from that source? I originally formed my opinion on the topic by downloading FBI data and plotting it in Excel to see how trends in crime correlated to dates of legislation. Then it was lots of digging for information when I realized certain taking points for the antis could not be right. Even before I knew there were “antis”.

        Now most of any new information I get may come from a single source, but it isn’t the NRA, or anything I would consider an authority or centralized outlet, certainly not a counterpart to MDA, CSVG or the like., and it was preceded by quite a bit of double checking and vetting really on, which I doubt many antis do to the information coming from MDA or CSGV.

        • Excellent! This is extremely important to keep in mind.

          Your own observations about the world around you fueled a bit of digging to see if ‘data’ matched the message that was being sold.

          Propaganda ALWAYS shows itself to be the lie it is. So long as people can see and hear the world around them, they will draw conclusions from their own senses. When “the message” contradicts that…cognitive dissonance kicks in and often becomes strong enough to lead to questions of that message.

          THIS is why we don’t need PR hacks on our side or to further muck up our own ‘message’ with ‘marketing.’ The truth tells its own story. Guns don’t just jump up off the table and start shooting people. Someone can be a good guy with a gun. More guns in the hands of ‘regular folk’ does NOT lead to ‘blood in the streets.’ Etc.

          Million dollar spit and polish cannot change observable truth.

        • Alas, Marcus, your case is atypical. Id imagine many here did their own research but many in the “pro gun” or “pro 2A” movement probably DO get their info from a few people whose job it is to come up with talking poiints. They may be true talking points rather than lies but the second-hand thought syndrome is still there.

          To amplify JR’s point… we ought to come down like a ton of bricks on people who are on OUR side who dispense incorrect information, since it makes us no better than “they” are.

  39. I think open carry is annoying and tactically a terrible idea. On average, around 1% of the population has a carry permit and obviously some states, open carry doesn’t require one. But if you imagine few people in the average metro area crowd have a gun and a criminal walks into a store and sees the obvious firearm on your hip, he’s got a damn good chance of immediately surprising and disarming the only person armed in the store/area. It’s bad for you and negates the one of the advantages of carrying a weapon as a regular citizen which is surprise.

    Now, the other day when I was down town, I saw a bunch of 2A Rights advocates protesting? Demonstrating? (neither really the right word in Georgia…letting our voices be heard I guess comes closer to the mark) with signs and tons of ARs and AK’s on the shoulders, etc. That I think is totally fair. The context is clear and I could totally get on board with that. It’s clearly to make a political message and the intent is clear.

    Working at Starbucks or when I’m walking down the street and see people openly carrying AR15’s is irritating even as a fellow gun owner. For one, I see a guy walking down a suburban street with a rifle and I have no clue who that person is. My natural self-defense instinct, even as a person comfortable with guns and other people with guns is to keep my distance and observe…just in case. If they had a sign and it was clearly a political display? No problem. But how is someone supposed to guess whether a guy at a movie theater with an AR15 is open carrying to make a statement or whatever personal reasons or about to commit mass murder until the bullets start flying or they don’t. Now, they shouldn’t be treated like criminals the way these anti-gun nuts do, but my point being I personally don’t like it.

    Second, my other problem is I think it does make us look bad. People trying to enjoy their coffee, even the vast majority of pro-gun people that make up my heavily red leaning area are annoyed when people show up with a bunch of long-guns on their back and start political statements. It’s supposed to be a relaxing area and while you might think it’s high time to normalize carrying AR15s in public, I see it as the same logic anti-gun people use to try and force their aversion and ignorant fear of guns on the rest of us as forcing open-carry of rifles in casual public areas is. City hall or the capital, the political message is obvious. But I don’t go to a coffee shop to be proselytized and just like I don’t want Starbucks letting Jehovas Witness or others to use the business as a pulpit and an unwitting public forum, I also think it’s asinine to open carry an AR there.

    I guess basically, there’s a time and a place. Not everyone wants you to shove your political views down their throats in a location that’s meant to be relaxing and by potentially freaking out people who are borderline supporters of the 2A, rather than making them more accepting of guns it’s just as likely to unnerve them and push them over to the anti-gun camp.

