Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Gun Nutjobs)   A group of gun enthusiasts plans on protesting a long-standing agreement between the city and an arts & crafts festival that forbids the presence of firearms. Now...why would you need a gun at a craft fair in the first place?   (candgnews.com ) divider line
    More: Stupid, Royal Oak, carrying a firearm, Oakland County, city commission, firearms, city halls, festivals, arts  
•       •       •

3904 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Aug 2010 at 4:31 PM (6 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



407 Comments     (+0 »)
 
 
2010-08-08 12:29:33 PM  
Obviously, Smitty has never seen Crafties in full force...
 
2010-08-08 12:30:19 PM  
you have a very small penis and are compensating?
 
2010-08-08 12:38:09 PM  
Hippies
 
2010-08-08 01:04:45 PM  
Better to have a gun at a craft fair and not need it, than.....
 
2010-08-08 01:48:54 PM  
Maybe shooting things is your art. Just because some people don't appreciate it, doesn't make it not art.
 
2010-08-08 01:56:53 PM  
Because these people think you need a gun everywhere. They're not sane.
 
2010-08-08 02:18:21 PM  
Are you farking kidding me? Subby, there's very little difference between an arts and crafts festival and an armory. I tell you what. Go to one, if you dare, and look around. You're going to be surrounded by knives, needles (knitting needles, by the way, which I could use as skewers to cook you), scissors, hammers. In some cases, saws and various other implements of cutting, hewing, and scorching. There will be fire. There will be glass. There will be bottles and planks of wood and perhaps even a shillelagh or two. These events are veritable powder kegs waiting to go off, always teetering on the knife's edge between civil, harmless entertainments and a bloodbath. Maybe you're willing to stroll through this potential warzone cloaked only in the clothes on your back and a blissful naivete, but I'm not. I'm not.
 
2010-08-08 02:44:13 PM  
As a gun owner & Concealed Handgun Permit holder, I gotta disagree with the protesters. There are certain places that concealed weapons are not allowed, and permit holders have to respect that. Just as I have the right to carry, business owners & festival organizers can choose not to allow firearms in their business.
 
2010-08-08 02:48:03 PM  
Have you taken in the visual wonder of quilts sewn by AK-47s modified with special sewing equipment? HMMMMMMMMMMMM?

I rest my case.
 
2010-08-08 02:56:46 PM  

Toshiro Mifune's Letter Opener: Have you taken in the visual wonder of quilts sewn by AK-47s modified with special sewing equipment? HMMMMMMMMMMMM?

I rest my case.


Guns, quilts (note the exquisite geometric designs) and home crafts go well together.
a.imageshack.us
 
2010-08-08 03:05:44 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Are you farking kidding me? Subby, there's very little difference between an arts and crafts festival and an armory. I tell you what. Go to one, if you dare, and look around. You're going to be surrounded by knives, needles (knitting needles, by the way, which I could use as skewers to cook you), scissors, hammers. In some cases, saws and various other implements of cutting, hewing, and scorching. There will be fire. There will be glass. There will be bottles and planks of wood and perhaps even a shillelagh or two. These events are veritable powder kegs waiting to go off, always teetering on the knife's edge between civil, harmless entertainments and a bloodbath. Maybe you're willing to stroll through this potential warzone cloaked only in the clothes on your back and a blissful naivete, but I'm not. I'm not.



Massacrame?
 
2010-08-08 03:08:36 PM  
What a craft fair gun may look like:

i.imgur.com

Link (new window)
 
2010-08-08 03:51:48 PM  
You need a gun at a craft fair just like God needs a starship.
 
2010-08-08 04:18:12 PM  
djkutch: Guns, quilts (note the exquisite geometric designs) and home crafts go well together.
a.imageshack.us


There's a reason why you ALWAYS hear Sig Sauers and doilies mentioned together in the same sentence.

Besides randomness, I mean.
 
2010-08-08 04:36:04 PM  
Why stop at the 2nd amendment, why not toss them all out at the festival
 
2010-08-08 04:36:42 PM  
Jakevol2
 
2010-08-08 04:37:32 PM  
Because people are never victims of crime outside craft shows, right? For some reason, I don't fear the enthusiast who follows the law, registers his firearm, and takes the time and makes the effort to get a conceal carry permit.

