-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Got latte ???
- Thread starter A4sForever
- Start date
Boom,
I think you are failing to understand the logic of the NRA and the anti-gun lobby.
When you look at the position and strategy of the anti-gun lobby, it is pretty obvious that their goal is a complete and total ban on private citizens owning (if not all, most) firearms. To reach that end, the anti-gun folks are trying to remove our rights in stages:
1. Classify a broad spectrum of guns as "assault weapons".
2. Legislate against possession or sale of ^^^these evil weapons.
3. Repeat 1 & 2 with handguns.
4. Restrict right to carry/transport weapons to the point where people will not even bother.
5. Pass laws to make ammo more expensive, difficult to get, or illegal.
Another problem with the anti-gun lobby is that they are liars, idiots, and totally dishonest about what their goals are. They say they want "common sense gun laws", but what they really want is a nation without (legal) guns. They are willing to take victories piece by piece, and will pretent to agree to victories smaller than their real goal to get what they want.
Obviously, the majority of the members of the NRA do not open carry nor desire to. Still, I want the NRA to draw their battle lines as far to the right as possible and refuse to give an inch to those who would restrict our rights. Any attempts to meet in the middle or "take a step their way" will just result in giving up a right only to have the ant-gun folks re-draw the lines and ask gun owners to take another step to the middle.
Obviously, private citizens should not be allowed to own thermonuclear weapons, but if that is the stance that the NRA has to take to protect our rights to keep and bear arms, then so be it.
Dang...starbucks just went from "do I have to have Starbucks? Oh, I'm in Florida and there isn't any other good coffee around here? Fine...I guess I'll drink their swill" to "well, since Dutch Bros isn't an option, Starbucks it is!" Glad they didn't alienate over half their customers.
No, no, Bevo. I absolutely agree with you on everything you said. Don't give the lefties an inch or they'll take a mile. I get it, and I'm glad that the NRA is there, overall. But, I got turned off of them a few years back when they fought tooth and nail against a bill in congress that would have required that a trigger lock be included in every handgun sale. That seemed to be an opportunity for the NRA to hop on board, show their "compassionate" side, and not really give that inch. They fought it anyway because of what you are saying. Now, I can't say if some kid has shot himself or a buddy because the law didn't pass (it may have, don't remember now), but I am one of those people that is freakishly weird about firearm safety, so I thought it was a good idea.
Now the argument is that the Federal Government shouldn't "require" us to do anything. It takes away liberty, yadda, yadda. I agree with that some some extent. But, I just thought this made sense. If nothing else it would tell a first-time pistol owner to put this thing on the gun so your kids don't shoot themselves.
I am by no means an anti-gun type. I own several and wish I could get out to shoot more often than I do. I am also glad that the NRA is there to fight for my right to do so. But, I don't intend to be a member. That's my take.
I also stand by my 'Guys that carry a gun on their hip in public are the ones that got picked on in high school' theory.
Point of Clarification: Another reason the "open carry" issue has had such media attention here in California is that last month Peet's Coffee and California Pizza Kitchen banned the open carry activists. In CA, open carry is how we are protesting against our states unfair and inconsistent concealed weapons permit application processes (between different counties). Link to a Peet's and CPK story: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/scavenger/detail?entry_id=56281#commentform
Afterburner209
Good muster guys.
I was always under the impression the open carry was sought after for the whole deterrent issue. If they can't the the gun, then they think they are safe, if they see a gun, they might think twice before starting anything. But then again, the nuts who actually pull a gun are the ones getting the firearms illegally and are breaking the laws anyways. It seems gun laws really punish the good, while allowing the people who are breaking the law anyway to feel safer.
Just my .02 cents
Just my .02 cents
Lest any get the 'wrong impression' ... this entire incident was brought about by the left-of-center anti-gun folks in WA state (Brady Bunch, WA Ceasefire, etc.) who were unable to get their agenda through the state House/Senate during the current legislative session and thus conjured up a 'petition' action.
Action creates reaction ... and the 'pro-gun' people came out.
At least all 'anti-' bills in the WA legislature are DOA as we speak .... but there's always a possibility of last second, middle-of-the-night onerous 'amendments' being offered, so we keep our powder dry. I suppose this is the best they could come up with on short notice to attempt to carry their anti-gun torch -- and $Buck's is a highly visible enterprise, so it all makes sense. I hope $Buck's stands their ground and complies with state law ....