    • “For one, I see a guy walking down a suburban street with a rifle and I have no clue who that person is.”

      So what. Until he DOES something that is a threat to you or others, who he is is none of your business.

      “My natural self-defense instinct, even as a person comfortable with guns and other people with guns is to keep my distance and observe…just in case.”

      Good for you. Right answer. Situational awareness is a good thing…whether the others around you are OC-ing long guns or not.

      After all, it’s not about the gun. We sure do give that phrase a lot of lip service. Putting it into practice is a lot harder, and the anti’s know this. They exploit that psychology.

      “But how is someone supposed to guess whether a guy at a movie theater with an AR15 is open carrying to make a statement or whatever personal reasons or about to commit mass murder until the bullets start flying or they don’t.”

      You don’t guess. None of that matters unless the person does show themselves to be a threat.

      There is more to “threat assessment” than “he has a shouldered rifle” and there are many steps between ‘has a gun’ and ‘bullets start flying in a mass murder killing spree.’

      ” Now, they shouldn’t be treated like criminals the way these anti-gun nuts do, but my point being I personally don’t like it. “

      I appreciate that you don’t like it, but to be blunt…I don’t care. I don’t care if you like my or anyone else’s free exercise of natural rights.

      I don’t like Robert Mapplethorpe’s photography. That’s all I’ll say about it. I’ll not give the reasons I don’t like it or a laundry list of bleating pleas to try to get others to see it my way. Mapplethorpe harms me in no way, and more to the point, impacts MY exercise of Freedom of Speech precisely zero.

      It’s EASY to agree with Right to Keep and Bear Arms when the other guy is doing everything exactly as you would do…but, unfortunately, the real world does not work that way. It’s messy. It’s difficult to let the other guy enjoy HIS rights even when you disagree with him.

    • I think open carry is annoying and tactically a terrible idea.

      Fortunately, the exercise of rights is not dependent upon your idea of annoyance and good tactics.

      On average, around 1% of the population has a carry permit and obviously some states, open carry doesn’t require one.

      I’m not sure where your numbers come from. According to John Lott, the number is closer to 5% of the adult population (11-12 million) who have a carry permit of some form or another, not counting those who exercise lawful constitutional/non-licensed carry.

      But if you imagine few people in the average metro area crowd have a gun and a criminal walks into a store and sees the obvious firearm on your hip, he’s got a damn good chance of immediately surprising and disarming the only person armed in the store/area. It’s bad for you and negates the one of the advantages of carrying a weapon as a regular citizen which is surprise.

      I keep seeing this asserted, but I have yet to see any real evidence to support it. The best anyone has come up with is the fool who was out late at night, bragging about his new gun, and painting a huge, neon “come rob me” target on his back with his general behavior. But guess what? There’s contradictory anecdote as well, such as the armed robbers who decided not to rob a Waffle House, because the one sent in to case the joint saw two customers open carrying, and they decided it would be more advantageous to rob the Waffle House across the street.

      And what of the largest group of open carriers in the country: police officers. How many of them are disarmed? Would that number likely be higher or lower than the number of non-LEO open carriers who get targeted to be disarmed?

      In fact, the general psyche of a criminal refutes such an assertion. Criminals want the path of not just least resistance, but no resistance. The sight of armed resistance is more likely to cause the criminal to seek an easier target, than it would be to cause him to target the greatest threat of resistance.

      So, please: put up or shut up on this point. Show some concrete evidence that open carriers are more likely to be targets to be disarmed, or shot first. The “open carry is tactically bad” canard is getting tiresome.

      Now, the other day when I was down town, I saw a bunch of 2A Rights advocates protesting? Demonstrating? (neither really the right word in Georgia…letting our voices be heard I guess comes closer to the mark) with signs and tons of ARs and AK’s on the shoulders, etc. That I think is totally fair. The context is clear and I could totally get on board with that. It’s clearly to make a political message and the intent is clear.