Criminals on the other hand...
 
2010-08-08 04:38:22 PM  
Now...why would you need a gun at a craft fair in the first place?

Critics.
 
2010-08-08 04:38:55 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Are you farking kidding me? Subby, there's very little difference between an arts and crafts festival and an armory. I tell you what. Go to one, if you dare, and look around. You're going to be surrounded by knives, needles (knitting needles, by the way, which I could use as skewers to cook you), scissors, hammers. In some cases, saws and various other implements of cutting, hewing, and scorching. There will be fire. There will be glass. There will be bottles and planks of wood and perhaps even a shillelagh or two. These events are veritable powder kegs waiting to go off, always teetering on the knife's edge between civil, harmless entertainments and a bloodbath. Maybe you're willing to stroll through this potential warzone cloaked only in the clothes on your back and a blissful naivete, but I'm not. I'm not.


Aaaannnddd we're done!
 
2010-08-08 04:38:57 PM  
A craft fair may not sound dangerous, but what do you have? Wood, clothespins and glue guns. Let's say a street gang shows up at the craft fair. They roll a little old lady making junk mail holders, and BAM, the gang has wood, clothespins and glue guns. That puts the ONE bag of rubber bands away from rubber bands guns. RUBBER BAND GUNS. Do you really want to walk into a craft fair where roving street gains armed with rubber band guns (and believe me, they have those rubber bands pulled tight) might be shooting rubber bands at your wife and children.

If you aren't packing a handgun, your four-year-old might be starting kindergarten with an eye patch. Arm yourselves people, the bad guys have rubber bands and no souls!
 
2010-08-08 04:39:15 PM  
What if a guy who hand makes blackpowder arms wants to have a booth there? It obviously qualifies as a crafted item, and many are works of art as well...

Yes, I know a guy who does this. He also teaches classes on it. There's a 5yr waiting list to get into a class.
 
2010-08-08 04:39:41 PM  

FuturePastNow: Because these people think you need a gun everywhere. They're not sane.


So when will you be at 'x' location? No reason, just curious. It's not like you might get mugged.
 
2010-08-08 04:42:30 PM  

Airfoilsguy: Why stop at the 2nd amendment, why not toss them all out at the festival


I'm sure you feel the same about the NRA (new window).
 
2010-08-08 04:43:18 PM  
Why should anyone fear a guy that wears military fatigues and openly carries a gun to a city council meeting? Sounds like a perfectly sane person to me.
 
2010-08-08 04:44:30 PM  
My right to have a firearm is the same as your right to be gay. I can't make you not gay, or at least to get you to stop hitting on me (unless you're a pair of hot lesbians, in which case hit on me all you like).

You can't take, or in any way restrict my guns.

/actually a pair of hot lesbians wearing nothing but a chromed 1911's would be even better
//back to the lesbian gunporn!
 
2010-08-08 04:46:42 PM  
Finally a chance to cash in on the crocheted Gun Cozy market = Profit.
 
2010-08-08 04:46:59 PM  

Jakevol2: Jakevol2


This is exactly what I was thinking!
 
2010-08-08 04:47:10 PM  

BadReligion: As a gun owner & Concealed Handgun Permit holder, I gotta disagree with the protesters. There are certain places that concealed weapons are not allowed, and permit holders have to respect that. Just as I have the right to carry, business owners & festival organizers can choose not to allow firearms in their business.


Same.

I think banning concealed weapons is meaningless; the criminals will still have them and unless they're frisking people and running metal detectors the ban is ineffective. However, it's their legal right to do so if they're controlling/renting/owning the property.
 
2010-08-08 04:47:14 PM  
Having been to a few Midwestern craft fairs, I'd say it's the perfect place to bring a gun. Like the world needs anymore hemp bracelets, wooden yard decorations, & sweatshirts w/ kittens & xmas bells ironed on the front.
 
2010-08-08 04:47:22 PM  
Whatever keeps your mind off your tiny dicks.
 
2010-08-08 04:47:32 PM  
Target practice on the whirlygigs made out of mtn dew and pepsi cans?
 
