By uncommon_sense
Many citizens who embrace the Second Amendment to our Constitution contend that it is a bad idea to openly carry firearms in public. They fear it will lead to laws that criminalize openly carried firearms and maybe even concealed firearms. Or worse yet, government might criminalize the ownership of entire classes of firearms such as AR-15 rifles. Is there any truth to this? Let’s start with a brief look at history . . .
Remember when Chicago criminalized ownership of handguns? Remember when Washington D.C. criminalized possession of an operable firearm in the home? Need I mention New York City’s downward spiral to the current situation over several decades? Or the New York SAFE Act? And how about the 1990s? Does everyone remember the federal “assault weapons” ban and magazine capacity restrictions? How about the federal gun free school zone act?
However government justified those laws, I can tell you one thing for certain: they did not enact those laws as a response to citizens openly carrying firearms. Were people parading around Chicago with openly carried handguns? Around Washington D.C. with openly carried and operable firearms? Around the nation with openly carried “assault riles”? Around schools with openly carried firearms? Obviously not. The government entities who passed laws that criminalize ownership and possession of firearms passed those laws because they want to disarm citizens, period.
At this point I am sure someone is saying, “But look at California! They banned openly carried loaded firearms after the Black Panthers stormed the legislature and then again after people openly carried unloaded handguns!” True. And how about all the additional subsequent bans that have absolutely no relationship to openly carried firearms? How about the “may issue” concealed carry situation in much of the state that is effectively “no issue”? Again, it is the simple fact that the California legislature wants complete civilian disarmament and is doing everything possible to make that happen.
Regardless of the legislative/legal history of criminalizing ownership and possession of firearms, let’s look at this in a simple and pragmatic way. What good is a “right” if we cannot exercise the right for fear that we will “lose” the right? Does that not mean the right is already lost? The logical paradox should be obvious and yet no one seems to see it. What kind of strategy is this? Are we hoping to save the right to carry openly until we really “need” it, only to be banned then?
Don’t think for a second that government or anyone else will be content with banning open carry. I already mentioned the continued assault on the Second Amendment in California long after they banned open carry. And look at concealed carry. Look at the lists of “prohibited places” in various state concealed carry laws. Illinois’ concealed carry law criminalizes concealed carry in something like 22 locations. Michigan’s concealed carry law criminalizes concealed carry in something like 10 locations. Other states criminalize concealed carry in various locations as well such as churches, bars, schools, hospitals, university campuses, parks, etc.
Bans on concealed carry in various locations obviously have nothing to do with open carry and yet they exist. They exist because the forces of civilian disarmament are criminalizing as many firearms as possible, in as many locations as possible, and owned/possessed in any way possible. And where they have not been able to criminalize firearms directly, they have put up as many hurdles and obstacles as possible to armed citizens.
The situation is clear. There are forces pushing for total civilian disarmament. How can we ever oppose that push if we hide our faces and our firearms at all times? What kind of a right do we have if we cannot exercise it for fear that government will infringe on that right? How will the public ever learn that good people own firearms and that those firearms do not magically turn those good people into violent criminals if they never see us with firearms?
I think conceal carry should be more of a right than open carry.
Whether something is a right or not isn’t yours to determine. You have a right or you don’t, and they aren’t defined by consensus.
Both methods of carry are part of the same right. One is not ‘more of a right’ than the other. In some states the citizens have allowed part or all of their right to be usurped by a licensed/permitted privilege or banned completely.
I think the fact that I have a right to defend myself and my loved ones by any means necessary also means I can carry a firearm or any other weapon as I see fit for the situation. If I have to go through a riot to get to my loved ones, I prefer to be open carrying with my firearm holstered into my palm. If I am going to a Daddy-Daughter dance, well it will be concealed. The 2nd Amendment guarantees that I have the right for both those situations and no amount of manufactured feel good laws will stop me from protecting myself and the lives of my loved ones.
Open carry is critically important. It helps eliminate the ever increasing stigma associated with firearms when people see good guys and gals carrying. Like all things, there is a right and a wrong way in which to do so. Dress professionally, act responsibly and so on. While waving an AR around at a public intersection is and should be a protected right, it may not be the best PR move.
