Slate: Springfield Open Carrier is ‘America’s Best Gun Control Activist’

Image via Twitter (Slate Magazine)

Recently, Walmart changed its corporate policy to effectively forbidding the open carry of firearms in their stores. Following Walmart’s lead, a number of other large retail chains did the same.

Why the change? In part, because of so-called “activists” open carrying long guns in public spaces in order to “increase public awareness.”

They increased public awareness, alright. The open-carrier at the Springfield, Missouri Walmart made national news just five days after the massacre at a Walmart in El Paso. In an interview following his arrest, Dmitriy Andreychenko admitted that “It was foolish. I didn’t give it thought.”

Openly carrying handguns has happened since pretty much before the nation’s founding with generally little in the way of issue. In today’s world though, some want to push the envelope by open-carrying long guns.

These people scare everyday Americans who are unaccustomed to seeing such hardware toted in the aisles of their neighborhood Kroger, Walmart or Starbucks. Oftentimes, those carrying long guns also have tactical pouches, making themselves better kitted out for a workday in Kabul than running errands in America. And Mr. Andreychenko hit the grand-slam in checking all of the above boxes during his stunt.

More often than not, these rifle-toting open-carriers are less interested in increasing awareness than in provoking a confrontation. Take the guy in an Edmond, Oklahoma park.  Or countless others, captured on YouTube, trying to achieve their fifteen seconds of fame.

Their actions may comply with the letter of the law. But just because “there’s no law against it” doesn’t mean one should endeavor to motivate legislators to “fix” that.  When one scares everyday fellow Americans, politicians sometimes act.  Open carriers precipitated just this in California a few short years ago, slinging unloaded long guns as part of their activism. The Californian legislature then banned the practice in 2012.

That’s effectively what Andreychenko did in Springfield.  His stunt eclipsed all of the other open-carry incidents by a wide margin, and brought about negative repercussions for the rest of America’s gun owners.

Even the mainstream leftists now publicly recognize Andreychenko’s contribution to their efforts to enact more gun control upon the rest of us.

From Slate Magazine:

The Guy Who Open-Carried an Assault Rifle Into Walmart After El Paso Is America’s Best Gun Control Activist

On Aug. 3, a 21-year-old Texas man shot 46 people in an El Paso Walmart with a semi-automatic rifle, killing 22 of them. On Aug. 8, a 20-year-old man wearing body armor and carrying a semi-automatic rifle entered a Walmart in Springfield, Missouri, in what police say he intended as a “social experiment” to see if the store would honor the state’s open-carry law in the wake of the El Paso killings.

The experiment got results. After shoppers panicked and a store employee pulled a fire alarm to trigger an evacuation, the man—his name is Dmitriy Andreychenko—was arrested and charged with making a terrorist threat; prosecutors argue that he recklessly disregarded the possibility that his actions would cause dangerous chaos. If you’ve been following the rise of politically motivated “tactical” open-carry culture in the last six or so years, what happened next was surprising: Walmart—and a number of its competitors, like Kroger, Wegmans, CVS, and Walgreens—have announced that they are “requesting” or “asking” customers not to display firearms in their stores even in states where the practice is legal.

As private entities, the stores have the right to set rules for their property. Walmart says it will take a “a very non-confrontational approach” to enforcing its request, but gun proliferation is a cultural issue as well as a legal one, which is why certain gun enthusiasts have been so eager to make a public show of openly carrying—and why the company’s move, however non-confrontational, carries weight. Gun activists’ goal has been to make ordinary citizens accept the presence of people who could kill at any moment—to deliver the message that visibly armed citizens ought to be part of everyday life, to express the power of the gun-rights movement, and to convey the idea that arming oneself, rather than collectively disarming society, is the proper response to feeling unsafe…

None of their efforts, though, have been as instantly effective as Andreychenko’s stunt in making the point that wearing military protective gear and carrying a semi-automatic weapon should perhaps not be considered an acceptable way to behave, during peacetime, around people who are shopping for paper towels.

When your political enemies cite you as their best activist, maybe you’re doing something wrong.

comments

  1. avatar Joatmon says:

    Honestly, he was stupid in doing it that way.
    OTOH, a right not exercised will be a right taken away.

    1. avatar Arc says:

      Exactly. If you don’t use it, the government will try to outlaw it under the excuse of “its out dated, you don’t use it anyway. Only criminals and psychos would do this! You are mentally ill!”

      Use it or lose it.

      1. avatar TomC says:

        Total BS! That is the kind of nonsense that the so-called Open Carry Activists spout as an excuse for their stupidity. At most, a right unused is a right ignored.

        People have been open carrying for years and 99% of the time it goes completely unnoticed — Almost no one was particularly interested in “taking away” the right to open carry (yes, there were people who wanted all guns to go away, but even most of them didn’t focus on open carry).

        The FACT that open carry went unnoticed is exactly why the so-called Open Carry Activists needed to dress up like Rambo and carry long guns in completely inappropriate places — Because They Wanted To Be Noticed! It had little or nothing to do with protecting rights, it was all about grandstanding and being noticed. All about their 15 seconds of fame on the nightly news or a few more hits on YouTube for the clowns who couldn’t even make the local news.

        I don’t doubt that some of these clowns have convinced themselves (or been convinced) that their stupid nonsense is somehow a gesture of their commitment to the Second Amendment. In reality, it is just a sign that they ought to be committed.

        I equally have not doubt that at least some of the motivators behind the Open Carry Activist movement are deliberately doing this in full knowledge that the impact WILL ALWAYS BE greater restrictions on all carry and an increase in anti-gun feelings among the general public who will see gun owners as the complete idiots that these “activists” are.

        1. avatar Christopher Carrillo says:

          Conceal Carry is not a right, but Open Carry is.

          The Supreme Court has clearly dtated this in the Heller case- saying Conceal Carry is not a right under the 2nd Amendment.

          There are also a number of other cases that confirm this.

          The fact that anti-gunners have pro gun people clutching their pearls for something that isnt a right- instead of defending what is protected by 2A, proves the anti gun people have us runnimg in circles.

          Hence why Conceal Carry overwhelmingly fails in the courts.

          We’re just waiting for Open Carry to be confirmed as the right…we already have Young v. Hawaii .

          Time will vindicate the Open Carry movement….

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The point remains, stupid does not negate any of our protected rights. If a person wants to get attention doing legal things, where is the law declaring that legal things are only legal if everyone around approves?

          But for the moment, lets move beyond “stupid” and look at the government abuse of power. Where in the constitution are citizens prohibited from legal behavior simply because other citizens don’t like the legality of the behavior? And where, pray tell, is the government permitted to criminalize legal behavior? The open carry protester faces terrorist charges. And we are supposed to cry out…”Stupid is as stupid does; your constitutionally protected rights are forfeit because you are stupid.”?

          Look at yourselves. You proclaim that just because the anti-gun racketeers declared private ownership of firearms to be stupid in modern society, your rights are not nullified.

          Oh, so “the wrong sort of people are demanding their human rights, and it hurts us all.”? Sounds an awful lot like establishment conservatives who refuse to support the president because he achieves their “conservative goals” in an icky manner. Form over function. Oh yes, that will gain us victories with the opposition.

        3. avatar UpInArms says:

          ” Conceal Carry is not a right, but Open Carry is ”

          That may have been the case with the Heller decision, but that does not mean it will continue to be. It most certainly does not mean that SCOTUS got it all exactly right.

          2A says the “right to keep and bear arms”. It does not say what kind of arms (my own interpretation of this is arms that are bearable, meaning whatever you can carry around with you. But that’s just me). More to the point, it does not say how those arms are to be carried. Without that specification, the way is open to carry arms any way the bearer sees fit– open or concealed.

          So, you’re wrong on that point, but so is SCOTUS, so you’re in good company. The right to bear arms is not restricted to any particular mode of bearing.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “The right to bear arms is not restricted to any particular mode of bearing.”

          In an academic exercise, that might be true. However….the body of law since the founding does not support such a conclusion in the real world. This is the reason we had such a robust brouhaha surrounding how Justice Kavanaugh will rule on 2A cases.

        5. avatar UpInArms says:

          ” the body of law since the founding does not support such a conclusion in the real world ”

          No disagreement there. As I said in my post, the interpretation is mine, not SCOTUS. But the body of law is a malleable thing. Hopefully, SCOTUS, given its reformed composition and apparent willingness to take on 2A cases, will ultimately come around to my point of view.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Have you visited
          https://californiaopencarry.com/status-of-my-federal-open-carry-lawsuit/

          Always interesting reading. Note the dependence on history and tradition (Kavanaugh’s favorite home regarding the constitution).

        7. avatar No One Special says:

          @ Sam I am and Up in arms

          I seriously hope the threat McConnell made about filling another seat in the Supreme Court with yet another conservative judge in 2020 turns out to be true and not a threat for reasons you both have stated.

        8. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I seriously hope the threat McConnell made about filling another seat in the Supreme Court with yet another conservative judge in 2020 turns out to be true and not a threat for reasons you both have stated.”

          Whether the “threat” is real, or mere posturing, there needs to be an opportunity, an opening. Then we can see for ourselves. However, regardless of left, right or upside-down, some words from Thomas Jefferson, regarding the SC, may be instructive:

          https://www.nytimes.com/1861/06/23/archives/jefferson-on-the-supreme-court.html

      2. avatar ozzallos says:

        Agreed, complete BS. There’s a difference between “exercising your right” and “dressing up in full Rambo kit only days after a similar establishment was terrorized”.

        A real activist for the second amendment isn’t going to take one day out of the year after a tragedy to show the flag in the most extreme manner possible. A real activist is going to wear his pistol on his belt and carry on business as usual just like he did the previous 364 days of the year. This guy was an attention whore and telling people he didn’t think about what he was doing as he was strapping on his rig is complete BS.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “A real activist is going to wear his pistol on his belt and carry on business as usual just like he did the previous 364 days of the year.”

          You are correct. Those of us who open carry regularly, I open carry everyday/all day, continue to bear arms openly just like we always do.

        2. avatar Anonymous says:

          We need some Fudd Control up in here. Let’s pass a fudd control law.

