Washington Open Carry rally Seattle

[EPS]

 

[American123]

Liberal politicians are rather hilariously blatant. Imagine if you will, someone punching you in the face while simultaneously telling you that they are not punching you in the face.

That resembles the left's approach. Work to ban all firearms while also telling people they are not trying to ban all firearms...

 

[EPS]

Funny cause it's true!

Just wait till people start cover there face and carry GUNs MMMMMMMMM .

 

[EPS]

That's when


I guess that's when bubblegum gets real.

For sure that's the day

 

[4Freedom]

What does WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT hate? WE THE PEOPLE! Especially a heavily armed, WE THE PEOPLE.

 

[EPS]

It will be really really ugly .
I hope it doesn't come to that .but I'm not holding my breath .this could happen

 

[4Freedom]

If the ballot initiative in Oregon passes, then Oregon will, in fact, have a GUN CONFISCATION law on the books and the governor, in theory, has the right to call in the National Guard to enforce it. I think the question should be more how much do we trust our National Guard and law enforcement agencies over how much we trust our governing officials. We already know what agenda they have. Just look at Governor Kate Brown, Jay Inslee and the Attorney Generals of Washington and Oregon. It is looking very bleak!

 

[Pete F]

If the ballot initiative in Oregon passes, then Oregon will, in fact, have a GUN CONFISCATION law on the books and the governor, in theory, has the right to call in the National Guard to enforce it. I think the question should be more how much do we trust our National Guard and law enforcement agencies over how much we trust our governing officials. We already know what agenda they have. Just look at Governor Kate Brown, Jay Inslee and the Attorney Generals of Washington and Oregon. It is looking very bleak!

That would be the biggest mistake that she would ever make and probably the last. Many of our 2nd Amendment proponents are in the National Guard. Which way do you think they would go - uphold the Constitution or thumb their noses at Kate? Can you spell cluster F&%$k and impeachment.

 

[4Freedom]

That would be the biggest mistake that she would ever make and probably the last. Many of our 2nd Amendment proponents are in the National Guard. Which way do you think they would go - uphold the Constitution or thumb their noses at Kate? Can you spell cluster F&%$k and impeachment.

Pete, that is what I am praying.. I think these fascist governing officials , like Kate Brown, Jay Inslee, Bob Ferguson have massive egos and want to be thought of as the new saviors of humanity. However, once they are done living their twisted fairy tale they will realize that it will take some serious muscle to achieve their goals. Who will they call to enforce these new bold unconstitutional laws? I do have much respect for our men and women in the military. They are the ones the government will call to do their dirty work and I do believe they would refuse to carry out the orders of disarming their fellow Americans.

However, it does leave me with a very bad feeling in my stomach seeing that a state can circumvent our Federal laws to this degree and even institute such laws in an American state. California and New York already make my blood boil, but what these liberal fascist nutjobs are trying to push just takes it to a new level.

I do think the liberals who are voting on these measures are pretty much dumb sheep who are programmed to think a certain way and have no idea about the means of achieving their goals and the repercussions for attempting to achieve them. They just check a box on a voting ballot because all their friends told them they would be bad people if they didn't do so. Many others are just brainwashed and deranged and being made bold promises by these slimy politicians who care nothing about anything but their grip on power and votes. Everyone wants a quick solution, so the Governor says she will take away all the guns and there will be peace and tranquility for all. These libtards don't think too deeply, but will drink the kool-aid given to them.

 

[gmerkt]

Mainsail, you're right, it's just my opinion and that's mostly what this kind of thread is about. We're just having a discussion. I have no problem with you or anyone else carrying open in a lawful manner. At my point in life, it's not something that I feel is smart for me to do. That's the only standard that I've established.

Just a little more opinion, if I may. In today's political climate, I suspect that open carry by its very nature IS a statement without your intending it to be.

 

[gmerkt]

I do think the liberals who are voting on these measures are pretty much dumb sheep who are programmed to think a certain way and have no idea about the means of achieving their goals and the repercussions for attempting to achieve them. They just check a box on a voting ballot because all their friends told them they would be bad people if they didn't do so. Many others are just brainwashed and deranged and being made bold promises by these slimy politicians who care nothing about anything but their grip on power and votes. Everyone wants a quick solution, so the Governor says she will take away all the guns and there will be peace and tranquility for all. These libtards don't think too deeply, but will drink the kool-aid given to them.

Gun owners are in a minority. Studies show that although lots of guns are still being sold, mostly they are sold to people who already own guns. A number of surveys taken indicate that about 30% of households have guns and 70% do not have them. This kind of demographic surely shows that we gun owners are in a minority. Taking this idea a step further, that means that you might expect a majority of voters to not be particularly sympathetic to gun rights, ownership, etc. They don't have a dog in the fight, so when politicians sell them on another gun control measure, they go for it. New gun control measures are so often touted as being "reasonable," therefore most voters who might be neutral on the issue will vote yes. They logically (and often incorrectly) suppose that if it sounds reasonable, what's the harm?

