Open-carry activists are to the second amendment as Westboro Baptist Church is to the first amendment. What they’re doing is legal, but they’re still bastards.
Comments are closed.
Open source, procurement, and gov tech.
Open-carry activists are to the second amendment as Westboro Baptist Church is to the first amendment. What they’re doing is legal, but they’re still bastards.
Comments are closed.
Thats a tad harsh. Phelps and his family simply use the first amendment as a way to scam settlements from cities. Their tactics are necessarily an attack on grieving families.
Who do open carry activists hurt?
Both know that they’re frightening and upsetting people, and both pretend that they’re just keeping it real.
Someone who carries openly certainly *knows* that some people are frightened and upset by it. But that’s the other person’s problem — it’s not the intent of the open carry to do so; it’s an unfortunate side-effect.
The Phelps family *intends* to frighten, upset, and generally abuse people. Heck, that’s the ONLY reason they do what they do.
Frankly I worry less about people who carry openly — except when they show up at political events, where I think there is a real attempt at intimidation — than people who carry concealed. With the open carry folks, you can at least tell…and get out of the line of fire.
Open-carry activists are to the second amendment as Wikileaks is to the first amendment — just letting it all hang out, consequences be damned.
(This would work better if Wikileaks were a U.S. organization, I know.)
I disagree, Waldo (for similar reasons as I.Pub). WBC’s only goal is to be provocative, and they HOPE to cause agression towards them… so they can sue.
Open-carriers are almost always generally polite, and don’t intend to be shocking or provocative. They will almost always be willing to talk to someone about why they carry a weapon, and help to reassure people. WBC won’t talk about why they are “1st Amendment absolutists.”
I think if people knew more about open-carry and firearms in general, they’d most likely be more okay with open-carry. I doubt most people would ever be okay with saying the things WBC says.
Come on… that is totally harsh. WBC is literally emptying the banana clip on free speech. Open carry? What is so vile about a firearm that it can’t be shown in public?
I can think of a number of things said that provoke outrage and fear far worse than a firearm… nevertheless, “I disagree with what you have to say but will defend to the death your right to say it” applies just as well to the Second Amendment as it does to the First… or to the 13th Amendment, or the 14th Amendment, of the 19th Amendment…
Yeah, nothing says “lets have a nuanced conversation” like an angry teabagger at a rally on the Mall with an auto-loader slung over his shoulder! It is an abuse of the 2nd, just like Westboro abuses the 1st. Dumbasses.
…on an angry liberal carrying “Kill Bush” signs at an anti-war protest.
Just sayin’.
Right, Bubby… because nothing has ever happened at a political rally that might make people think they might need to defend themselves.
Or maybe you would just prefer that that carry concealed?
Or maybe you don’t think that people should be able to carry at all?
Sorry kids, I’ve never been so embarrassed as a responsible gun owner, and proud American as I was to see a bunch of teabaggin’ fools assembled on the nations lawn, toting battle rifles. It was a fundamental abuse of hard fought liberties, a faithless repudiation of the rule of law, and an implied treason to the orderly governance of our democracy.
Yeah — because I would be really embarrassed as a responsible citizen and proud American if a bunch of tech-savvy fools assembled on the internet, toting blogs. It would be a fundamental abuse of the freedom of the press, a faithless repudiation of the rule of law, and implied treason to the orderly governance of our democracy.
Sorry, kids.
“see a bunch of teabaggin’ fools assembled on the nations lawn, toting battle rifles.”
[Citation needed]
When I leave for work every day, I take my keys because I need to drive.
I get my wallet because I need money.
I dont take my weapon because Im not scared to walk down the street among the other unarmed people. I dont need it.
So, why take the weapon? What exactly is the armed guy scared of? Perhaps the other armed folks? I ask again, why take the weapon…just because you can? Sadly, I think for most its the strange feeling that takes place when you strap on a weapon. I cant explain it, but its a real tangible sensation. If you have ever worn or carried a weapon then you know what I am talking about. Any one know what that is called? Power? Responsibility?