ALSO ... lest any get the 'wrong impression' I generally don't 'OPEN CARRY' -- unless someone comes to my front door
)) -- and that is why I choose 'concealed carry' for 99% of my personal protection requirements on the mean streets. I do not promote 'OPEN CARRY' in urban areas, as there's just too many nervous, ignorant people (on both sides of the gun issues) who take a reasonable concept, fuck it up, and make it a less than sterling idea. Having said that: if it's the law, it's the law. Additionally, I'm not a hunter -- tried it; it wasn't for me -- but I will go to the mat to protect the rights & traditions of those who choose to hunt.
It's called freedom, folks. But as always, a reasonable amount of judgment & headwork is a good thing ...
*edit* ... Oh, yeah -- a couple of guys herein have pontificated that 'OPEN CARRY' is 'why' they didn't join the NRA. If so -- that's maximum bullshit. The NRA, like any other fund raising group, has it's own set of problems and it's own cast of limp-dicks and weenies. BUT: they are the last, best friend of our gun rights on a mass scale, where it counts -- at the ballot box. To say 'that's why I didn't join' is a very shortsighted outlook when you consider who the 'enemy' is and what the potential downside is ... and it makes as much sense (think: NONE) as someone who says: " 'OPEN CARRY' ... fuckin' A ... now, THAT'S WHY I JOINED THE NRA"
I.e., both points of view are patently absurd ...
Action creates reaction ... and the 'pro-gun' people came out.
At least all 'anti-' bills in the WA legislature are DOA as we speak .... but there's always a possibility of last second, middle-of-the-night onerous 'amendments' being offered, so we keep our powder dry. I suppose this is the best they could come up with on short notice to attempt to carry their anti-gun torch -- and $Buck's is a highly visible enterprise, so it all makes sense. I hope $Buck's stands their ground and complies with state law ....
ALSO ... lest any get the 'wrong impression' I generally don't 'OPEN CARRY' -- unless someone comes to my front door
)) -- and that is why I choose 'concealed carry' for 99% of my personal protection requirements on the mean streets. I do not promote 'OPEN CARRY' in urban areas, as there's just too many nervous, ignorant people (on both sides of the gun issues) who take a reasonable concept, fuck it up, and make it a less than sterling idea. Having said that: if it's the law, it's the law. Additionally, I'm not a hunter -- tried it; it wasn't for me -- but I will go to the mat to protect the rights & traditions of those who choose to hunt. It's called freedom, folks. But as always, a reasonable amount of judgment & headwork is a good thing ...
*edit* ... Oh, yeah -- a couple of guys herein have pontificated that 'OPEN CARRY' is 'why' they didn't join the NRA. If so -- that's maximum bullshit. The NRA, like any other fund raising group, has it's own set of problems and it's own cast of limp-dicks and weenies. BUT: they are the last, best friend of our gun rights on a mass scale, where it counts -- at the ballot box. To say 'that's why I didn't join' is a very shortsighted outlook when you consider who the 'enemy' is and what the potential downside is ... and it makes as much sense (think: NONE) as someone who says: " 'OPEN CARRY' ... fuckin' A ... now, THAT'S WHY I JOINED THE NRA"
I.e., both points of view are patently absurd ...
BINGO. I don't open carry, but it's about not compromising when it comes to the 2nd amendment. The gesture is mostly symbolic and about the principle of the matter.
I'm on board with you Boomhower... I think that the NRA should have gone a step further and strongly supported the bill. I think it would have been a great political move to gain the trust of folks who were on the fence. That being said they should fight TOOTH AND NAIL to ensure that those locks be used at the discretion of the gun owner.
None of this 'gun locks must be installed if a child is around' BS. Having a child around is probably the main reason to have a gun in the house... because sexual predators are sick individuals, and if one of them were 'likely to commit a sexual crime' you can bet deadly force would be used. (Assuming I am still in Texas, or a state that has a similar law, otherwise the 85lb German Shepherd will have to do the dirty work)
That being said I have to agree with Bevo and say that my beef with the NRA is that they rarely go far enough, and they focus too much on hunting etc. The Constitution doesn't say a DAMN think about hunting. Outlaw hunting for all I care (well don't do that, I like hunting) it wouldn't be unconstitutional.
