Virginia Protests Highlight the Debate Over the PR Value of Open Carry

Virginia gun owner militia open carry

Courtesy Jeff Hulbert

On Monday, the House of Delegates advanced the assault-style ban to its final reading, with Democratic lawmakers contending that it will not infringe on anybody’s Second Amendment rights. Republicans argue otherwise, saying it would criminalize ownership of some magazines, even after Democrats tempered penalties to a misdemeanor. At one point, police escorted protesters out of the chamber. “Whose side are you on?” they shouted at officers.

But the political fight between blue suburbs and red rural areas over the proposed ban has also bared tensions among gun owners themselves. Does open carry, as Mr. Hulbert hopes, normalize the image of an armed citizenry? Or does it further entrench the idea that the right to carry a long rifle infringes on the freedoms of non-gun owners?

Williamsburg, Virginia, resident Josiah Gray says open carry should be restricted to police officers. The parking officer says carrying a gun might make some people feel safer, but others could be intimidated or possibly traumatized, especially if they lost someone they knew to gun violence.

“You never know how it affects other people,” he says. “If you don’t have a uniform, it looks kind of off to the other people that you have a gun.”

Some gun owners share those doubts. Few gun owners question the right, but many ask about the “pragmatic aspect of open carry,” says Wake Forest University sociologist David Yamane, founder of the Gun Culture 2.0 blog. “There are many people in the gun community who really dislike open carry as a method of normalizing firearms.”

– Noah Robertson and Patrik Jonsson in Virginia’s ‘amazing moment’: The view from ground zero of U.S. gun debate

comments

  1. avatar Baldwin says:

    Normalize exercising one’s inalienable rights????

    1. avatar Anonymous says:

      The “PR” of open carry is Political correctness at work. No matter what you do, they will label you as extremist, horrible, immoral people for wanting freedom and your rights. They will do this if you are conceal carrying, opening carrying, or storming the capital guns blazing. They call you a monster to pacify you. They say, “You people are violent extremist monsters!” Falling into political correctness, gun owners say, “oh no! I’m not violent. We are super peaceful.” And in doing so you accomplish what they want – you to be peaceful while they legislate your rights away at Virginia’s capitol or where ever. They want you to be peaceful open carrying or not carrying at all (it doesn’t matter to them) while they ignore you and legislate your rights away. What people need to do, is be threatening. You have to threaten them. Only then will they respect you. You have to threaten their recall. You have to appear on their lawns with signs when they wake up. You have to appear in the restaurant where they are eating. And if they still ignore you, you take it further and you keep taking it “further” till they understand, otherwise they will ignore you. They already hate you. They already have the upper hand. Your “protesting” is going to accomplish nothing at all. You have to make them understand. And you don’t do that by not open carrying because of “political correctness.” That is precisely what they want you to do. They want you to fall into their political correctness manipulation tactics (which generally involve labeling you as a monster) so they can take your rights away while they do so. Probably better you accept their label and take that which belongs to you. Only then will they respect you. Right now, you have no teeth, they see no teeth, and so you are a pushover to them in their quest to take from you that which belongs to you.

      1. avatar Matthew Groom says:

        Absolutely. Open Carry used to be the ONLY legal way to carry a gun in most places in the US, but so few people had balls enough to do it that it sort of fell out of fashion. I used to live in a state where it was illegal for most citizens who didn’t have a special costume to open carry, but now I live somewhere else, and I open carry all the time. Why? It’s not because the crime rate is higher here (it’s not), but because there’s fewer and fewer things which distinguish myself and my family as citizens from all the, ahem, other people who simply live here. They can have jobs, and cellphones, and bank accounts, and cars, and even houses without having to be citizens, but you know what they can’t have, and what they certainly can’t get away with having in public? A gun. I can, and I do; my pistol does my talking, and in a language that everyone speaks, and it does so without making a single peep.

    2. avatar Red says:

      Absolutely.

      And people act like criminals walk around displaying their guns every day.

      Don’t worry about the guy carrying his gun openly. He’s a good guy,

      1. avatar John Crawford says:

        When I’m working I too am concerned about the open carry people. Are they people who want everyone to think they are “tough” because they have a gun? Are they looking for a reason to use their weapon? Are they trying to bait Leo’s.
        When I’m not working, I like the open carry ppl. They will be the first targets.

        1. avatar Rich7553 says:

          Because the media, who will never miss an opportunity to show gun carriers in a negative light, has published fewer than a dozen instances of open carriers being accosted over the last 25 years? Thousands open carry daily in the 45 states where legal. Where’s your proof?

      2. avatar Rich7553 says:

        According to a 5-year FBI study, criminals conceal firearms until ready to attack, and do not use holsters as a rule. The study is called “Violent Encounters – a Study of Felonious Assaults on Our Nation’s Law Enforcement Officers”.

  2. avatar Larry says:

    I personally think it only helps the gun grabbers. Also knowledge is power and the knowledge that I have a weapon on me, is not something I want to give anyone until I have too.