Look at the bright side, if the open carry thing takes off then your local chapter of the Crips can wear their weapons like another piece of bling…once that happens, guess who will be screaming the loudest? The very people who wanted open carry in the first place.
One thing to keep in mind about all of these groups, the rights they want are for those of like mind…not everyone.
On the anniversary of THIS, THESE people gathered,and DEMONSTRATED.
…and good for them.
You do realize that that’s not the National Mall (what I assume you mean by “nations lawn”).
Also, it was held then to coincide with the Battles of Lexington & Concord. It had nothing to do with OK City. And I’m not going to defend McVeigh.
I dropped by to ask Waldo what open-carry activists do that make them like WBC (I figured I musta missed some news event in which OCAs were jerks), but in reading the comments, it seems Waldo has clarified that he believes anyone that open-carries is as bad as the WBC? I guess that includes a lot of cops.
You know, “open-carry activists” aren’t carrying to make a protest (thus the whole OCA label seems a bit manufactured), it’s because they then have the wherewithal to protect themselves.
That is a ridiculous and insulting comparison to make, and it is below your usual level of rational discourse.
I recently attended a meeting of the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) a group who is often advocating for open-carry rights.
The attendees were a cross section of our society and both sides of the political divide were well represented. The meeting was a legislative briefing by VCDL President, Philip VanCleave, and included a very cogent description of how our legislative process works.
After the meeting, I talked with some of the attendees about open carry and some other topics of the day. Some advocates had been assaulted in the past. One of the women in attendance implied that she never goes out at night without being armed with, not one, but two or more, pistols. I didn’t ask what caused her to take such a draconian measure, since it was obvious that something had happened in her past that had filled her with such fear.
If we examine the motivations of those who openly carry firearms, the reasons will likely be as numerous and varied as snowflakes. The common ground among the various rationales is a resolution by each individual to not become a victim of crime (perhaps again).
The underlying concern that many citizens have, is that firearms are too easy to get and that people inclined to murder can readily turn their rage into mass murder.
This issue can be addressed without infringing on our right to bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution. One method that I support, is the creation of self-certification organizations, like we have for scuba. Anyone can buy scuba gear, but in order to buy air, you need to show a certification card.
We could do a lot to train citizens to use firearms responsibly, and to even assist law enforcement, through a private certification program. These programs should include urban weapons and tactics, as well as the same “shoot-don’t-shoot” training that police receive. Private certification organizations could provide annual refresher training, that could include alternative dispute resolution training that emphasizes constructive solutions that do not involve the use of firearms.
A system of self certification organizations for the safe use of firearms may not have weeded out Jared Loughner, but it could have provided Loughner with some better mental tools with which to to deal with his rage. A certification program could also have provided some well trained citizens with concealed weapons who, upon the first evidence that Loughner was going to shoot someone, could have properly responded with their own weapons, thereby stopping Loughner before he fired the first shot, or quickly returning fire and eliminating the threat, before he was able to shoot more than one or two rounds.
I think you’re describing one group sympathetically and the other oppositionally. (I have no idea if “oppositionally” is a word, but I’m going with it. :) From the perspective of the WBC, they are doing something enormously important—saving people’s souls. If that upsets people, that’s a very small price to pay to spare people from eternal torment. It’s more important than saving lives—it’s saving afterlives.
Regarding intent:
Sure, they’re trying to protest—that’s the distinction that I’m trying to make. There are people who carry openly for whatever reason that they do so, and there are people who do so because they are activists—people who are carrying to make the point that, no matter how much it scares people, they have every right to do it. These folks set up dates and places where they’re going to go while carrying, as protests, of sorts.
In both cases, these are people doing things that they know really frighten people, which they think is for a greater good, but that they have every right to do.