      3. avatar PMinFL says:

        I really don’t want to bring out the flame throwers but this guy is not on our side. He purposely dressed in “tactical ” clothing complete with body armor and pistols then carried his rifle (I don’t care what kind) into a Wal Mart neighborhood market ,aka grocery store, on a Thursday…what a threat ?! If he went into a super store on Saturday noon he could ,maybe ,prove a point. He got what he wanted…he’s a hero, name and picture on TV little chance of actually getting hurt…he’s a coward trying to scare grandma at the produce aisle. Flame away true believers………………..PM

        1. avatar No One Special says:

          No flames here. Some of us, albeit not of the elite, agree that there is a fine line between right and prudent. No one from what I read said he wasn’t or didn’t have the right to do what he did. However quite a few have said he shouldn’t have done what he did at that exact time and place. Again not because he didn’t have the right but because of the repercussions his actions brought. He very easily could have made the same point dressed casually with a handgun on his hip quite possibly not having anyone blink an eye at those actions. By the way if the charges stick against him certain actions that should otherwise be legal becoming an act of terrorism isn’t a big leap forward in my opinion. This is very much like war. Maybe instead of trying to destroy the machine gun position head on maybe some hold the ground already obtained providing cover fire while another group flanks the machine gun position. Doesn’t the machine gun position get taken out all the same only with less casualties? Now we have to wait and see how many casualties we have while the machin gun position fortifies its position only getting harder to take out. Nope, you’re right this guy is a star and no friend to my rights.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “By the way if the charges stick against him certain actions that should otherwise be legal becoming an act of terrorism isn’t a big leap forward in my opinion.”

          Accepting the premise that being charged with terrorism for not committing a crime “‘…isn’t a big leap forward…” is a remarkable delusion for gun owners. We are seeing the political weaponizing of law. The twisting of words and concepts, that if peacefully accepted without outrage, weakens us all.

        3. avatar No One Special says:

          Not a big leap forward for my rights as a gun owner or someone that carries a gun everyday regardless if I ever leave the house. As for outrage well yeah of course I’m outraged. I stay in contact with my government leaders but they don’t have complete power they have to cast a vote and hope for the best like everyone else. Fortunately my government leaders are for at least the time being Republican and have shown to be for the most part conservative. I somehow seriously doubt that the prosecutor or judge handling this prosecution really care about what I think. The 12 people that are chosen as jurors may only slightly care. Oh but get caught trying to sway a jury in anyway during an on going trail and I’m betting it won’t go well.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Oh but get caught trying to away a jury in anyway during an on going trail and I’m betting it won’t go well.”

          Difficult to see how taking a contrarian position with a jury, and refusing to discuss it will lead to retaliation from government.

          Not every “hung jury” case is re-tried at a future date.

        5. avatar No One Special says:

          Away was supposed to be sway. If my position is contrary to the prosecution and I make no attempt to have contact or have conversation with a (or) juror(s) than no no ill fate would be fall me. However if I did have contact and one of those jurors felt harrased or intimated because I voiced my opinion than the prosecution could possibly say I’m trying to interfere with an on going trial or worse. Not big leap forward for my rights yet again. Preservation of self is paramount to first help yourself and then be able to help others. Which I’m certain every commenter here has a great grasp on that concept whether others are helped or not. Quite honestly that doesn’t bother me because I’m going to do what I can do regardless of the actions or inaction of others.

        6. avatar No One Special says:

          Just read an article with this headline “Gun rights activists test Walmart request not to open-carry guns into store” from The Hill. People in Texas belonging to the group open carry Texas have reportedly been open carrying guns in Walmart across Texas. Doesn’t say what kind of guns and it doesn’t say if they are wearing tacticool gear with those guns but they are apparently shopping peacefully with no road blocks. A spokesperson for Walmart cleared up Walmarts stance as a hands off request as long as those that carry guns are not a disturbance. I’d say that quite possibly means if we don’t go in looking like commando and go about our business Walmart isn’t going to say much.

        7. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Walmart is trying to “thread the needle”; walk both sides of the road simultaneously.

          “Clearing up” their stance muddies things even more.

          What is a “disturbance”, specifically, Walmart?

        8. avatar No One Special says:

          Well clearly at this point full tacticool gear and AR fits the majorities definition of a disturbance. I’m not saying that their stance is right. I am saying it gives wiggle room rather than what has been said before taken as a absolute no. This gives the opportunity for flanking that machine gun nest rather than running head long into the barrage of fire coming from it.

        9. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Well clearly at this point full tacticool gear and AR fits the majorities definition of a disturbance.”

          Quite possibly, but is that it; just that? Or is there more? More things that would be a “disturbance”, based on the whim of the moment? Hence, Walmart muddied things more. Should have simply decided to put up the required signage; circle slash over a firearm.

        10. avatar No One Special says:

          Can’t say. I would bet given that it has already been done successfully going in with a gun on one’s hip with the intention of shopping minding one’s own business paying and leaving would probably go over without a hitch. Going with wife and child would probably make things go even smoother. Armed family man hasn’t turned on any alarms that I know of.

        11. avatar No One Special says:

          Also the slash circle over firearm carries no weight in Missouri. Within the concealed carry law there is specific verbiage about no gun signs. They are as follows:

          “Any private property whose owner has posted the premises as being off-limits to concealed firearms by
          means of one or more signs displayed in a conspicuous place of a minimum size of eleven inches by fourteen inches with the writing thereon in letters of not less than one inch.”

          How many people do you know that have ready access to a printer that can print 11X14 signs? Plus not many people want that glaring of a sign looking like a sore thumb. The slash circle is more readily available and cheaper too. Unless the sign is of legal size and lettering it carries no weight with me. Even if it is the law allows that I have to be asked to leave. First they have to know that I’m carrying. Not one place I’ve been into sign or not has ever asked me to leave and I’m always carrying. Carrying a gun isn’t the problem. The problem is how some go about it. There again I’m not saying that they can’t carry how they see fit. I am saying again though that when looking for attention the attention that is received may not be the attention that was wanted. I don’t go looking for attention I go to handle my affairs and to be left alone as much as humanly possible. No man is an island? As long as I’m not tread on I don’t have a beef with anyone. In essence I’m an island moving about amongst other islands.

        12. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The lack of clarity regarding “disturbance” remains.

        13. avatar No One Special says:

          That maybe but like I said it has and is being done successfully. Most likely in a similar manner like I described. If I open carried at all, which I don’t, I wouldn’t think twice about walking into the local Walmart or grocery store with wife and child or not. I hold to it’s all about how it’s done and why it’s done. If it’s about being an attention starved knucklehead things probably aren’t going to go well. If it is truly about exercising the rights carry a gun going about daily affairs things will probably go tremendously better. The first is the guy in the above article. The latter is someone like me. I’m not saying he can’t act like an attention starved knucklehead, of course he can. I think his actions do go back to what I’ve said all along and that’s the attention that is sought may not be the attention that is received.

    2. avatar No One Special says:

      In some states a right exercised is a right taken away. Seriously, did you think about this before you typed it? The government doesn’t give two shits if we exercise our rights. All they care about is what serves the government best. That means if our rights get in the way than our rights are forfeit for the good of the government and country.

    3. avatar bryan1980 says:

      Nope……governments will abridge rights when/how it suits them, whether we exercise them or not.

  2. avatar California Richard says:

    Nice knowing you Dmitriy. Have fun back in Russia. Hopefully the Darwin award you tried to win doesn’t catch up to you on the plane.

    1. avatar pwrserge says:

      What crime did he commit? Maybe we should ship YOUR commie ass to Russia?

      1. avatar No One Special says:

        I joined the military when Drill Sargeants came up through the cold war and referred the green silhouettes on the range as crazy Ivan’s or just plain Ivan. One of many things about my service I won’t forget. I am hardly communist since in effect I was trained to shoot at cold War Ivan’s on military shootings ranges.

        What crime did he commit? Well none technically but what he did was epically stupid. How do most crimes start? With one or more epic acts of stupidity.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “What crime did he commit? Well none technically…”

          End of story; full stop. If being arrested for not committing a crime, but for doing something that might, coupled with some other undefined stupid behavior, coming together someday, someway is your idea of lawful power of government….

      2. avatar Reno1947 says:

        He’s guilty of stupidity or he is a gungrabber working for the perverts

      3. avatar Anonymous says:

        Love it! I kept waiting for Pwrserge to come in and round house kick all of you in the face (verbally). Just love it.

        I’ve just been sitting back listening to you guys whine about exactly which shade of grey between “concealed carry” and “tactical loading bearing vest with AR and single point sling” was acceptable and how you were going to force that on everybody else with your tyrant vote because you are an intolerant gun bigot.

    2. avatar Ton E says:

      He’s from The Ukraine…

      1. avatar California Richard says:

        The Russian part of Ukraine or the Ukrainian part of Ukraine?

  3. avatar Reno1947 says:

    The idiot did it on purpose.it was all by design by the leftwing goons.he probably was pissing himself even to have to handle such manly a weapon.keep them locked and loaded

    1. avatar enuf says:

      That kind of conspiracy bullshit thinking is both nonsense and an element in why we are slowly, incrementally, losing our right to Keep and Bear Arms.

      Sooooo…. how long have you been working for Mom’s Demand Action?
      How long have you been volunteering for Every Town for Gun Safety?
      When did you last give David Hogg a manly backslapping hug?

      1. avatar Reno1947 says:

        Hey enuf shove it up your david hogg the left are using every tactic they can to take away our guns now you get back in step with your leftwing buddies

    2. avatar Miner49er says:

      It would not be the first time that a Russian national intentionally worked to destabilize and divide American society.

      The Russian ambassador at the NRA convention, the Russian honey trap sleeping with the NRA executives and now a young military age Russian male as an agent provocateur with an AR 15 in Walmart.

      Fascinating.

      1. avatar Dude says:

        Source for the list of NRA execs sleeping with the “Russian honey trap?” I don’t care about the NRA, but I’m curious.

        1. avatar Ing says:

          There is none because it didn’t happen.

          Whether she was a honey trap for the Russians is debatable. The FBI did have the former CEO of Overstock.com sleep with her, though, keeping her on a line in case they wanted their own Russian honeypot. (You can look this one up easily enough; sounds bizarre, but it seems to be true.)

        2. avatar Miner49er says:

          Miss red sparrow‘s involvement goes back several years, and even before that the Russians had infiltrated the NRA through David Keene. Buttons was the NRA’s handler, her close personal relationship with David Keene was a tactic of the Russian infiltration effort.
          This even predates her relationship with Erickson.