    1. avatar Chief Censor says:

      Common use.

      How do gun owners argue common use when they refuse to openly carry their guns? How is your AR in common use when it’s locked in a safe 99% of the time? Why do you need to possess a semi auto rifle, at home, when you rarely take it out of lock-up? Why not store your rifles at a gun store/range, seeing you don’t commonly use it?

      Common use is different than commonly owned.

      Pistols are the weapons in common use when it comes to self defense and they are the weapons you commonly see out in the open. People rarely use rifles in defense. Even gun owners say you use your pistol to fight your way to your rifle or rifles are for fighting the government.

      How does the public know guns are in common use when gun owners “choose” to hide their gun when out in public? Every non gun owner is going to assume no one in the city has guns and no one that owns them outside of the city carries them outside their homes unless they are hunting.

      Gun are becoming less commonly used in society as the size of the police forces grows because people don’t feel the need for such tools. You don’t need 5.56, you only need 9-1-1.

      How many Americans, openly carrying a gun, were murdered before they could draw? Do criminals assume people are unarmed, especially when they don’t see a uniform? Do more concealed carriers get victimized than open carriers?

      1. avatar 41mag says:

        Love it.

    2. avatar Phil says:

      Yes you soon will not have that option but thanks for playing. They don’t want you legally carrying any guns either concealed or open, when will people like you understand that? Playing by their rules will assure you only one thing: repeal of the second amendment and / or complete nullification.

      This is exactly why the will not comply movement is so scary to them this is the line in the Sand. Next few years are going to get intersting.

    3. avatar John Crawford says:

      Exactly! Make the bad guys wander.

      1. avatar Rich7553 says:

        Yes, make them think you’re unarmed so your odds of getting attacked is the same as everyone else. Pretend that the US Department of Justice didn’t find that 60% of criminals will avoid attacking those they know are unarmed and 40% if they think their target is unarmed.

        Personally, I would prefer to deter a criminal than have to shoot him.

  3. avatar Username says:

    Pro tip: if you’re black, considering charging pro-gun boomers a nominal fee to pose with you at gun rallies. You’ll probably make out well enough to buy another rifle at the end of the day.

    1. avatar Dan W says:

      The black guy at the Richmond rally would have been able to retire.

    2. avatar Ragnar says:

      Yeah, because the only possible reason a black guy would support the pro-gun movement is to make money off of it. /sarcasm.

  4. avatar Kendahl says:

    By Josiah Gray’s standard, we shouldn’t drive automobiles in public because they might traumatize survivors of major traffic accidents. It’s not a reason; it’s an excuse.

    I don’t like open carry for tactical reasons not because it might trigger a snowflake.

    1. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

      We should all open carry, we can melt snowflakes.

      1. avatar enuf says:

        I miss the time of life when snowflakes were a good thing. As a child, first snow of the year and we’d want to run around outside trying to catch them in hands or sticking out yer tongue. As an old dude, I can at least enjoy watching the little ones today doing what I did when I was their size.

        Good stuff, or at least snowflakes used to be.

        Now there’s that double-meaning, and it ain’t a pretty one at all. These modern day human snowflakes are spoiling my memories and hurting my feelings with their snowflakey crap.

        I think I should sue them … emotional injury!!!

        1. avatar Bernie Forever says:

          That and because of all the global warming and climate change caused by the republicans and Trump there are very few actual snowfalls anymore. Many children have now grown up never even having seen snow.

        2. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

          Bern 4 eva, Trump’s only been in office for 3 years and you’re accusing him of making kids not see snow. Dude get a life. Trolls be trolling.

        3. avatar Biatec says:

          I have shoveld snow like 3 times a week for 2 months. Illinois

        4. avatar Dude says:

          Okay let’s pretend a warming trend is solely caused by human produced carbon emissions. So, only republicans do that. Hmm. You know that’s a lie.

          What about wasteful emissions? Climate change religious leaders like Al Gore tell us we have to conserve more so we emit less “harmful” carbon emissions. Yet, he lives like a king and emits more carbon and burns more energy in a week than the average citizen does in a year. I’m sure it’s a pure coincidence that he also gets rich from his climate change views. Bernie Sanders is the biggest spender out of the dem candidates for flying private. If these people actually believed what they preached, wouldn’t they behave differently? No, because they’re charlatans and hypocrites. You’ve been lied to.

        5. avatar Napresto says:

          Bernie, my snowblower is in the garage, all gassed up for you. Feel free to rejoin reality and take over driveway cleaning duty any time.

        6. avatar EndDangerEd says:

          Bernie 4ever…. you’re as BOGUS as Berning Standards. Have had MORE SNOW THIS winter than most, going back 50 years or more. All depends on exactly where you are. If you are dealing with “generalizations” then Open carry was VERY COMMON up until about 40 years ago…. kids even brought their .22s to school and shot supper on the way hone, carried pocket knives and everything. It’s only in the “Big Cities” where people are NOT trustworty with guns, knives, women, booze or anything else. Best fix for America? Put all liberal city folks in work communes for about the next 20 years…. they’ll figure out real quick that Communism SUCKS and Socialism does TOO! Once they repent and turn from their uneducated ways they will be allowed to return to POLITE (armed) Society.