      Got it. So, exercising a second amendment-protected right as part of exercising first amendment-protected rights is acceptable.

      Working at Starbucks or when I’m walking down the street and see people openly carrying AR15’s is irritating even as a fellow gun owner.

      Perhaps some introspection is in order: why does someone minding his own business, exercising his rights in the lawful conduct of his own personal affairs irritate you? Why is it any of your business/concern?

      For one, I see a guy walking down a suburban street with a rifle and I have no clue who that person is.

      Why do you presume to have a right to have a clue who that person is?

      My natural self-defense instinct, even as a person comfortable with guns and other people with guns is to keep my distance and observe…just in case.

      Just in case… of what, exactly? Just in case it’s a Remington, and it might discharge accidentally?

      If they had a sign and it was clearly a political display? No problem.

      Yes, already established above. 1A + 2A = good.

      But how is someone supposed to guess whether a guy at a movie theater with an AR15 is open carrying to make a statement or whatever personal reasons…

      Wait. Are we talking about a guy walking down the street, or a guy inside a movie theater? I just want to make sure we have our scenarios straight. I would have concerns with someone carrying a rifle into a movie theater, too. I could end up sitting behind him, and that thing is going to block my view.

      …or about to commit mass murder until the bullets start flying or they don’t.

      Here’s a really easy test: if someone is open carrying a long gun in public, that person is less likely to commit murder with it than someone open carrying a hammer or a baseball bat.

      People who are going to commit crimes don’t tend to announce their intentions by parading around openly carrying the firearm with which they are going to commit their crime. Criminals – over 90% of them, according to FBI statistics – prefer to use a concealed handgun.

      Why are you so frightened by the mere sight/presence of a long gun? Why do you believe that you have the right to use your irrational fear as the basis of dictating the lawful exercise of rights by others?

      Now, they shouldn’t be treated like criminals the way these anti-gun nuts do, but my point being I personally don’t like it.

      Again, we are fortunate that the lawful exercise of rights is not dependent upon you, me, or anyone else “personally liking” it.

      Second, my other problem is I think it does make us look bad. People trying to enjoy their coffee, even the vast majority of pro-gun people that make up my heavily red leaning area are annoyed when people show up with a bunch of long-guns on their back and start political statements.

      People are just so annoying when they’re lawfully exercising their rights.

      It’s supposed to be a relaxing area and while you might think it’s high time to normalize carrying AR15s in public, I see it as the same logic anti-gun people use to try and force their aversion and ignorant fear of guns on the rest of us as forcing open-carry of rifles in casual public areas is.

      If someone walks into your precious little Starbucks and orders a coffee, while having a long gun strapped to his back, how does that in any way whatsoever affect you? Does the mere presence of a lawfully carried firearm force you to look up from your iPad or New York Times?

      City hall or the capital, the political message is obvious.

      Yep. For the third time: 1A + 2A = ok.

      But I don’t go to a coffee shop to be proselytized and just like I don’t want Starbucks letting Jehovas Witness or others to use the business as a pulpit and an unwitting public forum, I also think it’s asinine to open carry an AR there.

      Wait. I thought exercise of 1A rights was a-ok? So now, Jehovah’s Witnesses can’t exercise their rights, either?

      If you’re that bothered by the public, have you ever considered that you can always just drink your coffee at home? Instead of trying to dictate what free people should or should not do in public, maybe you should just spend less time among so much annoying, lawful exercise of rights.

      I guess basically, there’s a time and a place.

      Does that apply to all rights, or only to guns and religion?

      Not everyone wants you to shove your political views down their throats in a location that’s meant to be relaxing…

      Who is shoving what down whom’s throat? How is the man walking down the street minding his own business forcing his political views on you? Likewise for the guy buying a cup of coffee at your precious Starbucks?

      …and by potentially freaking out people who are borderline supporters of the 2A, rather than making them more accepting of guns it’s just as likely to unnerve them and push them over to the anti-gun camp.

      At some point, I stop being able to distinguish between your pearl-clutching and the tripe that comes out of MDA.