          “In December 2015, Butina’s Russian gun-rights organization called the Right to Bear Arms sponsored an NRA delegation to Moscow where attendees met with influential Russian officials including former deputy prime minister Dmitry Rogozin who had been under U.S. sanctions since 2014.

          The convoy to Moscow included Keene, Trump campaign surrogate Sheriff David Clarke, president and CEO of the Outdoor Channel Jim Liberatore, soon-to-be NRA president Peter Brownell and NRA donors Jim Gregory, Arnold Goldschlager and Hilary Goldschlager.

          Alexander Torshin — a Russian politician and longtime associate of Butina who has since come under U.S. sanctions — played a key role in the trip and, allegedly, Russia’s decade-long operation infiltrating American conservative groups. A conservative Nashville lawyer named G. Kline Preston IV who has done business in Russia claims that he first introduced David Keene to Torshin in 2011 while Keene was NRA president.

          Keene and Torshin quickly forged an alliance based on mutual interests.

          “Just a brief note to let you know just how much I enjoyed meeting in Pittsburgh during the NRA annual meeting,” Keene wrote in a 2011 letter later obtained by anti-corruption activists in Russia that extended a personal invitation to the NRA’s conference the following year.

          Keene added, “If there is anything any of us can do to help you in your endeavors . . . please don’t hesitate to let us know.”

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Holy shit Miner, put down the meth… real life is not a James Bond movie.

        4. avatar Miner49er says:

          Sergei, A there are many you would disagree with you about the relevance of Russian efforts cause division within America by using covert agents. Either you are very naïve or you are part of the effort to confuse and mislead America about the depth of foreign government penetration into our affairs.

          If you doubted American citizens could be involved and Russia’s efforts perhaps I should share a list of Americans who have willingly participated in foreign governments efforts to destroy America.

          Aldrich Ames
          David Henry Barnett
          Kevin Mallory
          Harold James Nicholson
          Larry Wu-Tai Chin
          Sharon M. Scranage
          William Kampiles
          David Sheldon Boone
          Ronald Pelton
          Earl Edwin Pitts
          Richard Miller
          Robert Hanssen
          Defense Intelligence Agency
          Ana Belén Montes[15]
          Clayton John Lonetree
          John Anthony Walker
          Morris Cohen
          George Trofimoff
          Clyde Lee Conrad
          Federal Contractors
          Andrew Daulton Lee
          Christopher John Boyce
          Jonathan Pollard
          Stewart Nozette
          Kimberly Tillman

        5. avatar Miner49er says:

          The more I read pwrsrg’s posts, the more evidence I see to believe that he is the classic agent provocateur, a popular tactic of the KGB, now the FSB and the GRU.

          Not only does the Russian intelligence services spread disinformation in an effort to confuse citizens about the reality of the situation, they also employ individuals who pretend to be super fans, espousing all sorts of violent and angry rhetoric in order to corrupt the discussion.

          And by claiming to be an ex pat from the communist block, he can easily explain away any slip or misunderstanding of colloquial American life.

          When he claims that a reasonable concern about foreign intelligence services conducting espionage in disinformation within the United States as ‘James bond’, one can only surmise that he is either totally unaware of communist infiltration tactics or, much more likely, he is completely familiar with these tactics and employing them on this very forum.

        6. avatar pwrserge says:

          Ok Miner… now you’ve gone to full blown racist. If you want to look at communist infiltration of the US, you need look no further than the Demokkkommie party. If it wasn’t for the CCP funding their propaganda campaigns, the DNC wouldn’t be able to elect a dog catcher.

          But hey, I’m sure all us Slavs look the same to you, right? There’s clearly no difference between Russians, Ukrainians and Cossacks… Congratulations Miner, in one single post you proves that your are an irredeemable racist piece of shit.

        7. avatar Anonymous says:

          The more I read pwrsrg’s posts, the more evidence I see to believe that he is the classic agent provocateur, a popular tactic of the KGB…

          Bahhhahahahaha! OMG – (wipes tear)

          Whew.

        8. avatar Miner49er says:

          “now you’ve gone to full blown racist.”

          It is not racist to suspect that there are people working against the interest of America.

          And, I would expect a confident agent provocateur to swiftly play the race card when the discussion concerns espionage by foreign powers. The subject is treason, not racism.

          And Russia never was communist, it’s always been an authoritarian dictator ship. Russia was no more communist then the Nazis were socialists.

          But why split hairs over word definitions?

          Typical agent provocateur behavior, he is diverting from the subject of Russian infiltration of the republican party. Why doesn’t he address the fact that Jeff sessions had meetings with the Russian ambassador at the Republican national convention that he later a lot about under oath? Jeff sessions became the top law enforcement officer in the trump administration, I wonder why Jeff sessions tried to conceal the fact that those meetings had occurred?

          Sergei, why would Jeff sessions lie under oath about meetings with the Russian ambassador?

          Why were the Russians at the NRA national convention in Louisville?

        9. avatar John in Ohio says:

          I may call pwrserge a commie every now and again, but I don’t think he is actually a communist. I disagree with him on some things because I think he leans a little too much on the power of a mob or government.

          That stated, I agree with pwrserge much more than I disagree with him. His comments on this article have been spot on and I agree with him.

          pwrserge an actual commie? No way in hell, Miner49er!

      2. avatar Pig Barber Phil says:

        True, not the first time, the whole democrat party turning socialist is a soviet project.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          Isn’t it interesting that people think the Democrats or somehow allied with the communist, but you know the Russian ambassador didn’t show up the national Democratic convention.

          But the Russian ambassador was an honored guest at the Republican national convention, taking meetings with Jeff sessions and Donald Trump Junior, among many others. Meetings that Jeff sessions lied about and tried to conceal, wonder why?

          Trump supporters, you are being played by a corrupt ConMan in league with Russian agents, their involvement in American politics is an insult to everyone who has or ever fought for this country.

          Doesn’t it make you feel all queasy when you think about how you’ve been snickered?

        2. avatar Reno1947 says:

          What happened. miner49 er mom didnt put enough sugar on your oatmeal

        3. avatar pwrserge says:

          Fucktard, grab a history book. Russia hasn’t been communist since 1990.

        4. avatar Miner49er says:

          Russia never was communist, it’s always been an authoritarian dictatorship. Russia was no more communist then the Nazis were socialists.

    3. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

      Someone pointed out in the comments on a story here recently that all of the incidents seem to have very suspicious timing. I general don’t believe in conspiracies, but when he laid out the timeline it did seem to be odd.

      Oh here we go, I found it;

      NightFox says:
      June 14, 2019 at 17:21
      Its has been an amazing consistency of mass shootings happening just before a political event that may result in their deregulation. The Republican ball game shooting happened when HPA was about to hit the floor. Vegas shooting happened when the Sportsman’s bill that contained HPA was about to hit the floor. The Va Beach shooting happens when the Courts are deliberating about grating cert to the case in Ks that could have granted cans the protections of being ‘in common use.’ Once is a fluke, twice is a coincidence, three times is a pattern.

      https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/the-truth-about-silencers-is-being-suppressed/

      1. avatar Cloudbuster says:

        What’s weird to me is that almost all these shootings, except the left-winger shooting at the Republican Congressmen’s baseball game, are perpetrated against anonymous innocents. That seems strange to me since there are so many high-profile reviled targets. Compare that to the ’60s, ’70s and ’80s. The successful and unsuccessful assassination attempts on JFK, RFK, MLK, Ford and Reagan — all at least understandable political targets. Weathermen and SLA attacked banks and the police and other political targets. The attacks, as terrible as they were, at least made sense given their ideology.

        Now we have the left attacking ICE facilities. Again, that makes some sense, as does Hodgkinson’s attack on the Congressmen. I’m not saying they’re justified, just that they make sense given their ideologies.

        Now, on the other hand, the supposed “right wing” attacks. Completely idiotic targets. I find it hard to believe that if these were real right-wing attacks, they wouldn’t be targeting Soros or other high-profile leftist targets.

        That’s why the idea that these are false flags doesn’t seem completely ridiculous to me.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          “Now we have the left attacking ICE facilities”

          I would like to learn more about this claim, is there a situation where an American leftist has attacked an ICE facility?

        2. avatar Anonymous says:

          I would like to learn more about this claim, is there a situation where an American leftist has attacked an ICE facility?

          Yes. Go to your nearest internet search engine.

    4. avatar Rusty Shackleford says:

      Would it honestly surprise anyone if that were the case? Conveniently more “proof” 18-20 isn’t mature enough to exercise their rights (unless it’s voting at 16) and Ivan gets to go back home with a job at Russia’s Internet Research Agency and a few extra Rubles in his account.

  4. avatar enuf says:

    “Open Carry” and “Second Amendment Audits” would be reasonable if carried out in groups that included families. Groups that pre-plan the event, that communicate with local law enforcement about their plans. This sort of protest can be constructive.

    Loners doing stupid things all on their own can only harm us.

    So, Slate is correct.

    For the record, I have open carried, as is constitutionally protected in my State, in various places that now ban me from doing so. That was always a handgun in a retention holster carried close and tight on my hip. Nothing showy, and I never had any problem, including going into my bank to close out an account and withdraw a sizeable amount of cash.

    Now, today, the list of businesses that say no on open carry and plenty on concealed carry has grown, not shrunk.

    Idiots are making this all go the wrong way. Too many people are getting it wrong on the concept of “Just because you can doesn’t mean you should”.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      I don’t agree with enuf, but when I do, I do bigly.

      1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

        Ugh. I hit the “post” button before proofreading.

        ****
        I don’t often agree with enuf, but when I do, I do bigly. And I agree with everything he just said above.

        (okay, looks good, now hit “post”…)

    2. avatar Geoff "Hurry-up and *die*, Ruthie" PR says:

      ““Open Carry” and “Second Amendment Audits” would be reasonable if carried out in groups that included families.”

      Good point – A family with kids in tow is relatively non-threatening.

      (As long as the little bastards are well-behaved, that is. If they aren’t, that’s mom and dad’s sole fault…)

      1. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

        Yup. I went to a neighboring open-carry state not too long ago, and our group went to dinner in a restaurant. Kids and families all around us. A couple of us had our guns holstered at the hip, clearly visible, and nobody said a word.

        1. avatar TomC says:

          THAT is proper open carry — regular people, behaving normally, dressed appropriately for where they are, with a holstered handgun on their belt. And 99% of the time no one pays any attention to it.

