Why do people give guns a bad name?

[USMC1911]

I think you have bought into the "guns are bad" idea. imo

 

[NK777]

This is in the wrong forum!

This is and has been discussed in the proper forum on NWFIREARMS.

The title of this thread suggest media conditioning by the author as does the first post. Exercising ones 2nd amendment rights to the fullest does not automatically mean the person doing so is trying to be intimidating at all. It is quite possibly the case that they are merely saying "Hey there, this is a free country, I like my Bill of rights, and the ability to defend myself, please don't infringe on them." All these anti-gun gunners getting all upset is driving me nuts.

 

[Flakman5000]

I wouldn't say that. But, guns do have a purpose. To act as though that purpose can be overlooked is fool hearty. I look at a gun with respect for its purpose. Would I bring a gun to a debate? No. I would bring words instead. If, lets say a man lived near or had a business near the rally and had a gun, and was moving that gun from point A to point B. I don't see a problem with it. But, this man used that fire arm to make a statement, and to me that was a threatening statement. To me he said if I don't like what you say I will use this. Lets remember one fact. Even given the first amendment, which I would fight for, I and you can not make threats. Not only that, but the man put other peoples safety at risk. what if things got heated? what if the cops did not like his tone? is it fair to bring that into a crowed?

 

[NK777]

I wouldn't say that. But, guns do have a purpose. To act as though that purpose can be overlooked is fool hearty. I look at a gun with respect for its purpose. Would I bring a gun to a debate? No. I would bring words instead. If, lets say a man lived near or had a business near the rally and had a gun, and was moving that gun from point A to point B. I don't see a problem with it. But, this man used that fire arm to make a statement, and to me that was a threatening statement. To me he said if I don't like what you say I will use this. Lets remember one fact. Even given the first amendment, which I would fight for, I and you can not make threats. Not only that, but the man put other peoples safety at risk. what if things got heated? what if the cops did not like his tone? is it fair to bring that into a crowed?

Your logic is not logic at all sir. What if one of the secret service members was really a double agent and was there to assassinate the president and the man carrying the rifle was the only one that noticed this and shot the bad guy?

No sir, I don't think my what if is anymore ridiculous then yours.

The individual did not put anybodies safety at risk by being present with his loaded Evil Black Rifle! He did not shoulder or fire the weapon. I'm very sorry you are so fearful of your own country men that you would take such a silly stand on this issue.

 

[Flakman5000]

If you were to do that, even in the right, you would be arrested. Main point is that it is not your job.

 

[NK777]

If you were to do that, even in the right, you would be arrested. Main point is that it is not your job.

Arrested! Heck no, you'd be shot. That wasn't the point of the comment.

 

[Jaybo]

After reading this entire thread, and thinking how to respond, it became very clear to me that collectively we do not agree to what level our rights should be given up, or taken away or stood by and defended. Our second amendment right is pretty clear. Our founding fathers knew that if this right was infringed, the American people would be at the mercy of the Government. It's obvious throughout posts in this thread, that some people feel that the mere fact that someone open carries, is only doing it to intimidate. A gun is just a tool, no different that a hammer, a screw driver or even a vehicle. More people are killed by vehicles than guns in this country every year, but our government just gave a TON of money for people to buy more... Your representatives are not afraid of what you drive.. they are afraid of what you can do with the other tools.

I stated earlier that an armed society is a polite society and I meant it. We might not live in that world today, but I assure you, its because of our right to own firearms that has ensured every person on this board continues to have the rights they do today. A Japanese General was asked why he didn't invade the United States after hitting Pearl Harbor, (Our forces were so thin, it was estimated that their troops would have made it to the Mississippi before U.S. troops could do anything).. His reply was simple. He went to college in the United States, and KNEW that most Americans owned a firearm, therefore the risk was to high.

Collectively we need to find some common ground, agree to disagree on certain things, but allowing our 2nd amendment right to be stripped from us, preventing us from defending our liberty, our property or our families, should NEVER happen. By slowing giving up this right, and that right, and not exercising our rights already granted to us, there will come a day when we all be standing around looking helplessly at each unarmed, and without the tools required to do anything about it, wondering HOW this could have ever happened. A frog will stay in a pot of a water until its dead slowly turning up the heat until he's boiling. I see us all as frogs; the U.S. is always being referred to as one big melting pot... The heat is slowly going to get turned up, and eventually were all going to be left with... well... .. nothing. It's not to late to start standing up for your rights, and demand that our rights are not taken away.

This whole thread was started because a few people stepped out, and exercised their rights, and someone got upset about it. Was it bold, was it flamboyant, was it a little over the top??? Yes it was. But did you also notice how the media took it and spun it, to make these guys look like criminals. They broke no laws, they didn't stop the President from speaking, they didn't stop anyone from speaking their minds at the event. But the media would have the majority of the U.S. people believe this was WRONG and carrying firearms should be illegal. ITS NOT ILLEGAL. AND IT NEVER SHOULD BE.