  40. I don’t oppose open carry, but I am against open carry assholes. You know, the jackoffs who think it’s a good idea to take their AR-15s into a restaurant and pose with them for Facebook pictures. Those guys are damaging our rights.

    • I think open carry is tactically dumb. On the other hand are they really costing us our gun rights? Or are they helping the “great unwashed” – who believe what they see on TV – understand that an ordinary citizen with a rifle is not some immediate threat? I don’t know. Were gays right to go march about marriage? Why didn’t they just stay quiet? Where’s gay marriage right now? Doing pretty well isn’t it?

    • I don’t oppose open religion, but I am against open religion assholes. You know, the jackoffs who think it’s a good idea to take their [crosses/yarmulkes/hijabs/turbans], into a restaurant and pose with them for Facebook pictures. Those guys are damaging our rights.

      • Continuing the thought:

        “I don’t oppose private property, but I am against private property assholes. You know, the jackoffs who think it’s a good idea to hide their [porn/drugs/sex partners/gun collection], in their homes and pose with them for Facebook pictures. Those guys are damaging our rights.“

        Another:

        “I don’t oppose the right to remain silent, but I am against 5th Amendment assholes. You know, the jackoffs who think it’s a good idea to not confess to a crime they didn’t commit just because they are accused and the police think they did it. Those guys are damaging our rights.“

  41. While I do not open carry, I wore a kilt to a dining out last week. I think she fears free range weapons, regimental or otherwise.

  42. I like to carry concealed so at the end of listening to an angry or ignorant rant about how no one needs guns and anyone with a gun is a crazy paranoid redneck I can say, “you know I’m carrying a gun right now, right?”. Then you see their true colors as their perception of you goes from a calm and nice conversationalist to the spawn of Satan.

  43. “And in a majority of those states, it’s perfectly legal to open carry a long gun with absolutely no training, permitting, or even a minimum age requirement [and yet not a single one of them has committed a single act of violence while doing so despite no training, permitting, or even a minimum age requirement in a majority of those states].” – Shannon Watts

    Clearly it was implied.

    • That goes along with what I was going to say, concerning her bleating about the millions of firearms sold throughout the country without background checks, without mentioning a single one of those firearms used in a crime. I don’t know of one, either. You would think the average person would catch on, and perhaps they have!

  44. In the past six to twelve months Shannon Watt’s propaganda has sounded increasingly desperate, and this article represents a new apex in her propaganda. What she’s desperately trying to deny/ignore is that the failure of the Anti-gun Movement is all thanks to the Progressive Liberals she works for and worships. More people, in general, trust the Government less in all areas, including “Public Safety”. More Americans have bought guns during the Obama Administration than during the G.W. Bush Administration. Violent crime has continued to decline, while increasing in the most gun ownership restrictive Cities and States. More people have stopped looking for employment than at any time in Post WWII America. The majority of the “new jobs” created are low-paying service industry jobs (hence, the Democrats move to increase the Minimum Wage). The National Debt has gone to $18 Trillion Plus, “Unfunded Debt” has gone to over $94 Trillion, while the GDP has remained at just over $17 Trillion during the Obama “Reign”. Wages and Salaries for the U.S. “Middle Class” have stagnated or shrunk. The U.S. has abdicated its role of Leadership in the World, and Americans have to face the prospect of eventual Islamic Terrorist Attacks within the U.S.. Naturally, Americans want to be able to deter/defend against crime and Muslim Terrorism by Open Carry of legally owned firearms, while the POTUS and his sycophants refuse to call the Muslim Terror organizations what they are and exposes us all to greater danger. The list can go on and on….
    Basically, Shannon Watts has failed to add to the misery and she knows it, hence, her propaganda rants become more hysterical and lie ridden. We just need to keep up the pressure by pursuing Open Carry Nationally, and earnestly Pray and work to push this witch to the breaking point. I think she’s getting close after reading this latest rave. Her path is FAIL and we need to expedite that eventuality with all our might.