Also, when open carry is banned, it turns an otherwise legal CC’er into a potential criminal, or results in a yanked CCW…
Does PDA between same-sex couples jeopardize gay rights? This is not a rhetorical question. Personally, I think it’s a good long-term assimilation/desensitization strategy, IF done slowly.
Bad analogy.
Gay rights, good or bad, (personally don’t care either way) don’t kill people. PDA amongst two gay people is not causing panic with people running for their lives in a mall ,coffee shop, air port or school.
Another major factor around gay rights is it, like gun rights is largely a public perception issue. The media is controlled by left wing and often people in the media/hollywood are either gay or very much in favor of gay rights. Again not saying that is right or wrong.
However these same people are NOT in favor of gun rights, and the gun rights advocates don’t have the same advantage of media control. Not even close, if anything those that control the media will spin open carry in a very NEGATIVE way. Hence I believe it does more harm, especially when people OC to make a point, bring them selves fame on youtube…etc and it freaks out Joe Public.
The cops are also committing the error of ignoring the unseen consequences. The choice to resist has consequences beyond attacker and defender. Regardless of the outcome, that attacker, and any would-be attacker hearing of the resistance, are dissuaded from future attacks.
( . . . and don’t give me the simpleton response of: “well, next time, the attacker will shoot first, if he knows people will resist.” That choice was available this time and the attacker didn’t take it. If shooting each mugging victim were an effective means of mugging, muggers would already be doing it.)
The contrapositive is also important: a victim who chooses to be a victim endangers the rest of us by incentivizing violence–another unseen consequence. This is what I say to “peace loving” “non-violent” opponents of concealed carry: “by making yourself vulnerable, you have harmed me by making it more likely that I will be attacked and that I will have to kill my attacker. It is your choice and your lifestyle that encourages violence, not mine.”
If a mugger gets away without harming the victim, they know that there will little to no effort by the police to investigate the crime beyond name and address. Assault gets more attention, and murder will have (where I live) thorough investigation with a much higher chance of arrest. Murder and assault, they come after you, simple robbery, meh.
That does not mean you should lie down, because some thugs don’t do a self risk assesment of their actions. The victim must.
Open carry is not the problem. It is the confrontational nature of most open carriers that causes so much problem.
It’s one thing to have a problem with guns, it’s entirely different to have someone shove a gun in someone’s face that has a problem with guns. It doesn’t make people more comfortable, I propose it actually has the reverse effect.
Open carry itself does not worry me but the behavior and attitudes of open carriers does. If you want to be an advocate for gun rights, there has got to be a better way to normalize, or maybe it’s re-normalize at this point, then doing everything short of brandishing firearms in public.
Like 40 people carrying long guns to protest that twat Watts meetings.
Something can be legal and be a phenomenally bad idea at all the same time. If you care about perception–and if you want to win this war you damn well better–you need to think how your actions might come across to people that DON’T agree with you. Not the raving antis–they’re lost–but any fence sitters.
Agreed. Leonard might “not give a shit” how he comes across and be in the right, but people’s perceptions and ignorance needs to be addressed in a manner that doesn’t immediately turn them off. Running around with long guns is like slapping them in the face and then calling them an idiot for not knowing. OCing your holstered pistol is a little less intimidating to folks and is a good entry level way of making folks aware. You have to win a culture war through dialogue and OCing rifles tends to shut that down between the two parties pretty quickly.
Mr. Java, you are 100% correct. It’s the few, but loud knuckleheads out there that are deliberately provoking others verbally that do not help us at all.
I agree. If we 2A rights defenders want to continue to keep and bear arms to defend our families we are going to have to get smarter politically in both strategic and tactical fashion. Open carry in CA by OFWGs in Starbucks resulted in a quick bit of legislation to remove that right. Not to be outdone OCD AR fans responde by open carry in confrontational fashion at the beach as documented on Youtube. Voila …the CA Dems quickly ‘fixed’ that problem.
So. To answer the lede: In a word: yes.
I totally agree with open carry and would love to do it. I just don’t agree with the people who film their open carry of rifles looking for fights with law enforcement officials. There is a right way and a wrong way to do it .
Open carriers must audio and video record because the cops word is worth more in court. Audio and video recording should be welcome by law enforcement as it preserves a true account.
Open carriers should continuously record when carrying, because reaching for a recording device after a cop approaches could be a fatal mistake.