    2. avatar Chief Censor says:

      I don’t think you are being honest about why you don’t carry openly.

      I think people who refuse to carry openly, and cite increased criminal targeting for their reasoning, are actually scared to go about their day with their gun out. It’s not about being tactical, it’s about being afraid. They worry that people will notice them more than usual, people will harass them for exercising their human rights, they will get trespassed from many places, police will show up with the intent to shoot them, etc. That’s what people are truly worried about; not some young teen running up to them and shooting them in the head to steal the gun. It’s America, not Brazil.

      Another reason for people not wanting to open carry is simply laziness and lack of awareness. When they conceal carry they don’t feel the need to pay attention to their surroundings because their gun is stuffed in their pants. If their gun was out in the open they have to monitor the people getting close to them.

      When I walk around the streets I constantly look behind me to make sure no one is running up on me. Something I learned from living in areas where you could get jumped, robbed or killed. Concealed carriers don’t want to do that, they just want to walk around with the idea they are all powerful because they know they have a gun.

      Stats show America is safe enough for people to openly carry their guns without fear. It’s likely safer to do that than to openly carry around expensive electronics and clothing.

      1. avatar EndDangerEd says:

        If you are afraid to Open Carry because someone is going to grab it? Leave it empty! keep a loaded Concealed Carry just in case. Then YOU can be the one who gets to take down the “Gun Grabber”. I feel safer already!!

  5. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

    “a gun might make some people feel safer, but others could be intimidated or possibly traumatized” Josiah needs to help his community to grow the fuck up. This parking cop’s elitist, I keep my gun on me but you shouldn’t carry, attitude is stupid.

    Oh look Virginia Citizens, be thankful your Democrat overlords changed your current legal activities into misdemeanors rather than felonies in the near future. /sarc

    1. avatar enuf says:

      Yup, political speech bugs the hell out of people all the time. That’s never a reason to prohibit it. And for that meter maid guy to suggest people not carry firearms because of “feelings” is just as wrong headed and Anti-American as university students demanding their campus be a safe place where no unpleasant ideas will ever trouble their feelings.

    2. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

      If there’s one thing more intimidating than a man with a gun it’s a man with a gun and a badge.

  6. avatar enuf says:

    Every time someone uses that nonsensical, politically invented term “Gun Violence”, we should come back strong against it. Never let that one go!

    There is no such thing as “Gun Violence”. No gun has ever harmed or killed anyone any more than a spoon has ever made someone fat or a white box truck ever sought out a terrorist to rent it as a weapon of murder. “Things” do not make choices, do not have intentions, do not initiate actions.

    There is only human behavior, and the violence that humans do.

    Solving that problem has seen considerable success over the years. All forms of human violence have fallen considerably in the USA for the last several decades. We are doing very well on the Human Violence problem, in America.

    The next thing is to work on the specific Human Violence causes that remain. There’s some very good work being done around the country, but all sides tend to ignore it. It is so much more politically enjoyable and profitable to focus on imaginary simplistic solutions, instead of doing the hard work of solving human problems.

    But aside from that ….

    Some images of pro-Second Amendment protesters are very helpful, some are a mixed up mess and some are a disaster.

    Probably if one of these events happened where I could get to it, and not on a work day, my usual carry pistol would be on my hip as always. Maybe I’d sling one of my AR’s over my shoulder with a standard capacity magazine in it and a small American flag on a dowel in the muzzle, the dowel taped to keep most of it up high, keep the flag up over my head.

    But no battle dress, body armor, MOLLE gear or helmet or the like. Just every day sort of going to work clothes, clean and neat.

    1. avatar Von says:

      I agree. People are focusing on the gun for all the evil instead of evaluating the person carrying it.

    2. avatar Dude says:

      Just call it criminal violence. If it’s an accident or a suicide, and you call it violence and group it in with actual criminal violence, then you’re a propagandist.

    3. avatar UpInArms says:

      ” Every time someone uses that nonsensical, politically invented term “Gun Violence”, we should come back strong against it. ”

      A noble idea, and I completely agree with it. The thing of it is, though, how do we come back against it? The corporate media is never going to give us equal time, and when they need a talking head for commentary, they always find an anti-gunner. Unless we want to go knocking on doors like the JW’s, we’re never going to get the microphone. The deck is stacked, and it’s not in our favor.

  7. avatar RedFlagRising says:

    Just think of all the laws in the last 30 years that were erased because of right leaning protests.

    I can think of many, ummmm, hmmm….. Can anybody name one?

    However, leftist protests DO coalesce in the creation of NEW laws…

    Gay marriage, trans rights, feminist agendas, gun control, enviromental regulations etc……

    See how it works?

    1. avatar guy says:

      That’s was kind of eye opening man solid point!