2010-08-08 04:47:48 PM  
Sometimes I think idiots like these are more of a threat to our right to bear than the anti-gun crowd.
 
2010-08-08 04:47:50 PM  
www.cbc.ca
Can't very well sell your firearm artworks if you aren't allowed to bring guns...
 
2010-08-08 04:48:16 PM  

BadReligion: As a gun owner & Concealed Handgun Permit holder, I gotta disagree with the protesters. There are certain places that concealed weapons are not allowed, and permit holders have to respect that. Just as I have the right to carry, business owners & festival organizers can choose not to allow firearms in their business.


I certainly agree that a business can bar otherwise lawfully legal firearm possession on its premises, the city cannot reclassify public property on an ad hoc basis. A city park is a city park if there is a gathering or not. If none of the disqualifying events, alcohol sales that comprise the majority of the profit, the turning of the street into an open air Courthouse, or some such similar absurdity then the city park and city streets remain a park and streets.
 
2010-08-08 04:48:48 PM  
These things are like water erosion. They pose little threat in the near term but over years can grind your rights down to nothing. Thankfully, we have gun nuts to fight every little potential infringement.

Unfortunately, they do stupid things like wear military fatigues to city hall. You'd figure they'd recognize the harm they're doing to their cause by doing so.
 
2010-08-08 04:49:08 PM  
people who think you should be able to carry a gun anywhere is are gun nuts.
 
2010-08-08 04:49:19 PM  
I had a booth at a craft fair and shot bullet holes in jeans, shirts and other items. The choice was .38, .44 or .410 shotgun shell. It cost more if the person was wearing them. I had a face painting booth that was quickly shut down when they realized all I had was a can of brown spray paint.
 
2010-08-08 04:49:56 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Are you farking kidding me? Subby, there's very little difference between an arts and crafts festival and an armory. I tell you what. Go to one, if you dare, and look around. You're going to be surrounded by knives, needles (knitting needles, by the way, which I could use as skewers to cook you), scissors, hammers. In some cases, saws and various other implements of cutting, hewing, and scorching. There will be fire. There will be glass. There will be bottles and planks of wood and perhaps even a shillelagh or two. These events are veritable powder kegs waiting to go off, always teetering on the knife's edge between civil, harmless entertainments and a bloodbath. Maybe you're willing to stroll through this potential warzone cloaked only in the clothes on your back and a blissful naivete, but I'm not. I'm not.


I really expected the author of that post to be Crosshair.
 
2010-08-08 04:50:18 PM  
www.gravity7.comwww.faqs.org


ONE MORE STEP AND THE FAKE CHEESE GETS IT

 
2010-08-08 04:50:25 PM  

Jakevol2: Jakevol2


You're full of shiat!
Either that or you are trolling

fark YOY!
 
2010-08-08 04:50:59 PM  
CruiserTwelve: Why should anyone fear a guy that wears military fatigues and openly carries a gun to a city council meeting? Sounds like a perfectly sane person to me.

It's the people who wear Abercrombie & Fitch that you have to be wary of.

They're the ones who inspire crappy songs from LFO.
 
2010-08-08 04:51:14 PM  

CruiserTwelve: Why should anyone fear a guy that wears military fatigues and openly carries a gun to a city council meeting? Sounds like a perfectly sane person to me.


Me too. There is a place near me where people wear military fatigues all the time. They carry guns all the time too. What is wrong with those people on the base?

Why are you afraid of guns?
 
2010-08-08 04:51:39 PM  
ra-ra-raw: What a craft fair gun may look like:


Jesus Sharpshooting Christ! The bad guys will have emptied twenty or thirty clips into me before I get my piece assembled.
 
2010-08-08 04:53:01 PM  
Well, if people are going to wet their pants over it, then I guess we shouldn't let folks carry at the arts and crafts show.
 
2010-08-08 04:53:20 PM  

feckingmorons: Me too. There is a place near me where people wear military fatigues all the time. They carry guns all the time too. What is wrong with those people on the base?


The government calls it the "army," but a more alarmist name would be... "The Killbot Factory"!!!
 