Well, allow me share a similar tale:
I live in the Civilian Disarmament Republic of NJ. On a recent Sunday morning, I was headed over to America (PA) to do some shooting. Had my guns in the trunk, locked and unloaded, ammo separate. And a target stand in the back seat.
5-O pulled me over for speeding. I followed the proper steps: Car off, keys on dash, windows down, radio off, hands at 10&2. Cop walks up, asks for the usual, looks in the back seat and says “where you headed?” I tell him. He asks if I have guns in the car, I tell him “yes, in the trunk, locked cases, unloaded, as per state law.”
He then asks what I have. I thought about going all YouTubey and asking if I was being detained. But it occured to me that: A- I *was* being detained for speeding and B- he hadn’t asked to open the trunk (yet) and I would save my outrage for that. So I told him: GP100, P95 and my Mossberg 20ga that I hunt Turkey with.
The next 5 minutes were spent talking turkey, literally. Turned out he was a hunter.
We shared our woes (turkey population way down this year) and off I went. No ticket, no warning.
If someone had a NFA full auto lower receiver for a mac 10, couldn’t they put this upper on it and be able to fire full auto in 5.7×28? Thus bringing yourself much closer to ‘getting on the same level’ as an mp7.
My opinion on open carry is best represented by a quote from the Dude:
“You’re not wrong Walter. You’re just an asshole.”
At the very least, traditions vary from State to State.
I’m torn. In terms of facts, I disagree with you. However, I have never argued against the Book of Dude.
I’ve mentioned this before. If I lived in NJ and was unable to aquire a gun permit and found myself in a DGU situation, it would also turn out that I took the gun from my attacker. I would have no explaination for why the criminal was carrying two guns.
One of them would be an inexpensive Taurus.
You do what you have to do but, it seems to me that the likelyhood of being caught “illegally” carrying a firearm is probably much greater than the probability of needing it. So then the New Jerseyite (or New Yawker, or Cali dude,….) has to do the mental risk calc factoring the possible outcomes of being robbed (or worse) vs. being prosecuted, jailed, and losing their 2A rights forever.
Seems that our Constitution, if properly applied, would eliminate the need for this mental calculation.
That should be an easy sell since we’re told all the time that one reason for not carrying a gun is that the bad guy will take it away and shoot you with your own gun.
In fact, this would probably be like some deadly game of hot-potato with the gun changing hands so rapidly that the very laws of physics would be defied. You would, in effect, have a perpetual motion machine.
If thousands of said pairs of assailants and victims could be wired in series, and if the guns were magnetized, they could generate enough electricity to lead to an age of energy independence.
You sir, will be a hero of this new age!
Shannon don’t like me no more…
You have been blocked from following this account at the request of the user.
Shannon
@shannonrwatts
Founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America (@MomsDemand or http://momsdemandaction.org ). Accidental activist. Mother of five.
You poor thing!
“They banned openly carried loaded firearms after the Black Panthers stormed the legislature…”
Black Panthers didn’t “storm” any legislature.
Got pulled over in SC one morning for speeding by a state trooper. I was driving my old station wagon with a bunch of tools in the back. She looked in and checked the tools out. In SC they make note of your occupation/trade/craft on their citations. She checked “professional trades” on my warning ticket. Very professional. I did not have the heart to tell her I stole the tools…………….
Outstanding, uncommon_sense!
The question of rights isn’t what’s important, nor the impact on what stupid anti-gun laws may. You have a right to carry (in most of America), and you certainly have a right to free expression (openly exercising your 2nd amendment rights is certainly a 1st amendment act). Aside from deliberately seeking confrontation with police, it seems to me that open carry is tactically stupid, whether it is a long-gun or a pistol. I deer hunt in rural VA, where open carry is legal (it’s legal everywhere, it’s just more prevalent in the sticks). No one bats an eye when someone is carrying a pistol. But even there, if you are exercising your rights, the question is what for? If you have your pistol for personal protection and/or to defend other innocent lives, open carrying is going to get you one thing: shot first by any bad guy. It’s your decision, and you are within your rights. But you have to recognize that you are basically seeking confrontation. Don’t whine like a bitch when you get it. And good luck not being shot in the back of a head should you happen upon an actual criminal.