Oh, I think you might be confusing the idea of open-carry laws vs. threatening revolution. I agree that those fringe elements that believe our country is in such bad shape that an armed revolution is the answer, are indeed idiots and that if they brandish weapons at rallies suggesting armed revolution, I think the government should arrest them for conspiracy to commit treason and insurrection.
But that has nothing to do with walking around with a gun strapped to your hip or working in the courts to enforce the right to do so.
Yes, the “revolutionaries” believe open-carry laws should be enforced, but that’s not what’s materially wrong with them. It’s correlation, not causation. And you’re trying to condemn by guilt by association.
I am far, for concerned about ignorant and irresponsible drivers of huge vehicles who feel so safe in their 3000 pound steel and airbag cages that they completely neglect to be aware of their surroundings, the pedestrians and cyclists around them, and the rules of safe driving on public roads.
Open carry folks generally are trying to prove a point or are trying to bolster weak self-esteem, or are trying to intimidate… in all three cases, they just don’t scare me as much as the ignorant asses slamming their cars and trucks into others.
Of course, none of that makes it polite or civil to openly carry…
Nope, that’s a totally different bunch. (I mean, there might be some overlap, but the point is that I’m not concerned with that group here.) I’m talking about the open-carry activists, people who walk around with a gun strapped to their hip with the intent of making a lot of people notice that they have a gun strapped to their hip. They’re not doing so because they transport diamonds professionally, because they’ve had their life threatened, or because they’re generally frightened people, but because they want people to note that they’re wearing a gun, with the presumed intent—if I may give them the benefit of the doubt, as I did WBC—of getting people used to the idea.
I know I’m young, but in all my time as a Conservative, GOP’er, Tea Party sympathizer, etc I’ve never heard of someone like that, much less lots of them.
Oh, sure, it’s pretty common. Here are some California folks, a Virginia (?) group planning such an event (who are taking pains not to be labelled as a “militia” group, I note), and some folks in Seattle.
And there’s only Phelps’s family and a handful of followers in the WBC. There’s not many on either side of this comparison, although a growing constituency on the OCA side (are the Koran burners on the WBC side?). So they know what they’re doing is pushing the limits to a farcical point, rightly or wrongly.
As for topic: There’s a certain protocol about firearms – you don’t need to grab your hunting rifle every time you need bread at the grocery store. I don’t care how safe you are, accidents happen. And most of the interviews I’ve seen with OCA people are borderline bragging how they carry with ammo in the gun at all times.
But the OCA started with the unruly town hall meetings over health care. There was a total disconnect. No one was discussing arms control at the town halls. No one. (If someone can prove me wrong, I’m all ears.) People started bringing guns to these functions purely as a means of intimidation.
Gun sales are through the roof. Since Obama’s time in office, there has been zero talk from the White House on second amendment related issues. Zero. (If you can prove me wrong, I’m all ears.) Yet people want to start holstering up and slinging rifles over their shoulder… because? Because they can. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should do something.
The April 19, 2010 gun rights demonstration that Mike Vanderboegh pimped was not about gun rights, it was about Health Care reform. The guns were there in threat. They were rightwing nuts enraged by legislation created by a legitimately elected government. The caterwauling included charges that elected representatives were 60’s era violent protesters without legitimate claim to power – requiring armed insurrection.
Three things struck me:
1). They were brandishing arms in a National Park just weeks after Obama had signed legislation certifying their right to do so.
2). The speakers were inciting insurrection and treason.
3). Vanderboegh and the other inciters did not have the courage to risk his own freedom by making the same 2nd Amendment rights protest in the District of Columbia. Like so much of the teabagger management – he leads from the rear, inciting violence, and insurrection.