          Yes, occasionally you might encounter someone who is rabidly anti-gun who will make a fuss, and very rarely you might encounter someone who is actually frightened by the mere sight of a gun, but normal people in most of the USA don’t pay any more attention to a ‘civilian’ carrying a holstered gun than they would to a LEO carrying.

          You weren’t trying to shock or provoke anyone, so no one was shocked or provoked. That was the difference between you and the so-called Open Carry Activists. Their purpose is to shock and provoke people and they succeed in shocking and provoking people — and in the process they succeed in creating a strong backlash against gun owners by proving to people that gun owners are idiots.

          Where I live, open carry is legal but not common. I rarely open carry — generally only on the way to or from a range. I have occasionally stopped at some store along the way, perhaps to buy ammo, perhaps just for a cold drink and some snacks. No one has ever paid any attention to a holstered pistol on my hip.

          Ordinarily I carry “concealed” — pretty much the same as when I’m open carrying except for the addition of a ‘cover garment’ – either a jacket or a shirt depending on the season. In the summer, the cover garment is likely to be a lightweight shirt in some bold print, untucked and unbuttoned. It’s not really unusual for a breeze to blow the shirt aside if I’m outside — and that isn’t anything I worry about. I’m sure that people may have seen the gun on occasion, but no one has ever expressed any concern.

          I shop at one or another of the local Walmart stores generally about twice a week. Off hand, I would say that I have seen a customer open carrying an average of about once a month. Generally a different person each time. Always just an ordinary Walmart shopper going about their normal shopping, just with a holstered pistol on their hip. I have never seen anyone pay any attention to them. So far as the new policy from Walmart corporate headquarters asking customers to not open carry, it doesn’t expressly ban open carry and I don’t expect any changes at our local Walmart stores because it has never been an issue around here.

          I’m sure circumstances and reactions may be different in other areas.

    3. avatar Dave says:

      Because 1A and 2A on the part of those not with families is somehow unreasonable?

      14A, people.

  5. avatar No One Special says:

    “When your political enemies cite you as their best activist, maybe you’re doing something wrong.”

    Yep pretty much. Unfortunately the only way to change this is to know that right doesn’t mean prudent and having the wisdom to know what is prudent. My bet is this idiot could have walked into that same store with an open carried handgun on his hip without all the other mall ninja shit and no one would have given it a second thought. Southern Missouri doesn’t bat an eye at guns, only stupid people with guns. Hell we have some of the best progun laws in Missouri but self appointed cooky freedom fighters that have no common sense like the idiot noted above could be detrimental to those progun laws.

    1. avatar enuf says:

      Exactly so, could not agree more.

  6. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    The gun community will lose everything if they can’t tell the difference between long gun open carry at a political convention. Which was supported by the public nationally. And the fools who walk into a police station or walk into a walmart just days after a shooting. Why didn’t this idiot carry a sign saying “I’m the good guy here” “I will protect you”?

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3698664/Assault-rifle-wielding-open-carry-activists-descend-RNC-second-day-support-police-NRA-chief-says-Donald-Trump-way-save-Second-Amendment.html

    These two are lucky to still be breathing.

    “Michigan Open Carry Activists Convicted on ‘Technicality’
    https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/michigan-open-carry-activists-convicted-technicality/

    1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

      BTW
      This open carry protest happened just days after the synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh.
      Hundreds of guns were openly carried. Because this was done with American flags and 2A signs the public didn’t scream in fear and nor panic. There is a right way and a wrong way to open carry a long gun.

      https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2019/01/07/open-carry-rally-city-county-building-portico/

      When I open carry my sidearm most people don’t even notice it.

    2. avatar Dave says:

      So exercise of Constitutionally enumerated rights is to be subject to carrying specific signs? Get real.

      1. avatar TomC says:

        No, Dave, but the exercise of rights IS subject to common sense.

        It is only idiots who assume that all extremes are equal and all extremes are acceptable if they can somehow be described as “a right”

        Behave like you have a functioning brain and people will treat you like you have a functioning brain. Behave like a madman and people will treat you like a madman. The two are not the same or even similar.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “No, Dave, but the exercise of rights IS subject to common sense.”

          Do you have a citation from the writings of the founders that is on point about that?

        2. avatar UpInArms says:

          I wish to hell someone would give me a clear, legal definition of “common sense”.

        3. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I wish to hell someone would give me a clear, legal definition of “common sense”.”

          It’s whatever the hell I say it is, when I say it is, subject to change on a whim. And the rest of you just have to deal with that.

          (copied that from the latest edition of the doggerel in one of the nutjob liberal newsletters I read)

        4. avatar Reno1947 says:

          Thank you for a very common sense statement

        5. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          To sam I am
          This is one of documents the founders used to create this great nation.

          Common Sense (pamphlet) by Thomas Paine

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Sense_(pamphlet)

          At one time in american history it was required reading by all school children.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Common Sense (pamphlet) by Thomas Paine
          At one time in american history it was required reading by all school children.”

          Indeed. I remember being required to memorize Patrick Henry’s famous declaration.

          Not sure Paine’s pamphlet is what was asked for in the comment we are discussing. As it happened, “Plain Truth” was the original title in draft for what became “Common Sense”. We do not find Paine mentioned in the letters surrounding the Confederation, nor the Constitution. Thus the query if anyone had reference to where the framers defined “common sense” as pertained to the exercise of constitutionally protected rights.

          Someone noted that with our rights comes a responsibility. I agree there, but only in the sense that we are responsible to continuously protect those rights from suppression. But if we just look at 1A, there is no responsibility to prevent/avoid speech that may be disliked by others. Making people uncomfortable through speech was at the heart of the Revolution. Quiet rectitude was not going to carry the day.

          So it is that we are not bound by “common sense” to treat 2A as an essentially taboo subject in discussion, or action. If you look closely, today you find so-called “conservatives” who are so disgusted with Trump’s oratory style that they would sacrifice the goals of “conservatism”, indeed, the goals of freedom waiting for that time to come when a more circumspect, eloquent advocate would arise, and with all dignity and civility mount a polite appeal to preserve our nation. Not that we haven’t seen that in the last 50yrs, to little avail when it comes to reinvigorating our constitution, and our uniqueness in the world.

          “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires;…So they will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths”.

  7. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Shouldn’t a charge of a “terroristic threat” bring open carriers out in droves? Shouldn’t millions of gun owners be walking the streets with open displayed guns?

    Because the populace cowered in the face of non-sense called “hate speech”, we now must remain silent of the most important of issues, or be publicly shamed as haters. Should not hordes of citizens be in large groups, walking about shouting, “I hate you, because I can”? So now, our response as gun owners is to meekly subdue ourselves? (no, I don’t have any rifles, and open carry of my plinker just looks silly)

    No “Go fund me” effort for Dmitriy? A good lawyer should be able to pummel the police for overcharging the incident. Disturbing the peace might be supportable, but exercising legal behavior cannot be allowed to stand as a terrorist act.

    1. avatar No One Special says:

      Clearly there is a right and wrong way of doing the right thing. If people want to protest sanctions on open carry than by all means they put their most favorite pistola on their hip dress everyday casual and get out and see the world. That would be the right way to go about it. If you read the article above than you have a great example of the wrong way to do the right thing. Context, context in a politically charged society is key.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “Context, context in a politically charged society is key.”

        Does that not say that discrete (nay, near undetectable) exercise of our rights is necessary to not offend those who despise our rights?

        Just because someone is exercising human rights in a manner that makes people uncomfortable, does that mean those who are ardent supporters should stand silent, hoping no one notices how they exercise their human rights? (“I don’t have to outrun the bear, I just need to out run you.”)

        The open carry act may be considered inappropriate in the circumstance, but terrorism? Have we come to, “I may disagree with your methods, but I will suppress my support of your right to such methods because I don’t want to be next to arouse authorities.”

        The inconsiderate action of Dmitriy can be criticized, but charges of terrorism are totalitarian. And we remain silent at the abuse of power? Don’t expect your fellow gun owners to come to your defense when the state decides to prove a point. Think of the embarrassment you would cause.

        1. avatar No One Special says:

          Sam I am, I’m not disagreeing with you. I’m saying that things are going to get worse if we don’t change tactics. The hard frontal assault isn’t getting it done. In my opinion that’s exactly what this show was, a hard frontal assault. As for my fellow gun owners coming to my aid I’m not going to hold my breath. I might pass out and injure myself. Having said that, your analogy is a dead blow to the nail of the head. “I don’t have to out run the bear, I just have to out run you.” Unfortunately I believe that is where we currently stand in the grand architecture of this fiasco.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “I’m saying that things are going to get worse if we don’t change tactics.”

          Worse than what? The anti-gun mob needs no provocation; provocations only give them “moral cover”, and they can find endless issues to claim the moral high ground. Decades of being civil, circumspect, and “nice about it” brought us where we are today. The “don’t scare the horses, and they won’t bother us” tactic hasn’t stopped the assault on our self-defense. The gun-grabbers are “scared” by the thought that some one might have a gun, and might “go off” at some point, and might do something bad.

          All that aside, my concern is that gun owners do not rally to their second amendment protected human right when authorities arrest someone for a legal action, claiming that disturbing the horses is a terrorist threat. That is why the open carriers should be massing in St. Louis in protest of a direct assault on a human right.

          Now, take this a bit farther…Walmart asks people who are licensed to not concealed carry in their stores. A request does not invoke property control laws. You are discovered to be carrying a legally concealed firearm. Walmart calls police and reports that someone saw your concealed weapon (open carry is legal, too), and claimed they were triggered. Police come, arrest you and charge you with a terroristic threat. What is the new fall back position that gun owners should take so as to not scare the public? Should other concealed carriers be satisfied to pillory you for carelessness, or should they create a mass demonstration against abuse of power by authorities? Are we gun owners really no different from the grabbers….gun rights for me, but not for thee?

        3. avatar No One Special says:

          What are we to do, get all gussied up in full tacticool gear with sidearm and rifle with enough ammo to fight the war on terrorism all over again and march on capital hill in DC? Even with a large number of us I’m sure it will get attention and turn some heads but will we get the attention we want? We may very well be labeled as terrorists ourselves. In one fail swoop the left wins. Trust me, St Louis is the last place people want to march in with guns. St Louis County is one of the counties that didn’t want to issue concealed carry permits in Missouri. The state had to tell them that they had no choice and gave a deadline. Again though I’m not disagreeing with you I don’t want to fall on my own sword though either. If not wanting to commit harry carry makes me a coward than I guess I’m a coward.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “What are we to do, get all gussied up in full tacticool gear with sidearm and rifle with enough ammo to fight the war on terrorism all over again and march on capital hill in DC?”