      1. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

        As much as I don’t like pwersurges crass comments, there are a lot of times he isn’t always wrong. Left always furthers their agenda. The right gets pushed aside and labeled as racist, misogynist, and homophobic. It’s that bad guy mentality everyone has. It’s okay to take the rights away from or do bad things to bad people. Racism is bad, so if someone calls us a racist the general population will be okay with bad things happening to the “racist” people.

        1. avatar Gov. William J Le Petomane says:

          The term ‘racist’ has no meaning anymore to anyone who’s not a mouth frothing leftist. This is why they’re trying to label us as ‘white supremacists’ now. They’ll wear that term out quickly as well.

        2. avatar enuf says:

          I’ll agree that snowflakes abuse the racism label. Does not mean it doesn’t exist anymore on the political right. There’s loads of it to be found there.

          One of the stupidest things ever heard in American news media was upon Obama’s first election, and the talking heads were going on and on about we now lived in a “Post Racial America”. What a load of crap that was. Right wing or left wing, there are always race haters and race baiters and race card users and racism deniers and racism criers. It is a deeply ingrained fault of the human condition.

          Humanity is far less violent than it used to be, but stupidity has a much longer way to go.

        3. avatar Clit Commander says:

          …and you certainly know stupid.

        4. avatar Dude says:

          “Does not mean it doesn’t exist anymore on the political right.”

          Sure it does, and it always will. What people fail to recognize is that there is MORE of it on the political left, and it’s becoming more prominent. The reason it isn’t well recognized is because the left controls 90% of the media and academia.

    2. avatar Renault says:

      It’s because the left has a ton more support then it appears. They have the backing of the vast majority of academia, the media, the billionaire class, international support, and more then likely a solid group of elite government figures. Meanwhile the right primarily only has grass roots orgs. It’s a testament to sheer will and reflection of that the numbers don’t really favor the left, that the right still manages to best the left and keep America from totally succumbing to communism. Luckily, the global tide now actually seems to be turning against the last few decades of leftist control, and if we can keep the fight going, we’re pretty likely to see the leftist dominance implode. Europe is fixing to take a turn to the right and as it goes, so goes the global left wing slant.

      1. avatar Dude says:

        A major roadblock to that now is the leftist controlled tech giants. These are the new information gatekeepers, and they love to censor the opposition.

    3. avatar Miner49er says:

      The leftist do not always call for more laws, in fact in the examples you cite the left promoted more freedoms:

      “Gay marriage, trans rights, feminist agendas”

      There were laws against gay marriage, the left promoted the abolishment of those restrictions.
      Just as the leftists were responsible for removing the bans on mixed race marriage.

      The feminist agenda? Really, just what is that? Do you mean the prohibition against women having credit before the 70s or the laws making women property of their husbands? In both cases, progressives lead the charge to bring about equality for women.

      But maybe you’re right, we do have too many environmental regulations. I mean after all, the fact that bald eagles are dying at wholesale rates from lead poisoning isn’t so bad, right?

  8. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

    Open carry should be legal, but I still don’t think it’s a good idea most of the time. You get to know I’m armed just before you hear a very loud noise.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      Gary, you often see things clearly even though we may disagree somewhat politically.

      Surprise is a very important vantage, why anyone would want to give up the tactical advantage of being armed without your opponent being aware of it is beyond me.

      Unless the main reason you like open carry is to intimidate the straights and the snowflakes, then it’s pure ego gratification that actually works against normalization of citizens’ right to keep and bear arms.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        “Unless the main reason you like open carry is to intimidate the straights and the snowflakes, then it’s pure ego gratification that actually works against normalization of citizens’ right to keep and bear arms.”

        Open carrying firearms shows the general public that they can also open carry a gun as well. And that there is nothing to be scared about when doing it. There is nothing to be intimidated about. It might be that you hate open carriers? But they are harming no one.

        Why do people support the open carry of sex toys??? But not the open carry of guns by law abiding people???
        I would say the open carry of sex toys is an act of intimidation. Because that was the goal of the women at Austin Texas University when they did it.

        We have hundreds of years of the peaceful open carrying of Arms. But no history of the open carry of sex toys.

        1. avatar Miner49er says:

          “Why do people support the open carry of sex toys??? But not the open carry of guns by law abiding people???”

          Is this a real question?

          Maybe because dildos are non-lethal entertainment devices and have never been used in a mass shooting where multiple people died a violent death?

          Why would you even link sex with death, that’s pretty weird.

          Or is it just that dildos intimidate you, don’t be frightened a little boy.

        2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          I forgot. This is a 34 minute long video.

        3. avatar Chris T in KY says:

          to miner49er
          People, mostly women, are raped with foreign objects all the time. It seems you are not very informed on this issue. Since my video link was deleted by TTAG read this and learn.