    • When I am hanging out at the gun shop and I see someone buying a gun I point out to them that what they are doing makes Dianne Feinstein die a little bit inside. I get to smile when they say “good!”

      • SteveInCO, PLEASE! Hang-out in the Gun Store of your choice as much as possible and keep saying that to Gun Buyers. When you do Smile a little bigger for me, too! I am with you in Spirit every time you do! 🙂 Thanks!

        • The store also calls people by name to the front counter when their CBI check comes back, so I probably ng a minor victory every time that happens.

          EDIT: “Probably ought to start cheering a minor victory.” Damn autoplay video ate my typing as it loaded; I forgot to scroll up to kill it.

  45. Open-carry actually used to be the norm. It is due to a century’s worth of cultural brainwashing that open-carry is now viewed as extremist. Concealed-carry used to be considered the suspicious activity. That is why some of the state constitutions make mention of regulations of the concealed carrying of arms, but not on the carrying of arms period.

  46. Could be radically off base about this, but humor me.

    One thing I’ve wondered about is why the same logic that seems to be used by various gun control advocates couldn’t be used as an argument to outlaw cars, or more provocatively, to outlaw the practice of Islam in the U.S.

    (Full disclaimer: No, I obviously don’t want to outlaw either!)

    The vast majority of gun owners in the U.S. are law abiding citizens. But, sometimes guns are misused by previously law-abiding gun-owning citzens or used for nefarious ends by criminals. Likewise, the vast majority of Muslims in the U.S. are law abiding citizens. But, sometimes, a particular interpretation of the religion is used by previously law-abiding Muslim citizens or hijacked to justify various nefarious deeds, albeit deeds that rarely occur.

    In the gun case, the rate at which these incidents occur is apparently so bad that either (a) various gun control advocates want to ban specific guns like AR-15s or (b) want a blanket ban of firearms in general. But why not argue that the rate at which these incidents by Muslims occur is so bad that we either need to ban specific mosques or outlaw the practice of Islam in the U.S. entirely?

    Another parity of note is that just as the right to keep and bear arms is protected in the Bill of Rights, so too is the right to freedom of religion. Why are certain gun control advocates so eager to dissolve the former without carrying the philosophy through to dissolve the latter?

  47. Her only fear is that her typically anti-GMO Leftist hoplophobic moron audience and utterly racist minority youth hatin’ Bloompansyberg’s gullible Pavlovian dope brigade will finally learn to google her name and find that she sold all their children on GMO toxins, and is more directly responsible for more mass deaths in form of generational disease and DNA mutation, and in causatory pure death numbers, more Indian farmer suicides than ALL deaths caused by ‘mass shooters’ in the last 30yrs combined.

    Or maybe not: feeling guilt or remorse would require that the PR kunt would have to have a conscience. And no PR arsehole whom knowingly lies for a living has such.

    So it goes.

    Nevertheless it’s hilarious watching MSM do the WWE dance of feigning AS IF there are literally only two pre-selected approved list of opinion makers: MAIG et al, vs. NRA et al.

    WhoTF made ANY of these monkeys the spokesperson for all??

    Until the 2A in full is actually recognized, as in NO GUN LAWS PERIOD, it’ll forever be the THREE pillars of the NEVER resolvables intentionally pushed by the social engineers for populace Balkanization to leverage control paradigm, come election season: God, Guns, Gays.

    Just so that the ‘peons’ continue to delude their opinions actually matter.

    Shy of a Rand Paul POTUS-ship, there ain’t an iota of a chance of anything resembling even a minor change. And even IF were he to be elected, without a culture, and CONgress demographic representing his strain of political philosophy, it’ll be like any other pResidency.

  48. “I’m worried that if people accept individual freedoms and responsibilities as the norm, I’ll have to sit down for some honest introspection and come to terms with what an insecure, weak, foolish, and hateful person I am.”

    That’s what Watts, and all antis, truly fear.

  49. I take offense to her comments. I buy milk, and the rest of my groceries for that matter, at IGA. Sometimes Save A Lot.

Leave a Reply

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