2010-08-08 04:54:18 PM  
I was at an arts fair last weekend. I would estimate 43% of the attendees were homosexual. But it's not like I'm counting. CCW, a Murnak FIST holster and Glock 19 means you never have to worry about it.

So this artsy guy with a straw hat and sandals, you know the type, is slowly walking along the booths, pretending to eye the merchandise. Of course, I know what he's really eying. So I position my self among several tents, to maximize my public visibility, and when "he" comes along I engage him, "What exactly are you doing here?"

"I was hoping to find some pictures for my daughter's new apartment", he says. "Well, just keep hoping" I say, letting the bulge under my vest show prominently.

He got the picture. I checked with law enforcement later and they had no complaints of homosexual harassment at the fair that day.
 
2010-08-08 04:55:06 PM  
I don't care what is happening -- craft fair, Teabagger rally, or religious revival -- no group should have the right to close off a street and suspend constitutional rights.

Fark those crafty bastards.
 
2010-08-08 04:57:01 PM  

jaytkay: I was at an arts fair last weekend. I would estimate 43% of the attendees were homosexual. But it's not like I'm counting. CCW, a Murnak FIST holster and Glock 19 means you never have to worry about it.

So this artsy guy with a straw hat and sandals, you know the type, is slowly walking along the booths, pretending to eye the merchandise. Of course, I know what he's really eying. So I position my self among several tents, to maximize my public visibility, and when "he" comes along I engage him, "What exactly are you doing here?"

"I was hoping to find some pictures for my daughter's new apartment", he says. "Well, just keep hoping" I say, letting the bulge under my vest show prominently.

He got the picture. I checked with law enforcement later and they had no complaints of homosexual harassment at the fair that day.


I imagine you spend a lot of time counting potential homosexuals. Maybe you need another hobby.
 
2010-08-08 04:58:16 PM  
Criminals notice the places where firearms are prohibited. These are called "Mugger Safe Zones". After all, the muggers are perfectly safe.
 
2010-08-08 05:00:01 PM  
www.superpoop.com
i'll just leave this here...
 
2010-08-08 05:00:01 PM  

thamike: ONE MORE STEP AND THE FAKE CHEESE GETS IT


You'd shoot Kraft AMERICAN singles? Die, Commie!

Actually, I hate Kraft American singles, and consider myself a patriotic, gun toting, hard cheddar American.

People often bring lots of cash to art fairs. If the fair is held on public property, they should be able to practice concealed carry according to the normal procedure in the state.
 
2010-08-08 05:00:52 PM  

Guairdean: Criminals notice the places where firearms are prohibited. These are called "Mugger Safe Zones". After all, the muggers are perfectly safe.


How would you know? Do you see a lot of criminals while peering out your basement window?
 
2010-08-08 05:01:38 PM  

jaytkay: I was at an arts fair last weekend. I would estimate 43% of the attendees were homosexual.


How did you know? Did they have corn and sesame seeds on their pee-pees?
 
2010-08-08 05:02:52 PM  

CleverGuy81: i'll just leave this here...


Looks like a good start !

/ L out L
 
2010-08-08 05:03:11 PM  
Having been dragged to a craft fair for several hours... Next time I would want the right to concealed carry so I could put one in the base of my skull before being hauled kicking and screaming through the event doors...
 
2010-08-08 05:03:19 PM  
It's a quilt. I'm not going in unarmed.
a.imageshack.us
 
2010-08-08 05:05:46 PM  
What reason can anyone show for not permitting someone who's gone through a background check, probably (definitely in Ohio) some sort of additional training, and has committed no felonies whatsoever for carrying a firearm in a place where it's perfectly legal every other day of the year?

Should we also prohibit free speech there because someone might criticize the banal and/or crappy art that might be there?
 
2010-08-08 05:05:46 PM  

NuttierThanEver: you have a very small penis and are compensating?


But enough about you, what is your opinion on the subject at hand?


Psychological projection, how does it farking work?
 
2010-08-08 05:06:13 PM  
They should be allowed to carry. Royal Oak is dangerous*.