I tend to be a more radical gun owner... I'm all about removing the National Firearms Act of 1934, and the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, because Browning M2s and MP5s are awesome, and I don't have 30k to buy one. (or both).
As for the open carry issue, I have open carried before and to be honest it wasn't comfortable to me. I believe it should be allowed, but having a gun at your side draws attention and it can be a hassle sometimes. I never had the pleasure of a cop harassing me for open carrying, but I know that it has happened to folks. Open carry in situations such as the one being discussed here is great for political statements, and were I in the position to participate in one of these rallies I would, but for day to day use I prefer concealed.
Lastly I have to say I am very impressed with Starbucks. This is not something I would have expected from them and I give them much respect for it. The way they requested to be left out of the debate was completely legitimate and respectful to both sides. I certainly hope the pro-gun crowd does them a solid and leaves them out of the debate, and respects their wishes. It will give credibility to the pro-gun movement.
P.S. I love that the anti-gun numbskull makes the argument that open carry is ESPECIALLY dangerous... I would like to hear her supporting evidence on that... scratch that, I think it would be more enjoyable to go out to Enid OK and do Stand Up instead, or maybe shove rusty nails through my foot.
None of this 'gun locks must be installed if a child is around' BS. Having a child around is probably the main reason to have a gun in the house... because sexual predators are sick individuals, and if one of them were 'likely to commit a sexual crime' you can bet deadly force would be used. (Assuming I am still in Texas, or a state that has a similar law, otherwise the 85lb German Shepherd will have to do the dirty work)
That being said I have to agree with Bevo and say that my beef with the NRA is that they rarely go far enough, and they focus too much on hunting etc. The Constitution doesn't say a DAMN think about hunting. Outlaw hunting for all I care (well don't do that, I like hunting) it wouldn't be unconstitutional.
I tend to be a more radical gun owner... I'm all about removing the National Firearms Act of 1934, and the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, because Browning M2s and MP5s are awesome, and I don't have 30k to buy one. (or both).
As for the open carry issue, I have open carried before and to be honest it wasn't comfortable to me. I believe it should be allowed, but having a gun at your side draws attention and it can be a hassle sometimes. I never had the pleasure of a cop harassing me for open carrying, but I know that it has happened to folks. Open carry in situations such as the one being discussed here is great for political statements, and were I in the position to participate in one of these rallies I would, but for day to day use I prefer concealed.
Lastly I have to say I am very impressed with Starbucks. This is not something I would have expected from them and I give them much respect for it. The way they requested to be left out of the debate was completely legitimate and respectful to both sides. I certainly hope the pro-gun crowd does them a solid and leaves them out of the debate, and respects their wishes. It will give credibility to the pro-gun movement.
P.S. I love that the anti-gun numbskull makes the argument that open carry is ESPECIALLY dangerous... I would like to hear her supporting evidence on that... scratch that, I think it would be more enjoyable to go out to Enid OK and do Stand Up instead, or maybe shove rusty nails through my foot.
QuagmireMcGuire
Kinder and Gentler
Much, much better coffee than Starbucks if you can get up here. Hint: Don't look for the storefronts; look for the little drivethru shacks.
I drove by one of those drivethru shacks on my way home. It had a large, ceiling to floor window and a girl in a black bikini.
I think you're missing the point. Demonstrations are a great way prove the legitimacy of a movement... sometimes they wave signs with awesome little slogans, sometimes they wear guns on their hips and slung over their shoulder... its no different. It's a way of showing support for a cause, and providing legitimacy for that cause... no one is waving their pistols around, or threatening the use of force...
This
!= This
This
!= This
We KNOW he's missing the point. And yet, he's not stupid. So .... perhaps he's 'missing the point' for a reason ... ???I think you're missing the point...
Some things just never change ...
The point is that it's attention whoreitis like, uh, this guy. Yea, ok, you can carry a rifle around, I get it. There's a reason people are staring, too.
The assless chaps (or burning bush effigy) analogy is apt. It's not a convincing strategy to parade an extreme that makes people uncomfortable just because you can.
The assless chaps (or burning bush effigy) analogy is apt. It's not a convincing strategy to parade an extreme that makes people uncomfortable just because you can.