          Is that really the only way to identify a group? Signs? No? Advertisement and press releases reporting the timing and purpose? Notices to media that 2A supporters will march to challenge police abuse in charging a crime where there was none.

          Here is a gun owner charged for not committing a crime, and the 2A radicals and activist are competing to justify criminal punishment of poor thinking. So many people declaring that we must cover up our exercise of a human right because if no body knows you are doing it, they will not be tempted to place further restrictions on our protected right of self-defense and gun ownership. Tiptoeing through the graveyard, hoping the goblins remain asleep.

        5. avatar Ricolando says:

          What I tell folks is that there are a lot of things you can do legally in public, but that will definitely not win you any friends. Public displays of affection, smoking next to a group of kids, revving your car’s engine (illegal in some places, just rude in others), walking around half naked, the list goes on. Open carrying a long gun just to stick in people’s face is a lot like those things. At a minimum you’re gonna be seen as rabble rousing, and at the extreme you’re trying to intimidate or provoke. I get that the left behaves like children, but that doesn’t give us an excuse to do the same thing. Just because the neighbors let their kids act like little brats doesn’t mean I should allow the same kind of behavior to “stick it to them”. You have to be smart with how you approach these kinds of things. This is on top of putting yourself at a tactical disadvantage, and preventing you from carrying anywhere you want. We have too many people that flaunt their guns as cool toys rather than what they actually are: tools for self defense and a check against the government.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Are you not making, again, the argument that we must forego a constitutionally protected right (and a locally legal right), hoping the public will compromise, and not attack our concealed carry permission?

          Think of all the stupid stuff I write on this blog. Are you comfortable with the idea that police may decide “stupid” is just a cover for terrorist language, and I could be jailed for exercising my first amendment protected right to free speech? Are there exceptions in our natural rights that negate them because a stupid person, doing something legal in a stupid way should suffer the retribution of an offended government?

          The serious issue is not that the open carrier acted stupidly, it is the fact that exercising a protected right can result in a charge of terrorism;ot a charge of stupidity, or even a charge of public nuisance, or disturbing the peace, but terrorism?

          Oh, don’t want to be charged with terrorism? Don’t do stupid stuff? Don’t want to be charged with criminal conspiracy, don’t read books that discuss how some criminal conspiracies are successful. Haven’t done anything wrong? Then why worry about an illegal search of you and your digs.

          If acting stupidly removes constitutional protections, then we are just spitting against the wind; game is already over.

        7. avatar strych9 says:

          I would point out two things:

          1) Even if this is the “wrong way to do the right thing” it’s still incumbent on us not to let the guy get crucified. If you support the 2A then you support the right of people to do offensive things that are protected under the 2A. The same way if you support the 1A then you support the right of people to say things that are offensive or even things that you disapprove of them saying. Hence the statement “I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” – Evelyn Beatrice Hall

          So you can disprove of what this guy did all you want, hell, I do too. It’s still pretty well required that you to support his right to do it without government interference which is what being arrested and charged is. Unless you wanna say “I support the 2A but…” and we all know what that really means. Simply saying “Fuck him, he’s an idiot” ensures that “we all hang separately”. He’s just first to the gallows. At that point you’re just placating the crocodile and hoping it eats you last. Rationalize this all we want but that’s what we’re doing here by hanging this guy out to dry and like it or not that’s a form of cowardice wrapped in a facade of understanding.

          2) In terms of advancing the ball I think it’s time that we start stealing from the playbooks of others. How did homosexuals get the Court to grant them the “right” to get married? They normalized homosexuality to a certain extent. How did they do that? By hiding in the closet? No. By being only “a little gay” in public? No. They continually pushed the envelope a bit at a time until they got what they wanted. We can do that too but only if we sit down and think about it and then execute it in an organized fashion exactly the way loads of other groups have in politics in the last 150 years. It’s worked for gays, Irish, Italians, Polls, Catholics, Asians etc. It’s tried-and-fucking-true. We just refuse to do it because… well, I dunno honestly.

          This is something we suck at. We’re not unified and it shows in our messaging. We have no real messaging and where we do have any we farmed that shit out to mercenaries that never really cared about the 2A but rather cared about the money that lobbying brings. And we wonder how we’re losing a bit at a time.

          This morning I was out for a run nice and early with Pulsar on random. Saigon-The Greatest Story Never Told comes up in the list and I was kinda struck by the following lines. Replace “black” with “gun” and “white” with “liberal” and I think it’s still spot-the-fuck-on.

          “When y’all make them diss records do you know what you doin’ to black community?
          Market and promote the fact that we lack unity
          Them white people look at you and laugh
          You look like a porch-monkey boy dancin’ for cash”

          I’m gonna go full caps lock here to make the point. Andrew Breitbart was right and Farago understood this too: POLITICS IS DOWNSTREAM FROM CULTURE. All the groups I mention above understood that and took advantage of it. We can do that too if we’ll stop bitching at each other in the Caliber Warz or the OC v. CC “who’s more mall ninja with the betta tactics” and other stupid grade school level slap fights we constantly engage in.

        8. avatar No One Special says:

          To continue with facing reality, I’m open to real tactics that work. Like you I apparently don’t know what those are exactly. However I do know that this, whatever this is isn’t working. I’m not saying hang the guy out to dry. I’m saying that’s where the gun community resides currently in my opinion. “If it doesn’t effect me than I’m going to sit over here quietly not making any sudden moves and watch as it all hopefully passes me by.” I hate lobbying groups because to me that’s all they are about is money. If we have to pay for a right than it ceases to be a right starts being a privilege really damn quick. I personally don’t care what other people do with one caveat, it absolutely can not effect me and mine and our rights. That’s the way it has to be for rights to be individual. In the case of this knucklehead and his stupidity he may have done just that by possibly turning certain instances of open carry into an act of terrorism. Honestly I believe that’s what most sides miss the point on the subject of rights. Using your quote of an analogy “I don’t agree with what you said but I’ll fight to the death for your right to say it.” those are in fact two individual rights. In essence agreeing to disagree. Yes people that say they are pro gun need to learn that very concept. Agree to disagree. I like all guns and yes I prefer to carry concealed but that’s me. You aren’t me and I’m not you. We are point of fact individuals and should be able to exercise our rights under those premises.

        9. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Disagreeing about open/concealed carry is one thing. I keep misfiring while trying to make the case that government abuse in charging a person legally carrying a firearm with terrorism is a danger to us all. There should be no disagreement over whether a legal open carrier should and can be charged with terrorism when there was no overt act. The open/concealed carry street fight among POTG is completely irrelevant when the government decides stupidity is criminal. If this stands, we are all next in line. Government decides when stupid is criminal, not the citizen.

        10. avatar Sam I Am says:

          I think you laid out better logic, but we are in total agreement. When stupid behavior legitimizes government overreach (in our minds), we are now serfs and vassals.

        11. avatar strych9 says:

          Oh, and everything has a time and place. If not for “rev bombs” I’d prolly have gotten splattered all over the road last week.

        12. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “I would point out two things:…”

          Excellent post, strych9. I agree

        13. avatar strych9 says:

          I’ve covered tactics that work and strategy here for awhile. I’ve pretty well given up on it for the time being because this comment section has turned into Trollville and even the regulars don’t seem to be able to understand “Don’t feed the trolls”. Plus other stuff I’ve said before.

          I’ll say this:

          He didn’t turn anything into anything. Other people did that. Other people got some feelz, which is entirely outside his control. He exercised his rights, people got feelz and the government went apeshit to curtail his rights because politics. That’s what it is. Any other explanation is bullshit. Either he has rights or he doesn’t and the idea that him doing this might affect the overall “temperature” of the gun debate and so he shouldn’t do it is basically saying that there’s some magical council out there that we all need to get approval from. If that’s the case then we don’t have rights at all.

          Further, basically everything affects you and yours whether you like it or not. No man is an island and whether you care about politics or not politics cares about you. He doesn’t have to ask your permission or my permission. He doesn’t have to ask for ANYONE’S permission. That’s the point of “rights”. The fact that other people may attack your rights because he exercised his is 100% not his fault nor is that a valid reason for him not to exercise his rights. It’s another version of the “If we allow carry there will be blood in the streets!” argument. It’s bullshit.

          It is, however, a valid reason for you to jump up, realizing that this could also happen to you, and start working to put the government in check. The best way to do that is to educate yourself and then educate your fellow citizens. Rights come with responsibilities. If you want the rights you have to be responsible and part of that is doing work you don’t want to do because your rights, in one way or another, are and always will be under assault. It’s tireless and thankless work to keep them from being infringed upon.

          Yeah, sometimes someone does something we might find unwise and which might “hurt the cause” in some way. We don’t abandon our principles because shit got a bit tough. The “high road” is call that for a reason: because it’s fucking hard to walk. At most we pull him aside, counsel him that maybe he should be wiser with his PR for now. In public though, we counter-attack and defend his and by extension our own rights.

          You wanna see a scary video? Go watch Rep. Clyburn talk about how he’s “not too sure” the BoR would pass today because so many people are against it. That’s scary specifically because it’s true. That’s how far our Republic has fallen in terms of education and taking things for granted. It’s quite literally the ultimate 1st World problem (in multiple senses).

          This isn’t about guns, really. It’s about the survival of this country as a Republic. Guns/gun control are simply a symptom of the current set of problems, of the disease festering since at least the 1920’s. Like Athens in 427BC, the plague is flaring up and we need to actually do something useful about it, something more useful than trying to appease Apollo for helping Sparta.

        14. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The only place we may disagree is identifying “trolls”. My sense is that for too many visiting here, a “troll” is anyone not a member of the echo chamber for whatever meme a person promotes. Without moderators/censors, it is really difficult to keep conversation entirely on track with the initiating posting. Some tangents are useful, but who’s to say?

          Been thinking on this for some time. Should this blog restrictively deal with technical matters only: operations of firearms, gun reviews, historical articles on development of manufacturing firearms, ammunition (and reloading), memberships and an editorial board charged with booting people who attempt to take the discussion into politics, or plagues, or religion? Years ago, I was denied memership at AR15.com (I think it was). No explanation, just a rejection notice. All they had was my user ID and email address. Sorta makes me wary of restrictive blogs, but how else to keep the cats in the same room?