          “Sexual Assault and the LGBTQ Community”
          https://www.hrc.org/resources/sexual-assault-and-the-lgbt-community

  9. avatar Prndll says:

    People have become over sensitive (even hyper-sensitive) in general. It isn’t just about guns. Although firearms have takin on a particular form of completely ridiculous sensitivity. Much of it has been created and perpetuated by leftist crazies and the generally ignorant. Education and proper training can solve a great many issues including an irrational fear of someone who carries a sidearm in public (open or concealed).

    1. avatar Hush says:

      Thank You Prndll for summing it up correctly. The very definition of snowflake is contained therein.

  10. avatar Darkman says:

    I must truly be an old fogey. I miss the days when carrying a firearm in public had no psychological impact on people. It just meant you had a gun. Driving around with a rifle and or shot gun in the back window of your truck or laying in the back seat of the car. Left no impression on anyone. Hell we had them in or vehicles at school. For the whole world to see. I remember taking a 30-30 into shop class to refinish the stock for a class project. We now live in a society where honor and morals are looked upon as a negative. While perversion and fear mongering is a political and sociological tool for societal change. Where how people feel is more important than what they do or don’t do. Rules that get in the way of feelings are considered abhorrent. Considering the tract that humanity is on. A SHTF situation may be the only way to save humanity from itself. Never in the history of humanity has the gene pool needed an industrial size dose of chlorine. More than it does now,

    1. avatar Renault says:

      I’d argue that it apparently needed one in 1914…

      What, too soon?

  11. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

    Darkman, know what you mean. When I was in high school every vehicle in the parking lot that belonged to a male student had a firearm in it. At least during hunting season. Teachers too. We didn’t even lock them. I kept camo coveralls and boots in mine also. Straight to the stand.

    1. avatar MigraineMan says:

      We regularly brought firearms to school in our cars back in the day. If the administrators found out we planned on hunting or plinking after school, they’d be out in the parking lot with us because they wanted to see what cool hardware we brought this time. No violence. No lock-downs. No snowflakes imploding for the lack of a safe-space.

      Hell, our high school had a rifle club. There were a dozen or more rifles in the lock-up in the Phys-Ed staff office. We had four lanes and a backstop set up along the edge of the baseball field. The basic rules were “keep your rounds in the lane; police your brass.”

    2. avatar Ashamed to be white says:

      You had to add that homophobic slur at the end, didn’t you?

      1. avatar MigraineMan says:

        Picking up your shell casings is homophobic?

        1. They are pointing out the lunacy that has taken over our society. They are talking about how gadsden said “Straight to the stand”, which would now be considered hate speech because straight is now a bad word.

      2. avatar Jake says:

        What was homo about picking up brass? If that is the case then all of us who reload are flaming homos.

      3. avatar Dude says:

        It’s okay to go straight.

      4. avatar EndDangerEd says:

        I wish you were ashamed to be American AND LEFT… Now would be perfect…. triggered by words that you don’t understand because YOUR GEN has twisted the meanings into SICK CRAPPOLA. I get sooooo tired of STUPID.

  12. avatar Dan W says:

    Always project strength. The left doesn’t care about facts or logic, only force. The more scared of us they are the better.

    1. avatar Jim Bullock says:

      Sadly, this.

    2. avatar CZ Rider says:

      Probably-unpopular opinion: “rights” don’t actually exist or matter, and the things we always describe as such are actually just assurances nacked and guaranteed by force. The predator doesn’t care or respect that its prey has a “right” to life or self defense until that prey kicks it in the head a couple of times and drives it off.

      1. avatar Dan W says:

        Exactly. Rights are in fact a social construct. Are rights like all political power flows from the barrel of a gun. Any right you assert is you being able to use force to deny the alternative.

  13. avatar Dude says:

    Freedom is scary.

  14. avatar mark says:

    Open carry is a non-issue.
    Dems have no fear of repercussions from the party that prefers to play dress up and rattle their barrels.

  15. avatar Bierce Ambrose says:

    We shall normalize gun carry out of existence by hiding n stopping it!

    And we have always been at war with Eastasia.

  16. avatar TommyJay says:

    People claim that they are intimidated or offended by some speech or activity (open carry). But my guess is that something like 90% or these claims are BS. Or people who’ve been brainwashed into being offended.

    There is no right to not being offended in public. There is a right to bear arms.

  17. avatar Cesare says:

    Ah, the return of Hypothetical Man, he who conquers all and before whom all must bow. That colorful notion that some where, somehow there may well be, as far as you know anyway, some mouth breathing, leg humping stooge who may have feelz if they happen to see a firearm. Not to mention a coffee mug, bumper sticker, T shirt, ye Gods, the potential for misinterpretation is staggering! Oh the horror, and after all what could possibly trump some fictional individual’s possible feelz?

    1. avatar ChoseDeath says:

      Beautiful statement, and a’int that just the entire philosophical crux of the problem? My main problem with academia and Leftism in general is so much of it simply devolves and swirls around the nebulous void of THE HYPOTHETICAL that it inevitably curls itself, ouroboros like, up its own ass. Frankly, it’s a crippling condition, only ever cured by reality giving a swift kick to the posterior with the hopes of dislodging the newly placed head before the occupant suffocates on their own gases. A lot of times this condition seems to be terminal.