You are unfairly painting the open carry movement with a very broad brush. The movement didn’t rise with President Obama’s election, as many commenters seem to allude. In Virginia the issue began to grab headlines in the early 2000s, well before the Mr. Obama’s presidential aspirations were even well known. For example see:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50416-2004Jul14.html
The open carry movement is a surprisingly diverse bunch. I am an open carry advocate but I would not be caught dead at a tea party rally. I fully support the Patient Protection Act along with a host of progressive causes. If you read the Post’s recent coverage of Lobby Day in Richmond, it mentions an open carrier who wore a National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws sticker. My point is that we are not all a bunch of Glen Beck kool-aid drinking reactionaries. While many of the advocates are certainly very conservative, the movement is not in and of itself a right wing endeavor.
I do not open carry to scare anybody; rather I hope to show that many of the people you come across on a daily basis do in fact carry firearms. I consider myself friendly and outgoing, and am willing to engage anybody in conversation. In the surprisingly infrequent instances that somebody does notice, it’s usually just a quick downward glance and the conversation resumes as if nothing happened. I’ve had a few nervous inquiries that turned into friendly discussions about Virginia law. I’ve never encountered anybody that ran away from me for fear that I would hurt them.
Have I changed anybody’s mind? I doubt it, but by showing people that it is not just militant right-wing rednecks and criminal gang members that carry guns, I hope to help shift society’s discussion of guns to a more rational discourse. If people realize that very normal people carry and that the mere presence of a gun is nothing to fear, then maybe we can have a meaningful discussion about reducing violent crime without infringing on anybody’s rights.
If things don’t change the discussion will continue to be the Brady Campaign endlessly pushing for prohibitions that don’t work while the NRA shoots back with baseless claims that widespread gun carrying is the solution to violent crime. Our prisons will remain overcrowded, gangs will continue to flourish, and our criminal justice system will continue to disenfranchise minorities, the poor, and those struggling with addiction.
I don’t doubt that’s so. And the Westboro Baptist Church hopes to open people’s eyes to the evils of homosexuality to save their immortal souls. I’m not doubting anybody’s intent here—I’m pointing out that the effects of these sorts of perfectly legal activities are lousy.
It’s just puzzling to me that anyone would be frightened by a regular citizen carrying a gun. That’s never made me nervous, even though I’ve never packed heat myself. Now it’d prolly make me a little nervous to see a criminal-looking person carrying a weapon, but not regular citizens. Are people “frighten[ed] and upset” when they see a cop packing? No, because they trust them to not misuse the gun because cops are generally decent people who are held to the rule of the law. Most people feel the same way about decently-dressed, respectable-looking regular citizens that carry guns.
The reaction of “frightening and upsetting” just boggles my mind. I’ve never seen that reaction and can’t imagine why anyone would have that reaction.
I think the problem is that, for many people, “regular citizen” and “carrying a gun” are mutually exclusive. I always find it interesting if I mention any of my firearms in conversation. Often it changes things—I can see people reevaluating me, rewinding our exchange in their head to wonder what they’ve gotten themselves into.
Again, I think a comparison to WBC is apt here. I have a right to own firearms, and I have a right to mention that I own firearms; other people don’t have a right not to be offended by that fact (or any other).
Waldo,
WBC is using their right to free speech with the direct intent to harm.
If I use my firearm with the direct intent to harm, someone dies.
So no… I’m not certain that the comparison is apt. Open carry is more akin to carrying around an book with offensive ideas. You don’t intend to use them. Heck, you might even disagree with the ideas embedded. But you have a right to carry nonetheless.
Of course, one could argue that describing those who exercise their right to open carry as WBC protesters is — in and of itself — just as bad as the WBC protesters themselves… now that I could buy into, because in both instances the one making the argument is characterizing the other person as loathsome.
Just a thought.
I repeat my earlier implied question:
Is it “frightening and upsetting” when you see a cop with a gun on his hip?
“Now it’d prolly make me a little nervous to see a criminal-looking person carrying a weapon, but not regular citizens.”
Please elaborate on that. What is a “criminal-looking” person in your mind? How do you know what a “criminal-looking” person is in another person’s mind?