        15. avatar John in Ohio says:

          “I’ve covered tactics that work and strategy here for awhile…”

          I agree again with your follow-up comment, strych9. Well stated.

    2. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      I’m old enough to remember the consternation that people felt at the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement in the early 60’s. The protesters then were roundly reviled in much the same way that average people exercising a 2nd Amendment right are reviled today. We tend to romanticize much about the Civil Rights Movement, but at its beginning a lot of it was not at all romantic; a lot of the protests were in-your-face-ugly, poorly planned, and carried out by unattractive people. Here in Texas, Open Carry Texas and other less-well-thought-out organizations were very active a few years ago. In particular there was a now iconic-photo of a couple of posturing, grinning “Chipotle Nijas” showing off open-carry in the restaurant. The optics could not have been more wrong. But then, so were the “optics” of those early Civil Rights Protests in early 60’s. I guess the question for me is whether or not we’re in danger of having our constitutional rights rescinded? I don’t think we are.

      At some point, however, gun-control has to run head on into the indisputable reality of the clear statements of liberty and freedom contained in the 2nd Amendment. That reckoning is coming sooner rather than later. As flat-out rude as the Springfield/Walmart carrier was, being rude and/or dumb isn’t—or shouldn’t be—illegal. It goes without saying that if only there had been one armed citizen in the El Paso Walmart—or anywhere else a spree-killer appeared—things might well have been very different. The 2nd Amendment intends for armed citizens to have a fighting chance . . . instead of no chance at all.

      1. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Good post, Garrison Hall. IMHO, you framed the situation well.

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        The problem then, and now, is the enlightened (protesters) demanded that their behavior could not be criticized because they owned the moral high ground, and imposing their ideology, by any means necessary, was legitimate political expression. There was to be subservience to their ideas, not discussion and debate. If they couldn’t have their way by volume of noise, then rocks through the window were merely political speech. For the most part (on my college campus and others) the “movement” people were lazy, irresponsible and living off the efforts of their parents (whom they despised…but took the money anyway).

  8. avatar Gordon in MO says:

    Someone should research Dmitriy’s social media posts to see where he resides in the political spectrum. Might be interesting.

  9. avatar Joe nobody says:

    @JohnBoch you and gun owners like you are the left’s greatest weapon against the 2nd amendment – people who are willing to let it be taken from them without a fight, indeed willing to hand it over freely. Why do I care if the gun on my hip bothers someone? Seeing a biological male come out of the same bathroom my 11 year old niece uses bothers me but that doesn’t matter, in fact I get called a bigot for letting it bother me. The second amendment is very clear “the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.” There is no exception for “unless some bleeding heart pansy gets scared.”. It means a person has the RIGHT to carry a gun when, where, and how they want without interface. If you would rather live in a country that encourages infringing on GOD GIVEN RIGHTS to make idiots feel comfortable there are plenty to choose from but America isn’t one. Bon voyage.

    1. avatar No One Special says:

      “Why do I care if the gun on my hip bothers someone?”

      “the gun on my hip” that is key here. This idiot wasn’t dressed like everyone else and the gun wasn’t on his hip. I frequent the Springfield area from time to time for various reasons and I can tell you people down there don’t care about others carrying guns. Hell there’s probably plenty people armed that you can’t see. When you shove it in their face looking like a mall ninja cooky freedom fighter? Well look no further than the article above.

      1. avatar arc says:

        What kit someone wears shouldn’t matter at all. If I want to throw on my dusty old plate carrier and helmet for a restocking run to any box store, that is my taste in fashion and my own business.

        FFS maybe my sexual orientation is motivational military drag. I may even wear a cod piece just to strut my virility and sexual prowess, its not illegal, its not infringing on anyone else’ rights, and its none of their business why I feel like wearing tacticool garb. Metal fetish, Gunsexual, hyper masculine, its literally none of the hypocrites business.

        For all anyone knows, I might be working on an indie film just down the road, cosplaying, armed security at any number of places, its really none of their business unless its a tangible and articulated threat to them and hurt feelings don’t qualify. Most people have no idea how long it takes to do a good makeup job, some actors have to stand in place for 4-12+ hours while they are painted and you don’t get to wash it off for at least a few days!

        No, this comment isn’t sarcasm, someone walking through walmart in full kit has more balls than I do.

        1. avatar No One Special says:

          “No, this comment isn’t sarcasm, someone walking through walmart in full kit has more balls than I do.”

          I don’t know about more balls but definitely more ass, as in asinine display of stupidity. Especially right after a mass shooting in a Walmart. All this did was add fuel to the fire. Now because of the stupidity certain types of open carry may be considered an act of terrorism which means if charged and convicted you can kiss your constitutional rights goodbye. Life as you know it ends and the new one in a deep dark hole like GITMO begins. This is why some of us are saying right doesn’t equal prudent. Prudency requires timing and in cases like this also tact. There was nothing prudent or tactful about this. We don’t have to like it but we do have to find a way to operate within it because socio-economics say we do. We don’t have to like that either but we also have to find a way to operate within it.

        2. avatar SoCalJack says:

          @ no one special, i agree. There are some folks, on our side, that simply refuse to understand how things are today (people are more sensitive, unfiltered info moves faster than we can process), “well in my day we used to…”
          Not saying we have to agree with it all, but there has to be some level of adapting, changing our tactics and still preserve the 2A. Social media and big corporations love it when a gun owner does dumb shit. We must carry on smartly, adapt or die.

        3. avatar No One Special says:

          My honest opinion is this is like the old saying going down swinging. If we are going down than we have already lost. Swing is just for a good valiant show. Problem is I don’t want to die valiant, I want to live having been valiant in triumph. It’s better to have the other guy “die for his cause” than it is for me to “die for mine”.

        4. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Not saying we have to agree with it all, but there has to be some level of adapting, changing our tactics and still preserve the 2A.”

          Adapting is precisely how we arrived at present circumstances. This open carry to prove a point stuff is really recent compared to a half-century of civil compromise that protects nothing.

        5. avatar Arc says:

          @no one special

          Rights are not subject to the whims of government or the courts, they are either absolute or they are not. It is either a right, or its a revocable privileged.

        6. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Bingo, Arc!

          So many people seem to confuse the differences between rights and privileges. The most common way to convert the exercise of a right into a privilege is through licensing.

        7. avatar No One Special says:

          Right like funneling money through the NRA and other organizations to money hungry politicians. Best way to turn a right into a privilege is to pay for it in general. Oh and look how well they have done. They have been so stellar that I’m shocked and just might have to lay down. Yep keep talking Lt we’ll find you.

    2. avatar John Boch says:

      Joe, if you can’t figure it out, then maybe you’re one of the other team’s MVPs as well. With help like yours, we don’t need Everytown.

      Your thinking excels in the world of make-believe and hypotheticals. It doesn’t survive where the rubber hits the road.

      John

      1. avatar Joe nobody says:

        Except that it did “survive when the rubber hits the road” 243 years ago when real heroes fought and died for these inalienable rights, when they were more than words on paper, when they were understood to be necessary for a free and just society. But in typical liberal fashion you don’t argue against any of the facts presented choosing rather to steal pee wee Herman’s argument of “I know you are but what am I?” The only thing missing is where you call me racist for disagreeing with you. It sounds like you would be more comfortable writing for Snopes or vox than a site dedicated to truth.

      2. avatar John in Ohio says:

        Boch, you are happy to give the left a big reach around because your own bias does not agree with open carry. YOU are sowing division and are greatly helping gun control further its goal.

        You like some gun control. It’s time to come out of the closet and just admit it outright.

      3. avatar Hank says:

        John, you know the original TTAG was better then this. I can remember 6-7 years ago that TTAG used to have articles and debates on open carry, but it didn’t revolve around declaring war on open carry like you have done. Instead certain writers at the time took it upon themselves to be leaders and models for the gun rights movement, and went out in to the public open carrying pistols, while dressed nice, with courteous attitudes, and engaged in polite discussion. Then reported back here. Those articles helped a lot of people learn how to carry and respond to people who were anti carrying, wether concealed or open. I know this guy did exactly the opposite of that, but, you’re not doing that either. You’re simply turning on gun owners rather then leading by example.

        1. avatar Guesty says:

          TTAG has turned into a snowflake forum.

    3. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Yep. Boch has, IMHO, shown himself to be somewhat of a Fudd and certainly leans statist. His one-man jihad against exercising an unalienable individual right openly has been apparent. He’s fueling division by taking on the cause of the left without batting an eye. IMHO, his internal personal bias is confirmed by the anti-gunners and vindicated by people making very poor decisions (Andreychenko) but I don’t think he can see that. In the end, it appears to me that Boch is happy to be a mouthpiece of the left on this particular issue because, deep down, he wants some gun control and doesn’t actually support the main reason for the 2A; to fight tyranny.

  10. avatar Mad Max says:

    So, they want gun control to stop people that have no intent of actually harming anyone?

    The dude may have been foolish and inconsiderate but he intended no harm.

    How about focusing on those with real evil intent. Chasing the good guys won’t help.

    1. avatar MARK A SPECK says:

      If you were a responding officer and trying to make a decision based on first visual clues, how would you know his intent? This is a serious question?

      1. avatar Brewski says:

        By using your eyes and brain to assess the situation.

        1. There are some cops today who don’t have that ability. Their mentality is to shoot first and cover their ass, because everyone knows they ” just want to go home at night .”

      2. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “If you were a responding officer and trying to make a decision based on first visual clues, how would you know his intent?”

        Observe. Ask questions. Approach in a non-threatening manner, and engage in conversation. Ask for bystanders to report any overt, threatening action or words by the person of interest. Or….guy with a gun; automatic deadly threat – shoot to stop the threat.

        1. avatar Chaotic says:

          Decent answer, but wrong. You don’t KNOW his intent and never will. Only one person actually knows his intentions. Or yours, mine, or anyone else. If you’re not me, you’re only guessing.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “You don’t KNOW his intent and never will.”

          Of course not. Which does not justify presuming and acting if the only possible intent is doing harm. The question, essentially, was what cops should do when encountering such a situation as reported here. One implication was the cops should presume the open carrier was an armed terrorist moments away from shooting up the store. As I noted, one option was to completely ignore intent, and shoot to stop the threat (whether there was one or not). If such action results in a dead innocent person, and no injured cops…win/win.