      1. avatar Dude says:

        The hypothetical predictions about Trump, especially with hindsight, are especially hilarious. Award winning economist Paul Krugman told us in 2016, that if Trump were to be elected, the stock market would tank. The intellectuals told us that Trump would start WW3. Yet when he pulled out of Syria, and refused to go to war with Turkey, these same people howled with rage.

        1. avatar ChoseDeath says:

          @Dude. Oh yes, as always the hypocritical positions held and complete lack of any personal responsibility and accountability for their incorrect predictions (READ: outright fucking lies and fear-mongering) never cease to amaze and disgust me.

  18. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    I, myself, am deeply disturbed by the notion on someone with Josiah Grayvee’s reasoning skills having access to guns at all. Also, sticks. Food preparation. Language.

    Ban him and his ilk from all the things! For my feelz.

  19. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    #triggered
    I, myself, am deeply disturbed by the notion of somebody so dumb they published that.

    Ban them and their ilk from all the things! For my feelz.

  20. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    #triggered
    I, myself, am deeply disturbed by the notion that “some people” get all wee-wee’d up at the sight of a gun.

    Ban them and their ilk from all the things! For my feelz.

  21. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    #triggered
    I, myself, am deeply disturbed that people want to ban what others do because it’s icky.

    Ban them and their ilk from voting. Also policy, media, n activism! For my feelz.

  22. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    #triggered
    I, myself, am deeply disturbed by elevating crazy reactions to reasons for policy. You freak out about spiders, fine — seems like your problem.

    Fumigate yr own home n stay indoors, but do shut up about it. For my feelz.

  23. avatar Anymouse says:

    It depends on how you comport yourself. If you run around in masks and full battle rattle with your hand on the grip and you finger on the safety, like you might be about to do an entry into a hostile room, or you’re waving it over your head, like a scene from Red Dawn, then your cosplay isn’t doing anyone any favors. Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. If you dress normally, act politely, and happen to have a pistol on your belt in a proper retention holster, then people see that not all gun owners are raving nutcases.

  24. avatar TechGuy says:

    Hey! Let’s get on the right page here! To succeed, we don’t need to alienate the opposition, we need to include as many of them as possible! Many left or, “mild left” are “gun-curious” (this is only an example) which is sort of like “bi-curious”. They are adamantly and vocally against us but, they can’t stop fantasizing about it! Don’t throw a full-auto Russian AK on the table and say “let’s start here”. They’ll be terrified. They’re not afraid of the gun they can’t see. They can’t tell an AR from a bazooka and they’re intimidated by both.
    I start “newbees” with a pellet gun. They’re fascinated. Then, I move to dad’s old Winchester .22 rifle and a “pretty” single action .22 revolver. You don’t teach someone to drive stick in a Ferrari! When they learn that guns are not rocket launchers, they’re much better students.
    I have an ex-wife who bad mouths everything I do…. I had to introduce my girls slowly to biking, blue water …and, guns. They’re now skiers, “water-rats” and LOVE 1911’s (in .45ACP). The older one has an AR…
    Remember, our opposition (male & female) and like little girls, afraid of worms. Don’t walk around with a python! Teach them to fish …or, shoot.
    I’ve “contaminated” a few by being gentle. If we ALL did this, few would vote Dem.

    1. avatar Miner49er says:

      Exactly correct techman!

      Persuasion is King.

  25. avatar Fully Involved says:

    Anti-gunners today do not fear the armed criminal as much as they fear the former law-abiding citizen that has a gun and suddenly goes beserk. They figure that they can take measures to avoid criminals (live in a safe neighborhood, avoid sketchy places, etc) but there is little that can be done if Dave at work decides to come to the office and violently express his grievances.
    Our challenge is that we need to show anti-gunners that the most rational decision is to arm Dave’s coworkers as opposed to attempting to disarm everyone in hopes that Dave will also be disarmed. The gun is the first-line weapon of choice for mass murder in America because of the media focus on it; we can use this to our advantage as a society. Guns have inherent limitations (such as requiring relative proximity, some degree of aiming and line of sight) and can be countered if a sufficient number of would-be victims are also armed (the latest texas church shooting is an example). However, if we decide to disarm everyone, all we effectively did is force Dave to chose another weapon, such as a remote-detonated bomb. At least if Dave was armed and decides to shoot up the place then his armed coworkers can counterattack. Guns would be all but useless if Dave decides to plant a remote bomb in the office and detonate it as he is fleeing the country. We should consider ourselves lucky that guns are the center of both positive and negative attention.
    The real underlying issue is that people have become so complacent in the relative luxury of a first-world society that the idea of taking responsibility for one’s safety, health, education etc is all but alien to us now. ‘Why should I be in charge of my safety/health/education? Isnt that what police/doctors/teachers are for?’
    Culturally we as a country need to readopt the notion of accountability and self-reliance.