This is why these issues have to come up on the ballot in Wash. and Ore. as initiatives or propositions subject to a popular vote. The liberals who are pushing them know they can get a majority of popular votes, whereas they might not get the same thing through the legislature.

Or there is the "throw the baby out with the bath water" argument. We've heard it again and again, "If this will prevent only one death, it's worth it." Well, how do we put a price tag on our liberties? Loss of liberties in the long run may cost many more lives that it's intended to save. But you'll never get a liberal to go along with this, way too abstract for most of them to accept.

Another insidious development is shaming. Liberals today like to shame anybody who doesn't agree with them. They have no room for civil discourse or discussion, they simply gang up on and shame the opposition. Common human response to this kind of treatment is to go silent or to conform. Suppression of thought and expression is a dangerous thing.

Just my opinion, I must say, in my lifetime I've never seen a political playing field that was so poisonous. The liberals have lost any sense of "loyal opposition." If the Right Wing had ganged up on Barack Obama during his eight years in office like the left is going at Donald Trump, well, we'd have heard all kinds of outrageous indignation. Most of it not about politics but about ethnicity being the presumed basis for crass opposition. Instead, the Right Wing, for the most part, swallowed hard and hoped for a better future. Now it's our turn but the left is doing everything they can to spoil it and it's not for the good of the country. "Russian meddling?" The Russians love all the strife and dissension that's going on at present. Anything that throws the US into turmoil helps the Russians. They don't really care who's involved so long as it means trouble.

 

[awshoot]

...
More assumption. You assume everyone carries openly to promote a "cause". What about those of us that just flat-out don't really care; who just carry for defense, aren't trying to make a statement? ...

If open carry causes greater restrictions, as happened in the late 60s when the Black Panthers exercised their OC rights -- are you going to apologize to all of us for not caring?

OC makes sense in certain situations -- where there is a salient actual immediate threat. Walking around a park in Seattle with a rifle is not one of those situations and will only fuel those who seek to deny our rights, meaning that if OC is ever actually necessary, you'll be a criminal for doing it.

 

[4Freedom]

Gun owners are in a minority. Studies show that although lots of guns are still being sold, mostly they are sold to people who already own guns. A number of surveys taken indicate that about 30% of households have guns and 70% do not have them. This kind of demographic surely shows that we gun owners are in a minority. Taking this idea a step further, that means that you might expect a majority of voters to not be particularly sympathetic to gun rights, ownership, etc. They don't have a dog in the fight, so when politicians sell them on another gun control measure, they go for it. New gun control measures are so often touted as being "reasonable," therefore most voters who might be neutral on the issue will vote yes. They logically (and often incorrectly) suppose that if it sounds reasonable, what's the harm?

This is why these issues have to come up on the ballot in Wash. and Ore. as initiatives or propositions subject to a popular vote. The liberals who are pushing them know they can get a majority of popular votes, whereas they might not get the same thing through the legislature.

Or there is the "throw the baby out with the bath water" argument. We've heard it again and again, "If this will prevent only one death, it's worth it." Well, how do we put a price tag on our liberties? Loss of liberties in the long run may cost many more lives that it's intended to save. But you'll never get a liberal to go along with this, way too abstract for most of them to accept.

Another insidious development is shaming. Liberals today like to shame anybody who doesn't agree with them. They have no room for civil discourse or discussion, they simply gang up on and shame the opposition. Common human response to this kind of treatment is to go silent or to conform. Suppression of thought and expression is a dangerous thing.

Just my opinion, I must say, in my lifetime I've never seen a political playing field that was so poisonous. The liberals have lost any sense of "loyal opposition." If the Right Wing had ganged up on Barack Obama during his eight years in office like the left is going at Donald Trump, well, we'd have heard all kinds of outrageous indignation. Most of it not about politics but about ethnicity being the presumed basis for crass opposition. Instead, the Right Wing, for the most part, swallowed hard and hoped for a better future. Now it's our turn but the left is doing everything they can to spoil it and it's not for the good of the country. "Russian meddling?" The Russians love all the strife and dissension that's going on at present. Anything that throws the US into turmoil helps the Russians. They don't really care who's involved so long as it means trouble.

+1 I cannot add anything to what you said as I think you addressed every single point in great detail.. Indeed, what you are describing is the sad and cold truth of our political climate and the devious nature of our politicians and radical zealots manipulating and deceiving the people with brainwashing and lies of matters they really have such little knowledge about.

 

[Geardo]

Gun owners are in a minority. Studies show that although lots of guns are still being sold, mostly they are sold to people who already own guns. A number of surveys taken indicate that about 30% of households have guns and 70% do not have them. This kind of demographic surely shows that we gun owners are in a minority. Taking this idea a step further, that means that you might expect a majority of voters to not be particularly sympathetic to gun rights, ownership, etc. They don't have a dog in the fight, so when politicians sell them on another gun control measure, they go for it. New gun control measures are so often touted as being "reasonable," therefore most voters who might be neutral on the issue will vote yes. They logically (and often incorrectly) suppose that if it sounds reasonable, what's the harm?