 

[CaseyPod]

Flak,

I'm sorry but you have really got me confused here. You think that guns are not appropriate in 'public' but claim to be pro 2A. If more people had the sack to open carry - then the media would not blow this out of proportion constantly. It seems that our society has become so de-balled that most people can only accept guns in the hands of Law Enforcement. So the jackboots can carry and you get all warm and fuzzy, but a citizen brings his gun out in public and you claim he is stifling free speech. (No offense to the good peace officers out there)

You mention the "don't taze me bro" guy. Wasn't his free speech being infringed upon when they nailed him with a taser? Even if he started saying something rude, you have a right to say it. Just like you have a "GOD GIVEN" right to bear arms.

Just because we have been conditioned by communist propaganda for decades and completely pacified by our government and media, doesn't mean that our rights are invalid. Just because you think it was poor judgement on his part doesn't mean it was wrong. I do think it was shock and awe- and I think it is a great idea.

Sticking a gun in your pocket (concealed) is what the criminals used to do- but now the damn government has 'licensed' the concealment - in an attempt to make a right into a privilege. Society was a lot more civilized when citizens exercised their rights to keep and bear arms more freely. Read the words of our founding fathers - they were very clear in what they meant in writing the second amendment.

Would you have felt more comfortable if the jackboot squad had come by to beat down the 'crazy gun guy' so that no one felt intimidated? You speak out of both sides of your mouth in your arguments, so I am really trying to figure out where you are coming from on this.

People - we need to get our Constitutional rights back!! The government will continue to legislate our rights away if we don't make a stand. I think this guy was drawing the line in the sand when he brought his gun to the rally - and giving a message to our 'tyrants'. And we are getting very close to tyranny here.

I would really think long and hard about what you think your 'rights' are and how you intend to exercise them freely. Hiding your weapon under your coat with a state issued permit is not 'freely' exercising your rights.

 

[Flakman5000]

First of all I never said concealed carry or open carry is inappropraite. What I am saying, is given the circumstances. The fact that people where engaged in a debate and the president was in close proximity it was wrong to have a loaded rifle at the event. I am saying what this man did was make a statement, and that was a threat, geared towards intimidating those who are pro health care reform. And like I have said, one cannot use words to intimidate or threaten under the first amendment, so why is this situation different? If you don't feel this man ment anything by bringing a rifle to this event, then I say your blind. Not only did it stop the police from doing their job efficiently, the man put his own life at stake. The fact nothing happened is due to the police taking appropraite action and doing their job. Lets not forget that during the immigration reform debates a man had a rope hanging from the bus he was driving, that man got 6 months or so for a hate crime. Both the rope and the rifle are statements that are not protected under the first amendment, that is, one shall not make threats, intimidate, or use statements to enact violence. Just as I can't walk up to you and show hostile body language. That is assualt. And in this fashion, this man, brought a gun to intimidate, I cannot see any other purpose for him bringing it.

Let me make one thing very clear, I am Athiest.

 

[eriknemily]

encore, encore!!!

 

[NK777]

First of all I never said concealed carry or open carry is inappropraite. What I am saying, is given the circumstances. The fact that people where engaged in a debate and the president was in close proximity it was wrong to have a loaded rifle at the event. I am saying what this man did was make a statement, and that was a threat, geared towards intimidating those who are pro health care reform. And like I have said, one cannot use words to intimidate or threaten under the first amendment, so why is this situation different? If you don't feel this man ment anything by bringing a rifle to this event, then I say your blind. Not only did it stop the police from doing their job efficiently, the man put his own life at stake. The fact nothing happened is due to the police taking appropraite action and doing their job. Lets not forget that during the immigration reform debates a man had a rope hanging from the bus he was driving, that man got 6 months or so for a hate crime. Both the rope and the rifle are statements that are not protected under the first amendment, that is, one shall not make threats, intimidate, or use statements to enact violence. Just as I can't walk up to you and show hostile body language. That is assualt. And in this fashion, this man, brought a gun to intimidate, I cannot see any other purpose for him bringing it.

I agree to whole heartedly disagree with you.

Let me make one thing very clear, I am Athiest.

What the flying Yahoo does that have to do with anything!

Let me make one thing very clear... Though it really adds nothing to the thread or the debate. I'm Agnostic :nuts:

I'm begining to think your only on this forum to stir the pot...

 

[Jamie6.5]

I would really think long and hard about what you think your 'rights' are and how you intend to exercise them freely. Hiding your weapon under your coat with a state issued permit is not 'freely' exercising your rights.

Great statement, good post.
What you illustrate is the difference between those that believe the Gov't is granting them their rights, and those that believe our rights are inalienable and the Gov't must recognize them, as stated in our cherished documents.

Personally, I think Obama is smarter than some give him credit for. The guy in New Hampshire, standing on church property with his pistol on his hip, was merely "clinging to his gun(s) and his religion." O' saw this coming, or at least his handlers did.
Much like in another thread someone posed the question; Are you willing to go to jail to bring the issue to the fore in demonstrating your rights?
These people with guns at rallies clearly are.

And there are some, even in a gun forum, that are condemning them for it.

