Time for Brady Campaign employees to circulate resumes

Can we declare victory now and just finish mopping up at First Street NE, Washington, DC...

-Gene

Found the link here from Joe Huffman. Makes you wonder if they'll actually have the intestinal fortitude to say on their resume; Attempted to squash and circumvent honest peoples right to keep and bear arms.

Nobody seems to talk about how irresponsible it is. These events are sometimes extremely crowded, hot tempers, pushing and shoving can quickly turn into something worse. What's the responsible gun owner to do, keep one hand on the gun at all times and with the other hold up the inciteful sign about "watering the tree?"

Some of you pro-gun guys are so busy fighting the enemy, Paul Helmke, that you lose sight of simple common sense.

Yes, you have a right to open carry in certain places, but only a stubborn fool would do so.

So Mike's contention is that because they're well away from the President in a generally like minded crowd that they shouldn't openly carry because someone might try to overpower them, take their gun, and then do what exactly with it?

Hey GunGuy dude - how do you even know the
AR-15 was loaded? Just because it held a mag, doesn't mean he had, you know, ammo in it.

From a practical/tactical standpoint, the best of both worlds is to make your First-Amendment-secured political statement with an unloaded carbine, while you exercise your Second-Amendment-secured right to self defense with a loaded, concealed handgun.

These events are sometimes extremely crowded, hot tempers, pushing and shoving can quickly turn into something worse.

Interestingly, I've never seen that sort of behaviour at a gathering of pro-gun folks. I have seen them get extremely vociferous with who / whatever they were protesting, but overall the crowd stayed pretty polite amongst themselves and with the authorities.

Seen / read plenty about that kind of poor behaviour at various 'progressive' protests, just not the conservative ones. Probably just media bias covering it up.

Regarding this comment:

"These events are sometimes extremely crowded, hot tempers, pushing and shoving can quickly turn into something worse. What's the responsible gun owner to do, keep one hand on the gun at all times and with the other hold up the inciteful sign about "watering the tree?""

It seems as if the events are not sometimes - but rather quite often - crowded.

At any rate, exactly what kind of [email protected] physically assaults someone who is clearly armed?

Then again, maybe that's why the Tea Parties are generally peaceful.

And one last thing - since when did quoting one of the Founding Fathers become "inciteful"?

SCOTTIE posted: since when did quoting one of the Founding Fathers become "inciteful"?

I think is may be a case of bad spelling. I have alway thought that what the Founding Fathers had to say was very insightful.

Dave, how far does this area exist?
"The immediate area occupied by Obama on such trips is considered a federal site where weapons are not permitted, Donovan said."
I know and hope the SS protects the president, but where does that "immediate area" extend. Is there an actual law that covers that. Remember in PA where when Obama was running a guy had a Glock in open carry and they hasseled him and he was not even in the same park.

"And one last thing - since when did quoting one of the Founding Fathers become "inciteful"?"

When it isn't being done by a banadana-mask-wearing, bomb-throwing, anti-capitalist, anarchist "progressive" wearing a "BushHitler" t-shirt (with the "s" replaced with the obligatory swastika) chanting "Death to Bush! Death to Globalism" Death to Amerikkka".

That's legitimate dissent.

These normal people who naively expect their political master to listen to them? They're "evil-mongers"

"Remember in PA where when Obama was running a guy had a Glock in open carry and they hasseled him and he was not even in the same park."

He was found [b]not guilty[/b] and, I believe, will sue the pants off of the arresting officers.

Yet another brilliant genius, Mike, with the same ole, "hey someone might get mad and start shooting argument". This is just another iteration of the "Wild West" argument we heard ad nauseam during the 90s when concealed carry was passing in numerous states. Remember that? When we were told that the streets would flow with blood because people would open fire if they were rear-ended at a stop light, or if they were cut in line at the movies. Guess what? That nonsense never materialized, yet here we are a decade later still reading the same argument. For how long does something have to be wrong before these dazzling intellects quit trotting it out like it is some magical trump card to end all debate?

Anyone who has gone to the Second Amendment Foundation's Gun Rights Policy Conference can see what it's like when a whole convention center worth of people are carrying loaded guns openly and concealed get into a small space for heated political talk. The first time I went I was really shocked, look at all these people carryiI got used to it.

Think about driving - if you weren't used to driving a car you really would probably be terrified of flying down the highway in a car with other cars flying past in opposite directions. If cars were a new invention to be first introduced right now people would probably have them outlawed as a safety hazard. Comfort is all about what you are used to. Driving is much more dangerous than being in the proximity of people carrying firearms. That being said, someone in a horrible accident is going to be legitimately afraid to drive, just like there are always going to be people who had a bad experience with firearms who have a legitimate fear of seeing others carry. But generally speaking it is good to desensitize people to seeing others safely exercise their right to carry so it will be seen as common and unremarkable, just like driving. Nobody gets nervous when they see a cop carrying - because they are used to it - and not because cops are somehow "better than us". In fact, with the stress levels a cop faces, they are probably on average much more strung out with the average person.

There is etiquette to driving, and even "bad drivers" don't stray from the driving etiquette that much. Just about nobody drives the wrong way down a divided highway. Just about everybody violates little rules that have little to do with safety (like coasting through a stop sign instead of stopping fully). The same with carry. Nobody's gonna pull and wave their carry piece without a reason. Many are going to keep their pocket pistol in their pocket when they go to mail a box at the post office because the law against it makes no sense. Really carry and driving are two very analogous things - both potentially dangerous but in actual practice not that dangerous, both with written and unwritten rules, both activities that you can get used to and internalize, both that get safer the more practice and experience you have, and both very important to your freedom.

Guess we should disarm the police officers too for "public safety," because they HAVE to carry weapons openly, ruh roh, someone might take THEIR gun!

you idiot.

Dave, how far does this area exist?
"The immediate area occupied by Obama on such trips is considered a federal site where weapons are not permitted, Donovan said."
I know and hope the SS protects the president, but where does that "immediate area" extend.

The immediate area is a 30 MILE radius for owners of little unarmed airplanes!