*Not actually dangerous
 
2010-08-08 05:11:19 PM  

Airfoilsguy 2010-08-08 04:36:04 PM
Why stop at the 2nd amendment, why not toss them all out at the festiva


How about trying a little common sense for once.
Who wants to take their family somewhere where there will be a bunch of AK toting teabagger nutjobs?

Even Tombstone made folks check their guns.
Besides, if you're that afraid then maybe you should just stay under your bed where it's nice and safe.
 
2010-08-08 05:11:25 PM  
Why does a building that's not on fire need sprinklers?

Why do you wear a seat-belt if you're not crashing?
 
2010-08-08 05:11:30 PM  

feckingmorons: I certainly agree that a business can bar otherwise lawfully legal firearm possession on its premises, the city cannot reclassify public property on an ad hoc basis. A city park is a city park if there is a gathering or not. If none of the disqualifying events, alcohol sales that comprise the majority of the profit, the turning of the street into an open air Courthouse, or some such similar absurdity then the city park and city streets remain a park and streets.


Now, I know you're a troll who's claimed that Brietbart has never edited videos for his political advantage and that anything you type should be suspected idiocy, but what the hell:
Yes the city can. The city is within their rights to rent out public property and let it be temporarily under different rules.

Under your logic, it's illegal for the festival runners to charge admission, because they're turning public land into private.
 
2010-08-08 05:11:47 PM  

trelane99: My right to have a firearm is the same as your right to be gay. I can't make you not gay, or at least to get you to stop hitting on me (unless you're a pair of hot lesbians, in which case hit on me all you like).

You can't take, or in any way restrict my guns.

/actually a pair of hot lesbians wearing nothing but a chromed 1911's would be even better
//back to the lesbian gunporn!


And on property under my control I get to say what comes in and what stays out within certain parameters.

You're free to carry your firearm. Somewhere else.

You can leave your gun in your car.

Gay guy can't leave his gay in the car.
 
2010-08-08 05:16:31 PM  

dstrick44: How about trying a little common sense for once. Who wants to take their family somewhere where there will be a bunch of AK toting teabagger nutjobs?

Even Tombstone made folks check their guns. Besides, if you're that afraid then maybe you should just stay under your bed where it's nice and safe.


You do realize that those who've gone through the CCW process have had a background check and training, don't you? And that they can legally carry at that park all the rest of the year - and that, potentially, they'll be around all of those families?

You do also realize that just because someone gets a CCW doesn't make them an AK-toting Teabagger, don't you?

Near as I can tell your point boils down to "think of the children". Really - is that the best you can do?
 
2010-08-08 05:16:35 PM  
CommiePuddin: And on property under my control I get to say what comes in and what stays out within certain parameters.

You're free to carry your firearm. Somewhere else.

You can leave your gun in your car.

Gay guy can't leave his gay in the car.


You are exactly right in every detail. THIS

/Gun owner
 
2010-08-08 05:17:05 PM  
We have gun owners out here in CA who like to go around public with their guns on display. They say it's safe as their weapons are unloaded and they say that they don't even have ammo with them.
Fine, have your unloaded gun out in the open. I'll just start carrying a hammer, a nice big hammer, say a small sledgehammer. It's legal, no need for a permit and it can do a lot more damage to someone that an empty gun.
 
2010-08-08 05:17:54 PM  

Satanic_Hamster:
Now, I know you're a troll who's claimed that Brietbart has never edited videos for his political advantage and that anything you type should be suspected idiocy, but what the hell:
Yes the city can. The city is within their rights to rent out public property and let it be temporarily under different rules.

Under your logic, it's illegal for the festival runners to charge admission, because they're turning public land into private.


To some extent, yes. Charging admission for an event has a specific purpose. No charge, no event. Temporarily banning firearms serves what purpose, exactly?
 
2010-08-08 05:18:35 PM  
Supremecy clause.

.....shall not be infringed.


People don't expect to get shot at work or school.....yet headlines may prove otherwise.


Hiipies at craft fairs are usually the most uptight people anyway.

Seriously......50$ for a bunch of solder you melted and call earrings?


Go eat some trail mix you dirty capitalist hippies.
 
2010-08-08 05:19:37 PM  

CommiePuddin: And on property under my control I get to say what comes in and what stays out within certain parameters.