Open carry of arms, including handguns and long guns, is a major component implied by the Second Amendment; deterrence. The second major part is the implied solution should the People need to use those arms against usurpation. Without the commonly exercised RKBA in public, second component implied by the 2A is crippled. Remove the open exercise of the RKBA and the Second Amendment becomes toothless and practically meaningless.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Look at the plain language… The people shall have arms. The people shall bear arms. They shall be free to do this because it is necessary to the security of a free state. Seeing the People freely bearing arms in public, day to day, is an extremely strong deterrent to all enemies; foreign and domestic. If, heaven forbid, the People should need to use those arms to defend our free nation, are they all of a sudden going to show up in public bearing arms and the enemies, foreign and domestic, are going to somehow not think something is going down? If you think the general public freaks out now when people OC rifles in public, how much more so will they should trouble come? The militia is composed of the People and the militia is camouflaged by the People. If the only time individuals are going to exercise the RKBA with long guns is when it is time of great need then we aren’t going to be all that effective in securing a free state; now are we?
+ 100 this
The Vikings had a law that if you were robbed and did not do everything within your power to stop the attacker, you were held responsible for his next victim.
Now that would put a different twist in things here, now wouldn’t it?
I have had only one interaction with law enforcement while carrying, and that was while having lunch with a buddy of mine at Subway.
We bumped into two officers who happened to know him, so we all sat near each other and chatted about things and stuff.
The conversation inevitably led to firearms and one officer asked me where I got my license to carry. I told him and he said he’d heard good things about that place.
Oh, and I was openly carrying my XD(m). Great gun.
any genre crossing lune who falls for that deserves to be had. mixing steampunk and sci-fi is like mixing oil and water. the whole point of steampunk is that we never get to sci-fi because all the technological marvels are achieved with cogs and boilers.
That robot is a neat toy but everyone here is right: a mule would be faster, cheaper, and have greater range. Hell, have a horse and then you could ride it if you needed.
If the military wants to resupply teams in the field, assuming we have air support, they should just develop a package that uses smart-guidance technology with a low altitude parachute. Need water? Drop it. Need ammo? Drop it. Need food and extra kit? Drop it. You could make the things out of plastic with a crumple nose or airbag in the cone, rack them like bombs, and deploy them anywhere on the battlefield.
If you open carry, and you truly are obeying the law, why have a camera? When someone (anyone) asks if that gun is loaded, ignore them and continue your business.
Open carry is but one reason to have a form of video recording available. The other good reasons are traffic stops, recording of apparent criminal behavior, and recording public matters of a positive sort which might provide an encouraging human interest segment on the internet or local TV.
If people did not lie so much, did not so often act abusively when they felt free of effective observation, there would not be a need for video recording. The prevalence of video recording in public areas is nothing but good, provided every side has equal right to record. This means that government surveillance of public areas is no more legitimate than private surveillance, since we must assure our ability to “watch the watchers.” The abusive use of video ‘footage’ to huniliate, embarrass, or bully is a separate issue with which evolving law can deal.
But why even stop? It’s legal, carry on your business. Don’t even acknowledge them.
I believe a cleave should be made in ones comments about OC to separate or to distinguish between a holstered side arm and a back strapped AR.
The AR on your back has about zero tactical advantage in 99% of potential DGU scenarios, thus it is a political statement. How often are we advised that in an emergency adrenalin dump, we lose a lot of rational thinking power. What do you think happens in a non gun persons mind when they see an AR out in public (and it serves very little self-defense advantage), they see Holmes/Lanza. They go from White to at least Orange and do not process your political statement.
I believe we have to defend ourselves on two fronts, criminal and political. Tactically, I believe concealed carry is superior against the criminal front and open carry can be very useful on the political one.
So if you are trying to preach to the choir, strap on your AR along with criss-crossed bandelaros and two Colts so that the fearful will write their congressmen.
If your true motive is trying to “normalize”, dress smart and holster your XD40, S&W M&P full or your Glock 17.
Let them see it in normal life situations.
Hide your LITTLE gun, Show your BIG gun, leave your LONG gun at home, at least for now.
Wow. It’s really awesome that a select superminority of ultrasmart academics and media wonks keep raising this question and keeping the spotlight on it. One day maybe the 98% will learn from them.