 

[gallogiro]

First of all I never said concealed carry or open carry is inappropraite. What I am saying, is given the circumstances. The fact that people where engaged in a debate and the president was in close proximity it was wrong to have a loaded rifle at the event. I am saying what this man did was make a statement, and that was a threat, geared towards intimidating those who are pro health care reform. And like I have said, one cannot use words to intimidate or threaten under the first amendment, so why is this situation different? If you don't feel this man ment anything by bringing a rifle to this event, then I say your blind. Not only did it stop the police from doing their job efficiently, the man put his own life at stake. The fact nothing happened is due to the police taking appropraite action and doing their job. Lets not forget that during the immigration reform debates a man had a rope hanging from the bus he was driving, that man got 6 months or so for a hate crime. Both the rope and the rifle are statements that are not protected under the first amendment, that is, one shall not make threats, intimidate, or use statements to enact violence. Just as I can't walk up to you and show hostile body language. That is assualt. And in this fashion, this man, brought a gun to intimidate, I cannot see any other purpose for him bringing it.

Let me make one thing very clear, I am Athiest.

I had to look up the footage of the event to see all this intimidation you reference to. In no way did the man do anything that looked intimidating or show hostile body language. In fact he was smiling he whole time, and so was everyone else around him. What he did is not assault. I would have no problem at all if I was attending the debate and that gentleman was standing next to me. I'll link the video on the bottom so that you can see what I see.

So the whole "he's stopping others from voicing their opion" is bologny. As a matter of fact, there is a man right behind him who is happily carrying/waiving a large "Yes we can: Obama" poster. Many have "reform now" posters and none have a scared look on their faces.

The police actually did perform their job efficiently. According to the CNN interview the police were involved since they were notified prior to the debate of what was being planned and they agreed with it.

You are right about the rope and rifle not protected by the first amendment. However, the rifle is protected by the second amendment. I don't remember seeing a clause in there that said you shall not carry a firearm to a debate.

I feel like you might be over reacting, kind of scary coming from someone who is a 2nd amendment supporter. Anywho, here is the link to the video I saw. Thank god we are in America, so you are free to form your opinion about it as did I.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfN7woo2xRY

 

[USMC1911]

Flakman5000 I would still like to know who was making threats?

 

[j.barnum]

Last night I was talking about our "Rights", and what we should be doing about them. This forum should start to keep score on our elected officials. We need to prepare to use these scores to help remove the "elected" or help the right ones stay in office.
It really doesn't make any difference if that guy was right or wrong with the open carry. It does make a difference that our elected officials know what you and I think and what we expect from them reguarding our guns rights. This forum needs to plan how we can make sure we elect people who will help us with retaining our rights.
Anyway, If we do not start taking action now,our competitors are and they are vocal news media, Brady's bunch, and etc.
Off the soapbox.

JBPDXOR
Cougar 8000 9mm
S&W 586 4" 357
Winchester Defender 12g

 

[NK777]

Last night I was talking about our "Rights", and what we should be doing about them. This forum should start to keep score on our elected officials. We need to prepare to use these scores to help remove the "elected" or help the right ones stay in office.
It really doesn't make any difference if that guy was right or wrong with the open carry. It does make a difference that our elected officials know what you and I think and what we expect from them reguarding our guns rights. This forum needs to plan how we can make sure we elect people who will help us with retaining our rights.
Anyway, If we do not start taking action now,our competitors are and they are vocal news media, Brady's bunch, and etc.
Off the soapbox.

JBPDXOR
Cougar 8000 9mm
S&W 586 4" 357
Winchester Defender 12g

Agreed!

 

[MarkAd]

Did you think that maybe the guys presence reminded folks that an armed socity is a polite socity

 

[Flakman5000]

The Atheist comment was due to the fact that one person said " A God given right". I like the Cool Hand Luke line, "The law is a human institution".

And, am i stirring the pot? You bet. This issue is important, and I will always play devils advocate. I don't care about reputation.

 

[biggie24420]

I think that people need to have respect for others...... you probably don't need to carry open in public. I must say that I do at times and this is why. I have had my local police department come up to me and straight up tell me that WE CAN REVOKE YOUR LICENSE AND TAKE YOUR HANDGUN FOR SAFE KEEPING. I have a concealed handgun license and there is no way they can do that to me. I have the right to OPEN or conceal carry. They don't know the law or they act like they don't. I will open carry in public anytime I want, simply because it is my right and to show that their intimidation tactics don't and WILL NOT work on me. Obviously the two cops that decided to come talk to me knew that what I was doing was not wrong and against the law because I didn't end up in cuffs and in jail......... they just wanted to flex their muscles and scare me.......... hahahahahahaha nice try officers....... what a way to serve and protect me and or the public......... THANKS for wasting my time and yours when you as a peace officer, the cops could have just looked at my license, done their investigation and said...... THANK YOU DAVID AND HAVE A GOOD DAY.......... and gone about fighting the real crime.......... not trying to intimidate me so I get scared the next time I try to open carry............... Bottom line... I conceal carry most of the time, but just to exercise my rights I will open carry.

 

[USMC1911]

Still waiting for my answer Flakman5000 as to who was making threats.