    1. avatar TechGuy says:

      Dave is a statistical anomaly. They’re afraid of us! …all 100 million or so…

      1. avatar Fully Involved says:

        I hear you, but simply saying a phobia is a statistical anomaly isn’t enough to quell that phobia. The fear is strong enough to overcome logic and drives one to drastic, immoral and irresponsible measures (such as voting to disarm an entire populace).
        I think the ‘politicians’ are afraid of all 100 million of us and will be anti-gun no matter what because they are power-seeking, but the anti-gunners who vote for them are really just afraid of Dave and thus can reasoned with.
        The fact that there is 100 million of us doesnt matter once we help anti-gunners purge themselves of the fallacy that Dave is willing to use only a gun to cause harm. Once they do that and come to terms with the fact that evil actions will happen no matter what preventative measure you take, they will realize that the best means to overcome a singularity of evil is if the rest of us are able and willing to resist it to the best of our abilities (i.e. via firearms) when it occurs. If an individual is not able and willing to resist, then it is imperative that he/she allows others to do so on his/her behalf.

  26. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    #triggered #hypotheticalman
    I, myself, heard that some guy did some thing that some other guy who knows nothing about guns though was dangerous. I am hypothetically bothered by their hypothetical distress.

    We should hypothetically do something about that. For my feelz.

  27. avatar Chiefton says:

    Every state should form “well regulated” militias. The members of all gun clubs in the state are a good starting point. These militias will require all members to keep and bear arms, along with high capacity magazines and ample supplies of ammunition. Also, require concealed weapons permits as part of the regulations of the units. Let the Constitution override these states where liberal politicians enact these laws that the courts are so slow to take down. Then we can see which holds a higher standard.

  28. avatar J says:

    This is why we have the debate among concealed carry and open carry firearms owners. In many states that do not allow us to have many firearm rights involving the way we want to carry, we have seen the rise of concealed carry as the only option like Illinois, CA, NY, CT, MA, and many other states. Concealed carries look down on open carry that was used for several hundred years in the US. Our community is split between concealed carry and open carry and the anti-2nd groups know that for a fact. California under Ronald Reagan in the 1960s did away with open carry because people were expressing and using their constitutional rights to bear arms. More and more we see in the firearms community that concealed carry is the only option being pushed. In Illinois, your only have the option of concealed carry in the state and is only recently been available to firearms owners since 2013. You look at training in Illinois for pistols and you will see training almost 90% of the time for only concealed carry. If, you examine the training for pistols more closely you will see holster drills are for concealed carries and no option for open carry holster drills at ranges are not given. I for one do not want any state to control how and what I want to carry in public. As for firearms training, you will only see one option in your state if you have concealed carry. Another problem is the push back by concealed carriers where they think concealed carry is the only option for us firearms owners must have involving pistols and other firearms. Drop any idea of open carry when you talk or discuss open carry with most concealed carriers. They have drank the cool aide by the states that control their rights.
    So, where does that leaves us. We are pitted against conceal carry vs open carry with the main focus of pistol ownership only, but it goes further with open carry of all firearms. Open carry promotes not only open carry of pistols, but also shotguns and rifles and is the full expression of our rights since the 1600s in the US. Most of us live in states that do not allow us to fully enjoy our 2nd Amendment rights. These states have pushed us in a direction to divide us by the laws in those states. You can only concealed carry or you have no option at all like Illinois and other states. The best option is like Kentucky where open carry originally was the law of the land, then open carry and car carry of all firearms, and more recently with concealed carry added as a option. Most states have went the opposite direction over time by reducing our 2nd Amendment rights to almost nothing like CA, NY, MA, and other states. Open carry is the norm and anti-2nd Amendment states have demonized this form of carry over the years and have won. Now, this idea is firmly fixed it way and has materialized in our community through most of us as firearms owners as open carry (pistols, shotguns, rifles) vs concealed carry (pistol only). What other right has been subjected to such vast controls by the states and federal government like the 2nd Amendment? What do you think?

  29. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    #triggered #hypotheticalman

    They’re triggered becasue it worked.

    — You can tell when your technique is effective: they come up with some reason you can’t do it.

    — You can tell when they have no argument: they make up some non-person’s reaction.

  30. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    #triggered #hypotheticalman

    >22,000 people rallying, on message, and without violence despite being taunted, mocked, harassed, and fenced out of their own lobbying access “day”, by their own representatives.

    There’s as much triggering there as there were triggers peacefully carried in the crowd.
    Not least by what some #hypotheticalman imagined the peaceful people hypotheticaly might do (and didn’t.)

  31. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    #triggered #hypotheticalman

    It isn’t the rally, or even the policy preferences of the folks there. It’s that they were able to rally to “peacefully assemble” and “petition their government for redress of grievances.”

    Nothing more triggering to #hypotheticalman than grown-up people acting like grown-ups, and citizens acting like citizens. (Sorry, that’s not hypothetical. The rally folks did that.)