I’d take watching “actual” debates on it all day as opposed to the common sense bloody shirt waving you usually see in the media.
Agree. And I would note that Alan Dershowitz is playing devil’s advocate. He does not actually believe the 2nd Amendment is outdated. He was, among other things, the first reputable academic lawyer to point out the abuse of state power which the George Zimmerman prosecution represented.
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/drop-george-zimmerman-murder-charge-article-1.1080161
Actually I would note that Mr. Dershowitz was invited on to Piers Morgan as a counterpoint to a guest appearance by John Lott, during which Dershowitz continually, rudely, and unprofessionally attacked Lott on his intellect and professional qualifications, claiming that Lott was no expert and would never qualify to testify in federal court as an expert witness, and that his book, More Guns, Less Crime was totally bullshit 9even though Dersh had never even read it or the studies Lott cites) as totally lacking in “common sense.” The statistics do not matter, “common sense” tells us that more guns means there will be more crime.
It was a truly appalling display. He is a dyed in the wool gun banner. And I have little doubt that he would have nothing good at all to say about the D.C. V. Heller majority. (Which in my view is not too surprising–most of the criminal defense attorneys I know are raving liberals.)
Well, I for one don’t need a debate or poll to know that the 2nd amendment is the cornerstone of all other freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. If it fell all the others would be gone in short order. Consider it the parakeet in the coal mine.
Ha, ha, ha, self preservation has never been outdated.
The 1st Amendment must be outdated in NYC.
***Sarcasm Warning***
I think people should be required to take constitutional history classes in both high school and college. Maybe it would end a lot of our problems we have today with the government.
And who would teach said classes? Who would determine the content of the textbooks? Who would write the tests?
You had better hope they don’t teachers like Obama. (so called constitutional law professor)
Yes, the Second Amendment is antiquated. In an era of high-quality, low cost firearms, gun ownership should not be permitted. Instead, it should be required for all able-bodied, law-abiding citizens, and all of them should be part of the militia as they were in the time of the Founders.
And the states should get off their collective asses and TRAIN the militias (That’s what “well-regulated” means.)
They didnt state it, exactly, but I’d bet the majority of the founders viewed it as a requirement when they wrote it.
As much as I agree, you need to be careful. Forcing people to buy a private product is a gross overreach of the government and is somthing they’d never be allowed….wait….damn…..
Loved the post. I own the Sig. I’m like you, I don’t have a bear paw for a hand. Your humor was great and the article well written. I would recommend the post just because of the laughs it generated. Thank you.
Dershowitz has outlived his usefulness and should be done away with, I’m inclined to go with: wall, blindfold, firing squad, in that order.
There’s strength in numbers.
One man who open carries in a place where it is viewed with hatred is going to get arrested, or at least have his balls broken by the cops even though he is acting peaceably and legally. Two hundred people open carrying are not going to be hassled by the boys in blue, and that kind of peaceful demonstration (the Alamo and Arkansas marches are models for the future) makes a far greater impact.
The best part — oh irony of ironies! — the cops, often the enemy, become our escort on open carry marches, protecting and clearing the way for us (can you stand it?), and they’re open carrying too.
The citizens of Perth Amboy recommend that the Police Department STFU and let the people have firearms for own protection.
That’s it? Just a link?
Meh…
I don’t think open carry threatens gun rights, that is, along as it is with the open carry of pistols, and we as a gun carrying community watch out tone. That is, the trolling of police officers needs to stop, the carrying of shotguns and rifles needs to be curbs to locations or times that are approciate. And carrying an AR or Mossy 500 into Starbucks isn’t that time. Carrying a Krinko AK at a Tennessee state park isn’t that time. Those sort of displays are only use against us to protray the gun rights community as crazies, not responsible citizens that we all know we are.
Mr. Zimmerman you may now delete this post at your likeing now.
Just what kind of an urban pussy Liberal pinko rights-trampling Gestapo LEO pig ARE you?! You should be ashamed to call yourself a ‘Murican! My right to carry my MG42 with tripod and three full belts of ammunition into the Starbucks in the mall shall not be infringed, you bastidge!