      3. avatar Mad Max says:

        By looking at his hands and face:

        1. Does he look mad or have a blank stare or does he look suprised?

        2. Is his hands positioned on the firearm in an offensive manner (low ready with finger next to or on the trigger) or is he casually carrying it? If I can see it, is the safety on or off? Is there a magazine inserted in the firearm?

        Those would be my first two items.

        1. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

          I would think that whether or not he is firing the weapon would be a good clue.

  11. avatar Andrew Lias says:

    You physically can yell fire in a crowded theater. You can have circumstances where it is appropriate to yell fire in a crowded theater. You can not yell fire in a crowded theater to incite panic.

    I’m not going to be wholly presumptuous of his motivations but they certainly need to be examined very closely. I’m not even talking about the gun carrying part at this point but the statement he made carrying it into a store the way he did under the circumstances he did. There were several things he could have done to “tone down” this whole thing.

    -No body armor/mags/etc. Having the rifle is enough there’s no need to bring out your best mall ninja gear
    -Carried a handgun instead of a rifle.
    -Instead of carrying a black gun he could have had a lever action, bolt action or shit maybe even a wooden mini-14.
    -Fucking used his brain and held off on it for a while. If he would have done this a moth or three later it would have likely been way less of a thing.

    Although I don’t know if this is a “fifth column” attack I think it should be investigated as such. Just like this guy’s sanity should be evaluated by the police as well. I think it would be interesting to find out if he had actual ties to the carry community for instance. If it is honest political activism by the pro gun community I would think someone would have talked to this guy at some point. I also wonder if this was more of a “dry run” to see what reactions and responses would be if he walked into a wal-mart with a rifle.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      “You physically can yell fire in a crowded theater. You can have circumstances where it is appropriate to yell fire in a crowded theater. You can not yell fire in a crowded theater to incite panic. ”

      ****
      Exactly. I’ve said this exact same thing – with the very same “yelling fire” example – for years.

    2. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

      Maybe I’ll sling my Enfield over my shoulder on my next trip to CVS and see if that goes better than an AR and tactical gear, as I am compelled by my insurance company to use CVS and compelled by the government to have insurance bought through my employer.

      Someone recently said “If there were a harbor around here we’d be throwing tea in it. We’re at that point.” and I am really feeling that way about this shit with CVS because I my choice is to go there or suffer health issues or government sanctions.

      1. avatar No One Special says:

        Try the Mosin-Nagant M91/30 or even the M44. You just might be welcomed with open loving arms as a fellow comrade.

      2. avatar Mad Max says:

        At least you can go to the CVS and see a pharmacist. I have to use CVS mail order.

  12. avatar James69 says:

    Dam that FPSrussia

  13. avatar Swarf says:

    Unintentional, but yes. Much in the same way that President Obama was America’s Best Gun Salesman.

  14. avatar Hank says:

    I think we’re letting the left define the debate again here guys. Remember why the left is so powerful. The left is powerful not because they have overwhelming popular support, or a solid grass roots movement, or support of the military or police, or are heavily armed. The left is powerful because of the media, and a few select mega corporations. The domination of the media allows them control of every single debate. To the point where we all allow them to dictate the terms of each debate. This is akin to two football teams of similar skill level, playing a game where one team gets to choose the rules. This is what we are stuck in, and one reason why Trump remains the biggest thorn in their side. Now, before I get too offtrack here, let’s look at why this is important here:

    1. This relatively non incident, has successfully, once again, turned the gun rights movement against itself. Time and time again we’ve witnessed this.

    2. This has been successfully translated into a debate about all open carry, not just the open carry of a rifle.

    3. A man is being punished for something that is not a crime. Regardless of how stupid you may believe he is, this is a big deal.

    Culture eats strategy for lunch, as I used to often read here, and right now we’re letting the left define our culture. TTAG and many commenters here have just been fooled into saying the following sentence, “I support the right to open carry, BUT…”

    As a gun rights movement, we can discourage people like this man from tooling up like this in public, while also not stepping on our own. This, in fact, has been done here and elsewhere, by making fun of the tacticool crowd… and more importantly, showing by example, by showing gun rights supporters how to dress, act, talk, and carry while being gun rights ambassadors. TTAG itself had several articles by one of its writers where he dressed professionally while open carrying his pistol to change minds.

    Or we can risk further dividing ourselves against the single most effective propaganda machine in history.

    1. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      @Hank. “I think we’re letting the left define the debate again here guys.” Exactly right. It’s called self-censorship. If they can force gun-owners to curtail constitutionally guaranteed behavior then they have already won by forcing us to accept their claim to having a superior moral judgement. That said, understanding that carrying a gun in public, although arguably sanctioned by our 2nd Amendment, could very well mean we’re also involving ourselves in a public drama is important. When I was a little kid, I first became aware of the Civil Rights Movement when I watched the Little Rock high school get desegregated. I remember a young Black girl walking through a line of jeering White people. Looking back, she was just a kid about 15 or so and probably scared to death. But I also remember how poised she was . . . and how she was better dressed than the people trying to keep her out of “their” school. There’s a lesson for us in that.

    2. avatar balais says:

      I think nutnfancy (yeah I know) had the right mindset and advice to give when Utah had their pro-gun rally. Really good stuff.

      People should take notes.

      The best way to secure our rights is to not do stupid shit like the springfield open carrier dufus, or attend rallies wearing a pro-mask, camo, plate carrier, and guns at the low ready (seattle rally), or trolling cops just waiting to have a sensationalist YT video.

      Dumbassery only confirms their preconceived notions that gun owners are 1.) nuts 2.) shouldnt own guns.
      Not that any amount of civility by gun owners will be counted anyways.

      Gun owners also need to challenge town halls and journalists too, in a civilized matter, record it (so things aren’t taken out of context), and hit the books. I challenged Trevor Noah to a debate and of course, he didn’t respond, though several local journalists did. I wouldve liked at least one gun owner to speak up when Marco Rubio got spanked at CNN’s town hall following parkland (he shouldve had the balls to say, “yeah I *DO* take money from the NRA. So what? theyre not at fault here and that funding comes from law abiding gun owners”)

  15. avatar BAN DEMS FROM AMERICA! says:

    Are ur rights worth a few clicks?

    Here is a link every decent American can use to send a message so easy with a few clicks and a prewritten letter(if needed) to all GOP Senators & Trump & use ur voice to stop this illegal gun control! This week the threat is real and the anti-gun house will likely pass several gun control bills and scream the sky is falling! They will call Trump and the Senate all kinds of names if they don’t pass their commie like gun control!

    https://gunowners.org/alert082119/

  16. avatar former water walker says:

    Geez Boch your fudd is overflowing…NO OPEN CARRY in ILL. How do you know never having legally done it downstate in ILL if he’s an agent provaceteur?!? My take is he’s a goofball exercising his RIGHT in Missouri. Poorly timed to be sure. No sympathy but no condemnation…

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      I agree with your post 100%.

  17. avatar Manse Jolly says:

    I submit to all that had the young man been carrying his rifle at sling arms ( I think he was ), with his camera, and not wearing an OD chest rig, but instead wearing a Bright RED MAGA Hat, the result would probably have been the same.

  18. avatar Brewski says:

    If the person is not pointing his firearm at “innocent people”, or actively committing a crime, then who cares.

    So… let me get this straight, we live a country where a bunch of gay people can throw a parade and rub on each other in front of children wearing full BDSM gear but I can’t wear my plate carrier.

    And the irony is, if everyone could wear plate carriers and any gear they wanted without social justice assaults and repercussions, we would likely have had a fraction of the casualties we currently do since the first mass shooting.

    Ridiculous.

    1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

      Agree. Spot on.

    2. avatar balais says:

      How many mass killers have donned BDSM gear and rubbed up on other guys? none that I can think of (omar mateen might have been closeted, who TF knows)

      How many have worn plate carriers and walked into stores with their rifle? numerous ones.

      I’m all for owning tactical gear too, though wearing it in public is idiotic and only draws unnecessary attention to you, even if its perfectly legal.

      1. avatar Manse Jolly says:

        Is camo included? I see people in camo every day, even more during Hunting seasons.

        Heck, every store in my small town carries camo and what some call “tactical gear”.

  19. avatar strych9 says:

    “Oftentimes, those carrying long guns also have tactical pouches, making themselves better kitted out for a workday in Kabul Baltimore…”

    /fixed

  20. avatar Truckman says:

    I have concealed carried with permit for close to 30 years never had a problem and being I carry on my side I have become uncovered at times especially being I am mobility Impaired I rather walk with a cain or if I am hurting real bad use a cart in walmart people see me all the time and have had people walk by me and tell I am showing or to cover up thats because people do not feel endangered but of course I live In Fl. but they just elected a democrat over the section that runs the concealed carry program and she is causing problems by holding up approval of new people Etc.if she gets elected again will be a surprise also will not be in walmart much now and will not go back to CVS use walgreens because insurance company gives me a card thats only good there to get over the counter stuff I have to have but I am not spending any of my money there

    1. avatar Guesty McGuesterson says:

      Your entire paragraph is a single, long run-on sentence, like a distracted teenager. Not something that inspires confidence in the truth of what you attempted to say.

      1. avatar Garrison Hall says:

        And the honesty in this words belies the pettiness of your complaint.

      2. avatar Huntsman says:

        That’s very insightful.

  21. avatar John in Ohio says:

    Boch, I don’t think you understand the underlying purpose of the 2A.

    YOU, sir, are causing damage by displaying your own Fudd in the public square. Take your own advice and think before you greatly help the left in advancing gun control. YOU are aiding the left in promoting division.

    Please take care of this hard-on you have against open carry… in private.

    1. avatar It's True and Everyone Knows It says:

      In all truth it’s probably because he can’t do it in the state where he lives. I live in one of the most pro-gun states in America, and never meet a gun owner who is against open carry. Ever. It’s the guys in the bitch-tit states that want their guns yet support every kind of other dipshit nanny law that usually square off for this stance. Guarantee he calls in when his neighbors make too much noise.

  22. avatar Ark says:

    KGB told him to, specifically to shit-stir when people were already riled up.

  23. avatar Hannibal says:

    I think we can discuss open carry without bringing the nitwits at Slate into it. There were, in the past, some areas of concern that I thought they did a reasonably good job of analyzing and covering. Guns have never been one of them, with one exception of an article: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/06/the-media-keeps-misfiring-when-it-writes-about-guns.html

  24. avatar Cloudbuster says:

    Rule of Thumb: If Slate is telling conservatives or gun rights activists to do something, do the opposite.