  32. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    #triggered #hypotheticalman

    Well, symbolic politica speech, like open carrying, certainly #triggered #hypothecialman and it’s spokesthings, who are afraid of nothing more than that Those People might win.

  33. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    #triggered #hypotheticalman

    My open-carried personal arm identifies as political speech. (<– Not-hypothetical, I'm sure someone will claim that was offensife to #hypotheticalman.)

  34. avatar Jim Bullock says:

    #triggered #hypotheticalman

    My pronouns … I don’t really care. My title is “Citizen of this Republic.” My prerogatives are in the poetry of The Declaration of Independence. The protocols and limits of my government are spelled out in The Constitution of the United States.

    Nowhere in there does it say a thing about limiting what I can do based on what might leave some #hypotheticalman #triggered.

  35. avatar Ralph says:

    I prefer to be the “gray man” and conceal. But your freedom may vary.

  36. avatar MrMax says:

    When I lived in Colorado in the 80’s and early 90’s, open carry was everywhere (outside of Denver) and no one made a big deal of it. Made no difference if it was a pistol strapped to your hip or a rifle slung over your shoulder (or on the rear window rack of your pickup). That said, we also weren’t walking around toting guns just to make a statement. I am as gun rights as most in this forum, but it was a bit much during the Virginia protests to have some folks in “G.I. Joe dress-up” draped in their favorite weapon(s). What makes a difference during a protest are sheer numbers and civility.

    I agree with a few others though in that once you start allowing the legislators free reign to take away open carry (to appease the snowflakes), it’s not a far reach for them as anti-gunners to go farther. Give ’em an inch, they’ll take a mile.

  37. avatar strych9 says:

    Yeah, there’s the PR issue and we’re slowly getting better at that but a concerted effort to take back the educational system is the real key here.

    “But if the people come to believe that the Constitution is not a text like other texts; that it means, not what it says or what it was understood to mean, but what it should mean, in light of the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” -well, then, they will loook for qualification other than impartiality, judgement and lawyerly acumen in those whom they select to interpret it. More specifically they will look for judges who agree with them as to what the Constitution ought to be.

    It seems to me that that is where we are heading, or perhaps we have arrived. Seventy-five years ago, we believed firmly enough in a rock-solid, unchanging Constitution that we felt it necessary to adopt the Nineteenth Amendment to give women the vote. The battle was not fought in the courts, and few thought it could be…

    Who can doubt that if the issue had been deferred until today, the Consitution would be (formally) unamended, and the courts would be the chosen instrumentality of change? The American people have been converted to belief in The Living Constitution, a “morphing” document that means, from age to age, what it ought to mean. And with that conversion has inevitably come the new phenomenon of selecting and confirming judges, at all the levels, on the bases of their views regarding a whole series of proposals for constitutional evolution. If the courts are free to write the Constitution anew, they will, by God, write it the way the majority wants; the appointment and confirmation process will see to that. This, of course, is the end of the Bill of Rights, whose meaning will be committed to the very body it was meant to protect against; the majority“. (Final emphasis mine) -Antonin Scalia in Common-Law Courts in a Civil-Law System

  38. avatar Fosty says:

    My safety trumps your feelings.

  39. avatar Chris T in KY says:

    It’s amazing how walking around with a well fitted strapon dildo is considered normal today. And walking around with large sagging exposed breasts by large women and screaming at people, is considered normal. Or having group sex in public is considered normal. Defecating in public is now considered normal.
    Shooting up crystal meth in public is promoted as being normal and correct.

    But open carrying a firearm and being polite to strangers is considered bad.

    I read weak freedom advocates promoting the former on TTAG all the time. But not open carry.

    1. avatar Hillbilly says:

      Your obsession with dildos, drugs and all sorts of other perversions leads me to believe you are into all of the above. But that’s the great thing about freedom, you can do all those things. Now if you will just stay out of the womens bathroom we won’t have an issue.

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        I know the sexually liberated think it’s fun to try and intimidate conservatives with sex talk. But I like to use the Liberals own agitprop against them. Your own reaction is proof of this. Now you are the one who is intimidated by sex talk and open carry.
        Thanks for falling completely for my troll.
        (smile)

      2. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        btw
        ” Now if you will just stay out of the womens bathroom we won’t have an issue.”

        I thought “men” like you were saying you were really a woman. And demanded to use a female bathroom.
        Personally I think the ladies should shoot these men dead when they try and enter a woman’s bathroom. The real women can claim self defense of their young daughters who are in the stall.

  40. avatar Boogaloo says:

    I encourage people to open carry. It’s great when others basically wear a sign saying, “Shoot me first.”

    I always feel much safer.

  41. avatar Smitty Wesson says:

    I believe if you look at history we always had open carried in the USA. Personally it doesn’t bother me and I appreciate everyone who does so responsibly. You are exercising your rights. Hollywood and video games glorify violence no one seems to have a problem watching that crap. No one has problem until teachers, liberals in hollywood and the media say so. We need to do it if it’s legal in your state.

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