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
Why make these MAC-10/UZI clones when they don’t have anything that their namesakes have but looks? They possess nothing from the original designs. It’s not supposed to have that long barrel or a closed bolt. What’s the point in buying a gun like that? If you want a gun that looks more like the original, just buy a replicica or a deactivated version to hang in your home or something. Until the NFA changes or is removed you aren’t going to get your hands on the real McCoy anyway so save your money is my opinion.
Another way of saying this if not a repeat:
99% of the time, OC of a LONG GUN is a political statement, OK.
That means you are carrying the AR to achieve a political end.
IS IT WORKING???????????
That is the big question.
Also, what better way to demonize AR-15 owners, carriers and gun enthusiasts in general than to plant a few among the ranks who go all “AM I BEING DETAINED/COME AND TAKE IT” and do more harm than good.
Reynolds wrap or store brand tinfoil?
The implied deterrent expressed by the Second Amendment requires that at least some of the People do it. The implied solution to enemies, foreign or domestic, expressed by the Second Amendment requires that at least some of the People do it. So, unless you are conceding that the Second Amendment serves no purpose anymore then your point is moot.
Be nice if one day gun rights advocates could actually gain some unity. They all will preach “shall not be infringed” but only half believe in that fully. Other half is so in fear, they argue over how using a right is bad.
Maybe we should only have free speech when it doesn’t offend another?
Only have religous freedom when it doesn’t scare people of a different faith?
Only use due process, when noone is in fear of the person NOT going to jail.
Maybe, only have life, liberty, and happiness when noone else will get jealous of how it is being used by another?
Half of you sound similar to those you are fighting against. “You have the right, but…”
You want to save 2A? Get over yourselves, and get some fucking unity.
They all will preach “shall not be infringed” but only half believe in that fully. Other half is so in fear, they argue over how using a right is bad.
Half of you sound similar to those you are fighting against. “You have the right, but…”
Get over yourselves, and get some fucking unity.
+1000 🙂
Point well taken.
But, if the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that carrying of any weapon in any manner is constitutional and all laws to the contrary are void, I still would not carry a long gun.
So…
Maybe a “Question of the day” should be,
If Open Carry is legal in your state, Why don’t you carry a long gun? Or Why would you if you could?
We would then see a legitimate diversity of opinions and that diversity and the freedom to express and live it, is what makes America.
Our unity exist strongly in our support of the 2A, our diversity is revealed in how we might defend it.
No offense to these two, but I would like to hear the opinion on its weight from someone who looks like they’ve done more than five pushups in their lives.
Not only that, but if you SBR it, is that the only complaint left? Then what’s the problem?
No offense taken. The UC-9 weighs as much as an FN-FAL with the majority of the weight being towards the front. The gun isn’t so much heavy as it is unnecessarily heavily for what it is/does. Admittedly neither of us are powerlifters but Kay can bang out 40 push-ups and works out daily. I can only manage about 60 before the elbow shakes kick in.
As far as the SBR comments goes, it is a bit much to ask a new buyer to not only add 200 dollars to their purchase price but also wait 6-8 months to make the gun more handy.
If anything it’s more useful today than it’s ever been. With the ever-encroaching threat of government control and the more and more prevalent problems with street crime and gang violence, I think it’s more important to be armed and ready than ever before.
Fact: MDA gets more publicity from TTAG than all other MSM outlets combined.
FACT: A gun in the home makes it 3X more likely you or someone you love will be murdered. #MomsDemandAction for #GunSense
Because this includes violent criminals, crack dealers, gangbangers etc. who happen to have guns in their house but are predisposed to dying by a gun due to the nature of their activities. What percentage of gangbangers who have been killed by cops, other gangbangers, citizens defending their own lives, disenchanted girlfriends, or their own carelessness happen to have a gun in their house? All of them? It inflates the 3X figure.
Fun Gun Facts are even more fun to dissect than they are to invent.
Somehow, I don’t belive having guns in my house makes me more likely to be murdered.
Accidental suicide, maybe….
But that’s the same as saying having a circular saw in my garage makes me more likely to cut my leg off.
Which I’ve come far closer to doing than a ND 🙁
Ok. So we all know, as the author well demonstrated, that these little goat nuggets of info from MDA are misleading and false, and why they are misleading and false.
