JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Times change, don't they? A friend of mine is a retired postal employee (here we go). In the 1970's, he had a disagreement with another employee, next day, my pal displayed a Browning Hi-Power at his work station. Just laid it there for others to see, didn't flash it around. It was suggested that it might be wise if he put it away in his locker. Years later, having a firearm in a postal parking lot was cause for immediate dismissal.
If I had only this story to judge by, the change was an improvement.
 
Well, how did the 'unarmed public' in 'such a context' do in Portland when all the rioters and Antifa idiots were open carrying ?
2F202006%2F062820_BillGreenblattUPI_attorneys_01_0.jpg
 
I had a S. Korean GF (later my wife and now ex-wife) and she was always surprised that I talked S@#* about our own Amerikan Government leaders.

Aloha, Mark
 
Last Edited:
To be clear, people handling/wearing weapons. It can be rude in some situations - especially among strangers where there is no way to gauge demeanor, first.
As I said but you disagreed, it is the person and not the weapon. After all the terrible events, innocent victims are surrounded by police, many times holding the type of weapon used to commit violence.

The OP was about someone being afraid of the consequences of being in a photo with firearms, sorry, weapons. It's morphed into weapons are bad, because, weapons. My initial response to seeing an AK isn't negative unless the person controlling it is negative.
 
As I said but you disagreed, it is the person and not the weapon. After all the terrible events, innocent victims are surrounded by police, many times holding the type of weapon used to commit violence.

The OP was about someone being afraid of the consequences of being in a photo with firearms, sorry, weapons. It's morphed into weapons are bad, because, weapons. My initial response to seeing an AK isn't negative unless the person controlling it is negative.
As I already said, this isn't about viewing guns in glass cases, but walking into the dining room with an unexpected magnum revolver during supper. Without knowing about your relationship with weapons, your dinner guests have every reason to have some reservations about the situation you've put them in.
 
And neither do I but the 'trade off' is going to be increased stupidity, negligence, poor decisions et all with regard to gun owners, and we are simply going to have to accept it.

Gun ownership is no longer the domain of hunters, sportsmen, target shooters, hobbyists, etc. The so called millions of 'new gun owners' probably only see guns as nothing more than a 'last ditch' need for protection and nothing more, a 'talisman' so to speak, and I doubt most of these people could give a rats azz about any 'ancillary' training or instruction to become 'proficient'.

The traditional regard, respect and appreciation for guns is becoming relegated to far fewer people than it was in the past, with the majority seeing them as nothing but a potential 'tool' to protect themselves, or in the case of some others, something they can use to 'influence' their political and social agenda.
Liberty is dangerous, there's no way around that. Either we live with that reality and have it or we don't.
 
Well, how did the 'unarmed public' in 'such a context' do in Portland when all the rioters and Antifa idiots were open carrying ?

And I don't think they gave a rats azz about 'offending' anyone or making them feel 'uncomfortable'.
Certain groups get a pass based on if they are useful to the political agenda or not. You know this.
 
Sadly....
In SOME homes......
FREEDOM is best served to only those that agree with the host.

The reality is.....
Not everyone needs to be MY true friend. And vice versa.

In many instances......CORDIAL is good enough.

Aloha, Mark
 
Last Edited:
Alec Baldwin is no different than who Michael Massee who "killed" Brandon Lee.
Michael Massee:
  • Took responsibility for killing Brandon Lee
  • Took himself out of the public eye for a year
  • Had nightmares of the killing for years afterwards, right up to his own death, continually expressing remorse
Alec Baldwin:
  • Has yet to accept responsibility for killing Halyna Hutchins
  • Has gone on the talk show tour to blame others for his killing of Hutchins
  • Hardly seems to have been affected by the death, given his many public appearances, and does not appear remorseful in the least
The evidence would suggest that the actions and reactions of these two men in the aftermath of each of their respective "killings" are diametrically opposed. Massee was contrite, while Baldwin has been… well, Baldwin.
 
Michael Massee:
  • Took responsibility for killing Brandon Lee
  • Took himself out of the public eye for a year
  • Had nightmares of the killing for years afterwards, right up to his own death, continually expressing remorse
Alec Baldwin:
  • Has yet to accept responsibility for killing Halyna Hutchins
  • Has gone on the talk show tour to blame others for his killing of Hutchins
  • Hardly seems to have been affected by the death, given his many public appearances, and does not appear remorseful in the least
The evidence would suggest that the actions and reactions of these two men in the aftermath of each of their respective "killings" are diametrically opposed. Massee was contrite, while Baldwin has been… well, Baldwin.
Michael Massee was neither prosecuted nor sued. Did you miss that the discussion is about how Baldwin is being treated by others, rather than how Baldwin talks about himself? What do you think "certain groups get a pass means"? Michael Massee was neither a star nor a liberal darling. He's just a guy handed a gun by a firearms professional that had a projectile in it.

So while it is fun to think of Baldwin getting some sort of extra good deal, he seems to be in exactly the same legal position Massee was in with the same outcomes. So how is it special treatment?
 
I don't think it would be rude to be carrying openly in many rural areas, especially places like Montana, Idaho, Texas, but I would not expect to see it in downtown Seattle or Portland.
But Washington State is an open carry state but its because folks felt it was rude and not having a tactical advantage people felt the need to stop doing it and put down others for doing it to the point that the right has been lost by default, so now you get harassed if you open carry even though it is still legal.

To me that's rude.
 
But Washington State is an open carry state but its because folks felt it was rude and not having a tactical advantage people felt the need to stop doing it and put down others for doing it to the point that the right has been lost by default, so now you get harassed if you open carry even though it is still legal.

To me that's rude.
When do you think it was that you could walk around in a larger WA city open carry and not attract negative attention? 1990? 1940? 1880?

People have been more against armed people in cities than for them for at least 150 years in the US.
 
The sad part is that any student in a public school system in America should probably have those same concerns. They are training our kids to accept these abuses of their privacy and freedoms.
 

Upcoming Events

Redmond Gun Show
Redmond, OR
Klamath Falls gun show
Klamath Falls, OR
Centralia Gun Show
Centralia, WA

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top