    1. avatar Geoff “I’m a snowflake” PR says:

      That’s the most interesting post on this subject. Slate hates anti Vaxers too.

  25. avatar Rusty - Molon Labe - Chains says:

    This guy was colossally stupid. There is a time and place to go armed with your rifle, this was not it. Should he be deported for it? No.

    Open carry is a bit like boiling the proverbial frog. The muggles are frightened by things they aren’t used to. Promoting open carry is best accomplished by people who they see as nonthreatening carrying guns they see as normal. Full kit right after the previous shooting just sets us back. The announcements by Walmart, Walgreens, and Kroger prove the point.

  26. avatar Salty Bear says:

    People don’t need to go around in public all kitted up, but standing up for our rights (not what others perceive as our needs) regardless of the feelings of bigots is what we do in the United States. Bravo, Mr. Andreychenko.

    WHY AREN’T WE OUTRAGED? Can you imagine if Walmart asked gay people not to hold hands in their stores because some right-wing snowflake got offended?

    1. avatar Garrison Hall says:

      This.

  27. avatar John in Ohio says:

    “Openly carrying handguns has happened since pretty much before the nation’s founding with generally little in the way of issue.”

    I’m genuinely curious if handguns, as you assert, or long guns were more commonly carried in the late days of the colonies and early days of the Republic. Also, didn’t the earliest attempts at gun control declare that concealing firearms was a negative while openly bearing arms was the act of an honest man?

    How do you propose that a free people can deter a tyrannical government when their long guns are locked away back home in a safe most of the time? Regular bearing of long guns in the public square reminds government who are the rightful masters and who is the servant.

  28. avatar John in Ohio says:

    https://corporate.walmart.com/policies
    “Walmart is a charter member of the Responsible Firearms Retailer Partnership, organized by Walmart and Everytown for Gun Safety.”

    “The REAL Reason Walmart Went Anti-Gun”

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      I didn’t read the article Boch did on the 7th about this so it was news to me. However, that begs the question why he tries so desperately to link OC to this decision…

      Clearly, Walmart was going to fuck us anyway.

      1. avatar No One Special says:

        “Clearly, Walmart was going to fuck us anyway.”

        Like it or not Walmart has been fucking the public in general for awhile now. Now they have a more precise target is the only difference. I hate Walmart and only go when I absolutely have to. Even then if I can talk my wife into going in my stead or without me I will.

  29. avatar Mad Max says:

    With the way things have been going, I think I’ll start wearing Level IV body armour and a MICH helmet (no rifle, pistol, or ammo) when out at places like Wal-Mart to protect me from crazed Democrats.

    If they complain about it, they can stick it where the sun don’t shine. I’ll just tell ’em I feel unsafe without my armour blankey.

    Do they make red MAGA MICH helmets?

  30. avatar UpInArms says:

    A couple of summers back I was having my lunch in a Arby’s. I had my P99 in a holster on my hip, unusual since it’s a big honkin’ gun and in the summer I usually carry the smaller PK380. The P99 is a very noticeable gun, and someone noticed it.

    The manager came over and told me, apologetically, that I was making a customer feel uncomfortable, and would I mind taking my sandwich out to my car. She didn’t say which customer, but it was pretty obvious it was the hefty lady over in the corner surrounded by a halo of self-righteousness, as most liberals are. She didn’t look concerned or nervous. Just out to make a point.

    So I went over to her table and politely asked if I could sit down. She was too taken aback to say no. So I sat down and said I understand the gun is making you uncomfortable. She nodded yes. So I said, calmly, that not having the gun makes me uncomfortable. I continued that I had been in a situation where I needed it and didn’t have it, and in a situation where I needed it and did have it. The outcomes were radically different, and I’ve not left the house without a gun ever since (not true, but why spoil the moment?)

    I went back to my table and finished my lunch. The manager went back to managing. The lady, her halo of self-righteousness slightly dimmer, finished her lunch and left.

    The take-away from this (my take-away, anyway) is we don’t have to get into foam-at-the-mouth confrontations over this stuff. I doubt that I changed her point of view. But what I did do was make it clear that I was not going to change my behavior just to play in to her neurotic aversion to firearms. And maybe that’s some kind of progress.

  31. avatar balais says:

    Slate is actually *right* in this instance, stopped clock and all that.

    Dumbasses like this and open carriers are what leads to idiotic laws like california has against open carry.

    Same with people during pro-gun protests and assemblies carrying their guns at the shoulder. Stupid, idiotic, and anything else in between.

    The gun community is its own worst enemy at times. And gun owners should do more to be more low profile and humble, in addition to assertive, rather than shoving their guns in people’s faces and telling them to suck it.

    1. avatar No One Special says:

      “I wouldve liked at least one gun owner to speak up when Marco Rubio got spanked at CNN’s town hall following parkland (he shouldve had the balls to say, “yeah I *DO* take money from the NRA. So what? theyre not at fault here and that funding comes from law abiding gun owners”)”

      You do understand the ludicrous implications of that right? You’re ok with you the taxpayer giving money to the NRA to fight for gun rights to only have the NRA turn around and give it to some crooked ass politicians? Personally I’m not ok with paying to sucure rights that are suppose to be free in the first place. Sounds a little too much like if you can afford to pay than you get to play. Just because I can afford to play doesn’t mean that people that are less fortunate shouldn’t be able as their personal finances allow. Just curious, wasn’t that one of the things the founders of this country fought against in the Revolutionary War?

  32. avatar B.D. says:

    John B.,

    stfu.

    Sincerely,
    Pro 2A people

  33. avatar strych9 says:

    “The only place we may disagree is identifying “trolls””

    I don’t care about tangents. I’m talking about how there are certain people here who are flat-out trolls using nothing but a mixture cut/paste, lies and insults. 150 comments on a page, 10 are them, 70 are people flying off the handle about those 10.

    That’s a goddamn waste. You know who I’m talking about.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “That’s a goddamn waste. You know who I’m talking about.”

      Guess I am so accustomed to identifying them, and deleting, lost my sensitivity to them. I could be naively thinking the answer to bad speech is more speech (however unsuccessful that may be to getting rid of the drag on the boat). Maybe coming here is as good as their day gets. They are attractive to someone around here.

      1. avatar strych9 says:

        Freedom of speech also includes the right to not talk to people you don’t wish to or those whom you deem not worth your time to talk to. The 1A acknowledges not only the incorrect nature of infringement on what you want to say but also the incorrect nature of compelling you to speak.

        Everyone here has freedom of speech, freedom to ignore assholes and freedom of association as well. Use those rights: ignore the obvious trolls. When they don’t get attention they’ll leave or change tactics.

        Until they have something of value to contribute to the conversation they should be excluded from that conversation. Seated at the “children’s table” as it were.

        They contribute nothing other than profits to companies that make blood pressure meds. They’re… well, they’re trolls. Interacting with them serves just as much purpose as contemplating the average velocity of a coconut laden swallow (be it African or European).

  34. avatar Chip in Florida says:

    “..When your political enemies cite you as their best activist, maybe you’re doing something wrong.”

    Yes. But also very much no.

    Are the people cited going about things in the best possible way? Of course not.

    Should they be stopped? Same answer and that is of course not. What they were doing was perfectly legal.

    To allow ‘them’ to set the terms of the debate is to accept defeat in the debate before it has even begun.

    We should be setting the rules and acting accordingly, not listening to them whine about how ‘scary’ freedom is.

    1. avatar strych9 says:

      It’s also important to remember that they’re not going to tell us how to beat them. Any time they say something publicly we should evaluate that statement with an eye towards how it may be misdirection.

      Not one person who ever fought Conor McGreggor ever said “I really fear that left of his”. They did fear it, and with good reason, but they never said that in public.

      You never advertise your own weaknesses in the public arena.

      Antis don’t want carrying a rifle in public “normalized”. It’s one of their worst fears because the country isn’t going to follow them down the road to bans and confiscation for an object the public sees every day and doesn’t fear. That’s something to consider when they talk about the topic.

      1. avatar No One Special says:

        Plates empty, batter up. Last batter has been thrown out of the game. I’m anxiously awaiting the YouTube video carrying an AR through your local grocery store or better yet your local Walmart. Please don’t forget the full tacticool gear though. I’m sure it did wonders for this guy.

        1. avatar Chip in Florida says:

          “..Please don’t forget the full tacticool gear though. ”

          Speaking of misdirection and the actual fear that drives it…. you don’t fear open carry, you fear the people who do the ‘tatcticool’ thing. What about them doing what is little more than playing dress-up bothers you? Is it jealousy? Is it because you want to dress up in fun things and go out in public not giving af about what others think but don’t have the balls to actually do it? What is it? What is it about the ‘tacticool kids’ that bothers you?

        2. avatar No One Special says:

          Wrong! I’ve had really world tactical experience not this let’s play commando BS that these idiots want to portray. It’s bullshit plain and simple. I don’t need to try to intimidate people to feel good about my life. There seems to be people that think doing this kind of shit is prudent. Well batter up troll mother fuckers. Step up to the fucking plate and show the rest of us mere mortals how it’s done. Post your bullshit to YouTube so the rest of us mortals can see what badasses you are. I’m personally sick of the holier than thou ideology. There are some especially here in these comments that think they have the answer for everything and unless everyone else goes a long they are the problem. Where’s the results of this holy wisdom? Talk about rights and then give the impression that rights are only rights if it fits your definition of them. Rights are absolutely individual not for a few assholes to dictate to others what their rights are or are not. Pull your head out and join reality with the rest of us. Un-fucking-believable!

        3. avatar No One Special says:

          I’m personally anxious to see anyone else that does this stupid shit in the news too. People want to talk shit about how this idiot was right but they don’t seem to be following his example. Why is that I wonder? Could be under all the hyperbole that they know it’s not prudent for their future as they know it to do the same thing? Yep, keep talking Lt we’ll find you, eventually, maybe.

      2. avatar John in Ohio says:

        “Antis don’t want carrying a rifle in public “normalized”. It’s one of their worst fears because the country isn’t going to follow them down the road to bans and confiscation for an object the public sees every day and doesn’t fear. That’s something to consider when they talk about the topic.”

        That’s the truth of it. Open carry was too successful at normalization and it worried the left.

Write a Comment

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

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