BUT… The goal of MDA is to use these little <140 character tweets and sound-bites to make a repetitive drumbeat until the politicians and readers can start repeating them off the top of their head because, well, they've seen it so many time before it MUST be true.
Something to consider. Their message may not be true, but they do have lots of people who make a good living at communicating their message.
Dirk, will you get control of your woman please?
In exactly the same sense that getting a restraining order against an abusive partner makes you several times more likely to be murdered.
It looks like the guy who wrote the script signed it.
function form_labelize() {
// https://github.com/mathiasbynens/jquery-placeholder
return jQuery(‘input, textarea’).placeholder();
Any connection to MAIG or NYC?
The vices have always been my allies…
Ever since the five gun grabbing groups were brought under an organizing umbrella by the White House, via the Office of Public Engagement, out-sourced to Bob Creamer but supervised by Valerie Jarrett, it is clear that we should call MDA “Obama’s Favorite Mother Demands Action.” And who is surprised at her proclivities?
I run through the ammunition in my carry magazine(s) every three to six months. So I don’t know exactly, but I know it’s less than that.
No more than 1 year is my guideline.
I tend to rotate mine every 6 months, unless it becomes scarce in which case I’ll stretch it up to a year. Though I’ve really only had to do that once and learned my lesson and keep more carry ammo on hand now.
The ammo I’m carrying is about 3 months old. I can’t (contractually) carry at work, so it doesn’t stay on body except for the evenings an weekends.
My .22LR plinking ammo is old enough to vote.
Winchester .45 ACP Black Talons bought in the 90s… not kept in the same gun over the years of course…
Carry ammo 3 years old since purchase. Stored in U.S. ammo cans. Actually load and carry it for one year. I switch both the loaded and spare magazine out for different ones every six months.
I recycle the ammo for 1 year or less since it gets hot here and I get sweaty. I clean the mags once a month or so and only re-chamber a single round 3 times. I started logging my carry ammo dates on a whiteboard in my man cave cause I would never remember otherwise and Ive begun to put a little red sharpie mark on a the brass after I pull it out of the chamber to track how much it gets removed.
I always like talking about this topic with other PoTG I meet in life so Im glad it made its way up to TTAG.
I’m not sure. It’s about time for new stuff anyways. Most of my guns/ammo aren’t stored anywhere other than my room in the a/c so I guess it can be stretched.
The car gun (don’t have my chl yet, sorry) has some golden sabers I bought during the panic. Probably gonna shoot them off later this year and cycle in new stuff.
A protest isn’t the final move, it’s the first move. A protest isn’t the point, it’s fodder for a larger, continuous media and PR campaign. If you don’t know and aren’t willing to guide the stories that will come from your action, you don’t know what you are doing. The point is free media. Without a plan on hand, the other guys will grab the energy you create to fuel their message.
Next moves:
– Defamation suit.
– Civil rights action – suppression of political speech.
– Request for investigation and charges.
Aaaaaaaand … a series of audit able inquiries to everyone who has made statements like these, their bosses, legal departments and PR organizations as follows:
Dear Whoever,
I’m writing on behalf of Normal People Protest Org asking for your help. On Date / Time in WhateverForum you reported Bad Thing We Don’t Condone at our event on Date / Time at Place.
We don’t tolerate that. We saw nothing like that. It isn’t part of our materials, position or approach to political activites. Our records of The Event – we always record our events – don’t show what you describe.
Could you please contact us right away? We’d like to know who is misbehaving at our events, or even false-flagging us while misbehaving. Some of what you describe could be criminal. We’d like to bring that to prosecutors and cooperate in any investigation. We’d also like to understand how we missed this as our event unfolded, so we can improve the monitoring and organization at our political events.
Could you let us know what you saw? Who was doing This Thing We Don’t Condone? Where were they, that we missed this? We’ve also contacted The Surveillance Apparatus at The Event Location and Other Identified Witnesses to try to see this doesn’t happen again.
With great power comes great responsibility. We know that the power to defend yourself comes with the responsibility of discretion and judgment. This is why we are so opposed to Something Uncomfortable that’s Anti-Gun then Something Emotional that’s Pro-Gun, like this: the thug culture that for example fueled a fatal home invasion in Rochester, NY last week, and the disarmament culture that left a heroic 15 year old child screening his grandmother from the two large, agitated, armed men who broke in, rather than backed up by a gun in her hands. They both should have had better choices.