There a lot of people who don’t trust cops, whether they have a gun or not. Besides that point, it’s in a cop’s job description to carry a gun. The dude going to the mall to buy a pair of Puma’s? Not in his job description to open carry a firearm. Cops wear uniforms for a reason.
This being a liberal site, my only surprise is that I wasn’t asked about this earlier, being that liberals are sensitive to racial and cultural profiling. But I’m not talking about ethnic or social markers, but rather behaviorial and manner of dress in context.
In my time of social work, I’ve hung out with both inner city criminals and members of Hamas (during my time of studying Arabic and teaching English in Israel/Palestine). I’ve also hung out with a number of non-criminal inner-city folks of low income and minority ethnicities and hung out with many Palestinians who were not terrorists. So I don’t think I’m the type to blindly profile, but I have seen both types of people in both settings and do know a few of the markers that differentiate them. That was the basis of my comment.
That doesn’t really answer my question, so I’ll restate and expand as a “deflection bonus”:
Is it ‘frightening and upsetting’ when you see a cop with a gun on his hip? Is the same scenario ‘frightening and upsetting’ for this hitherto unknown-to-me segment of the population for whom it is ‘frightening and upsetting’ when seeing a respectable-looking regular citizen who has a holstered handgun?
Shaun; Your problem is that you didn’t attend the April 19th Gun demonstration. So you don’t know what happened. It wasn’t about “open carry” it was about incitement to insurrection by some dudes carrying battle gear. Watch this video, emphasis Bob Wright @1:50. A simple yeah or ney will do it. You down with this?
You’re using some pretty lousy terms in “criminal-looking” and “respectable looking”. Profiling who gets to open carry by appearance and a person’s likelihood of being a criminal is just ridiculous. Please tell me how you would regulate and enforce that.
But funny how you went to racism. That’s on you. It’s good you put the qualifiers “non-criminal inner-city folks of low income and minority ethnicities and hung out with many Palestinians who were not terrorists“. I’m glad you know some of the “good ones”.
Cops rarely use their sidearms in the line of work. The point is that cops carry guns for a reason and are authorized to use lethal force when warranted. The majority of the populace is not. An ordinary citizen is not a uniformed officer.
A gun is a tool of the trade for police. Equating citizen to cops is not valid. Is that what open carry activists think they are?
What is ‘frightening and upsetting’ is relative to each individual.
But, again, this is portraying open carry advocates in a sympathetic light while portraying WBC in the worst light. WBC members would say (and do say) that they mean the opposite of harm—they mean to save people’s souls. Basically, both groups have a reasonable argument that their goal is to save lives.
You’re asking the wrong person. (Remember that a huge chunk of the country both eats meat and is uncomfortable with hunting.) That said, I do think that there’s a big difference between a police officer and a random guy with a gun, given that we’re all aware that a great deal of training and education goes into becoming a police officer.
Waldo, it sounds like you’re saying that if someone does something that they know will frighten and upset others (even though the activity is fully legal), they are bastards, akin to the WBC?
Please tell me why this doesn’t apply to:
-homosexual couples kissing tenderly in a park
-a woman wearing a hijab in Walmart
-mixed-race couples holding hands on the sidewalk
-an Arab Muslim boarding a commercial flight
-someone walking their leashed pitbull through the park
I guarantee there are large numbers of people who would be frightened and upset at each of the above. What is the distinction between them and an open-carry practitioner? Is there more to it than “I approve of these things and I don’t approve of those things”?
However, there is also a portion of the population that would be more comfortable with a random regular person with a firearm than a police officer.
Because none of those push the limits of the Bill of Rights?
“Push the limits” is a bit strong. Maybe, apply common sense when expressing rights as described in the Bill of Rights?
Because, as I’ve said a couple of times, I’m not talking about people who openly carry for reasons of personal safety, etc., but people who do so specifically to make a point—that is, to scare people. Somebody who would seek out a daycare on a field trip and walk their pit bull through that group of kids is, in fact, a real bastard. I think that’s an apt analogy.