This is why these issues have to come up on the ballot in Wash. and Ore. as initiatives or propositions subject to a popular vote. The liberals who are pushing them know they can get a majority of popular votes, whereas they might not get the same thing through the legislature.

Or there is the "throw the baby out with the bath water" argument. We've heard it again and again, "If this will prevent only one death, it's worth it." Well, how do we put a price tag on our liberties? Loss of liberties in the long run may cost many more lives that it's intended to save. But you'll never get a liberal to go along with this, way too abstract for most of them to accept.

Another insidious development is shaming. Liberals today like to shame anybody who doesn't agree with them. They have no room for civil discourse or discussion, they simply gang up on and shame the opposition. Common human response to this kind of treatment is to go silent or to conform. Suppression of thought and expression is a dangerous thing.

Just my opinion, I must say, in my lifetime I've never seen a political playing field that was so poisonous. The liberals have lost any sense of "loyal opposition." If the Right Wing had ganged up on Barack Obama during his eight years in office like the left is going at Donald Trump, well, we'd have heard all kinds of outrageous indignation. Most of it not about politics but about ethnicity being the presumed basis for crass opposition. Instead, the Right Wing, for the most part, swallowed hard and hoped for a better future. Now it's our turn but the left is doing everything they can to spoil it and it's not for the good of the country. "Russian meddling?" The Russians love all the strife and dissension that's going on at present. Anything that throws the US into turmoil helps the Russians. They don't really care who's involved so long as it means trouble.

This whole post, sadly, is right on the money.

 

[Geardo]

And you believe this is typical?
Do you have any objective evidence to support this belief? You say it like it's an established fact, but at best it's merely your opinion; so far completely unsupported by any empirical data.
Concealed carry is not a secret, and resistance to a crime by a victim will not surprise a criminal. This seems to say that it's better to appear unarmed, to invite a crime instead of deterring it.
More assumption. You assume everyone carries openly to promote a "cause". What about those of us that just flat-out don't really care; who just carry for defense, aren't trying to make a statement?
Well, at least you're on the pro-gun side. It sounds like you've decided that you are the standard against which everyone else should be judged. In other words, gun carry, use, and likely even choice is to be compared to the standard you've established, based on....?

Deriding other gun enthusiasts, and the pejorative tone of 'drugstore cowboy' is certainly derision, because you don't share their opinion is the beginning of "the slippery slope" and how the term Fudd originated.

I am pro CC, I am pro OC, carrying any gun in any manner is better than nothing, and I hear you on the benefits of OC. Usually I carry OWB at 4 o'clock, with a light button up covering it. Sometimes it can get exposed when I am carrying stuff or whatever.

The problem with OC rallies, is it wakes all the normies up to the fact that OC is legal, and gets them to change the laws. And that ends up screwing people like me and people like you. A few Everyday people OCing around town isn't going to change things.

 

[SmitKoWitz]

Haven't seen any official Rally news, except for the post here. Who is sponsoring/organizing it?

 

[Mainsail]

A few Everyday people OCing around town isn't going to change things.

A decade ago there were only a few people OCing around town. Although illegal, the police detained, handcuffed, and otherwise harassed them for doing so. So we wrote letters, called Chiefs and Sheriffs, and changes were made. If the illegal actions by police officers continued, and in a few cases it did, we sent in the lawyers. I know of one man that bought his-&-hers new motorcycles with the settlement money.

What you describe as your carry is pretty much how I carry most of the time now- someone coined the term 'indifferent carry' for it.

A few people carrying openly made the changes we now enjoy. If your concealed carry is exposed you are unlikely to be threatened or harassed by Johnny Law.

 

[Geardo]

A decade ago there were only a few people OCing around town. Although illegal, the police detained, handcuffed, and otherwise harassed them for doing so. So we wrote letters, called Chiefs and Sheriffs, and changes were made. If the illegal actions by police officers continued, and in a few cases it did, we sent in the lawyers. I know of one man that bought his-&-hers new motorcycles with the settlement money.

What you describe as your carry is pretty much how I carry most of the time now- someone coined the term 'indifferent carry' for it.

A few people carrying openly made the changes we now enjoy. If your concealed carry is exposed you are unlikely to be threatened or harassed by Johnny Law.

So you are confirming what I was considering saying, but didn't. The best way to fight the BS that happens to legal OCers is lawyers, not rallies.

 

[Mainsail]

So you are confirming what I was considering saying, but didn't. The best way to fight the BS that happens to legal OCers is lawyers, not rallies.

I haven't discussed the rally at all- just the open carry aspect of it. Sending in the lawyers wasn't common, it was a last resort. Almost all of the police agencies put out training bulletins or reigned in their officers without lawyers.

 

[asbtg]

The shindig is being pushed by a local candidate running on a pro-2A platform. Linky: JOEY GIBSON U.S. Senate