You or others may disagree with our position on gun ownership by citizens, but of course we all agree that there is no place for intimidation or misrepresentation in the political dialog on that topic. We won’t have that in our organization or at our events.
Thank you for your help,
Us
For the record:
California’s may issue dates to 1923, and was a law that also passed in New Hampshire and North Dakota (also established the DROS and other aspects)
This law was not actually pushed as part of civilian disarmament. Quite the opposite. This was in the time period when New York got its Sullivan act, and Texas was outlawing any carrying whatsoever of guns (as did most states). In the face of this, a bill was introduced on the federal level, but kicked down to the states (California, New Hampshire, and North Dakota). The supporters explicitly stated the bill was in response to fanaticism against the right to bear arms.
As a US Senator who introduced the same bill on the federal level said “It is frankly, an effort upon the part of those who know something about firearms to forestall the flood of fanatical legislation intended to deprive all citizens of the United States of the right to own and use, for legitimate purposes, firearms capable of being concealed upon the person”
Hence the bill guaranteed the right to own and carry such arms at home, business or outing (hence we can still carry without a license while fishing…go figure), and set up a may issue permit system for other times. And the penalties for violating the law? They were added punishments to whatever other crime you had committed, rather than being a standalone offense.
Sure it has morphed some since then (1 day turned into 15 days for a waiting period). And it does prove you never throw a bone to ward off worse legislation. But the move, on the CCW front in CA, has actually been positive, if only very minimally. E.g. in 2011 passing a law that eased some requirements, put caps on fees and required same criteria to be applied to all applicants…meaning if the sheriff followed the strictest criteria allowed for one applicant, he must for all, and vice verse. So we aren’t completely lost…we still have moments of pushing back the enemy
I read recently something in the news about an M.D.A. meeting….. only four people showed up. One of whom was presumably the organizer…..
I think this group has been sucking on the Bloomberg Money-Teat so long that their brains have gone soft. Their little brains can’t seem to grasp even the simplest of concepts like 4 people doesn’t make a large group and adding a percentage symbol to a random number does not magically turn it into a fact.
Hey Nick your friend MAC at MAC responded with any easy fix to lower trigger to 7 pds.
http://www.thebangswitch.com/5-minute-tavor-trigger-job/
Wonder if that would help your groups? 3 moa would work on a TX hog hunt right?
“the reality is that about 80% of this is gang member on gang member violence between the ages of 16 and 24”
“Gang violence is a terrible thing, but the fact of the matter is that it’s the driving reason behind the murder rate in the United States. I’m trying to get some funding to identify exactly what percentage of the murders in the United States are gang related, but some estimates put it as high as 80%.”
Could you provide any resources on the rates of gang related violent crime/murders? It’s been something I’ve been looking for to look into the root causes of the violent crime/murder rate that the US has. My hypothesis is that if you were to remove all gang and drug related murders from the calculation, the murder rate would drop to or below the various European countries that people love to compare the US to. Unfortunately, I don’t have any numbers to back up this claim.
And the 4th. part of the government is WE THE PEOPLE (the vote, and Jury duty). Our 2A duty is Military defense of the Bill of Rights. Hunting is not a right. Self-defense is a God given right. Our duty is also to keep order and protect the helpless. Looking like RAMBO is not helpful to our cause… Much of this goes right back to George Washington and his military orders , Like not wearing a hat in doors, Why? HE is stating a higher moral order. A society that is orderly. You can have all the guns you want and types.. The point is to not have a land with no law and order… And open carry is a duty. not Hollywood dress up time…
Those are some light rounds.
If it shows them starve to death or die of some infectious disease, I’ll watch it. Otherwise it sounds stupid.
WWSWD?
She would rather just close her eyes and wait for it to be over, and if she were killed afterward, she would die honestly believing in her delusions of nobility in being a victim. That’s it.
http://fairytangles.com/2013/03/02/the-one-with-fonzie-elvis-olan-mills/unknown/#main
Thanks TTAG! I do love your no BS reviews of products. Too many adverting supported main-stream magazines tout crap products as the next best thing just to please their revenue streams. I love this site for the fact that we can always rely on a solid and honest review.
I agree with his statement, but not his politics.