You're free to carry your firearm. Somewhere else.

You can leave your gun in your car.

Gay guy can't leave his gay in the car.


Which is a great argument on private property. This is not private property. This is public property where it's legal to carry concealed every other day of the year. What makes these days special?
 
2010-08-08 05:23:07 PM  
Face it, if you're into the second amendment, you're probably just like this guy:


farm3.static.flickr.com


/hot, unlike 2nd amendment lovers
 
2010-08-08 05:23:38 PM  
You know I am getting tired of these attention whores.

/Gun owner
//2nd amendment absolutist
///Not a dick about it
 
2010-08-08 05:26:04 PM  
What if somebody tries to hold me up at needlepoint? Or stab me in the fracas?
 
2010-08-08 05:26:05 PM  

balial: Face it, if you're into the second amendment, you're probably just like this guy:

/hot, unlike 2nd amendment lovers



It's fun to cherry pick rules or laws you like!!
 
2010-08-08 05:26:08 PM  

balial: Face it, if you're into the second amendment, you're probably just like this guy:

/hot, unlike 2nd amendment lovers


I've read somewhere that he made those photos on purpose....and trolled a ton of people with them.
 
2010-08-08 05:26:51 PM  
I can see the reason for the ban. Have you ever been forced to go to one with your wife?
Your apt to blow your head off and spatter your own brains on the art.
 
2010-08-08 05:27:17 PM  

wxboy: They should be allowed to carry. Royal Oak is dangerous*.

*Not actually dangerous


I was thinking just that. Why do these people feel the need to carry a gun to a friggin' craft fair in Royal Oak? It's not like they're in Highland Park or somewhere they might actually need a gun. These guys wouldn't be caught dead in a real city with real crime.

/grew up in Royal Oak.
 
2010-08-08 05:27:27 PM  
How dare the festival organization trample upon our constitutional rights. No firearms. Cannot enter without paying. This is public land. How dare them!
 
2010-08-08 05:28:52 PM  

Bermuda59: We have gun owners out here in CA who like to go around public with their guns on display. They say it's safe as their weapons are unloaded and they say that they don't even have ammo with them.



That has never made a damned bit of sense to me. Those people are using their firearms as a form of decoration. It's childish and irresponsible attention-whoring, and it gives the rest of us a bad name.
 
2010-08-08 05:29:30 PM  

globalwarmingpraiser: You know I am getting tired of these attention whores.

/Gun owner
//2nd amendment absolutist
///Not a dick about it


Those damn attention whores have the same mindset that gave us Heller and McDonald. Don't get me wrong, I'm not all about being a dick but I'm also not about having my rights violated.
 
2010-08-08 05:31:13 PM  
Is there anybody here who can see that one can take the 2nd Amendment literally, and be all for any kind of gun ownership, but still make fun of retarded gun nuts? It isn't black and white. Owning guns doesn't make one a gun nut. Not liking guns doesn't make you a commie pussy. Owning guns and not being able to restrain your firearm-oriented behavior makes you a gun nut and an asshole.
 
2010-08-08 05:34:35 PM  

NoSugarAdded: How dare the festival organization trample upon our constitutional rights. No firearms. Cannot enter without paying. This is public land. How dare them!


False equivalence is false.

CruiserTwelve: I was thinking just that. Why do these people feel the need to carry a gun to a friggin' craft fair in Royal Oak? It's not like they're in Highland Park or somewhere they might actually need a gun. These guys wouldn't be caught dead in a real city with real crime.

/grew up in Royal Oak.


Since when did it become your right to determine where they can practice rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution (not granted by it, though)? I'm not saying I'd feel the need, but what good reason do you have to prevent someone who's had a full background check and registered themselves with the government from carrying a firearm? Hell, even the city themselves aren't sure whether or not this ban is legal.

And, remember, prior to putting forth a reason, put one that doesn't contain you feeling they don't need to carry a firearm. That's not a relevant reason and carries no bearing here whatsoever.
 
2010-08-08 05:37:08 PM  

thamike: Is there anybody here who can see that one can take the 2nd Amendment literally, and be all for any kind of gun ownership, but still make fun of retarded gun nuts? It isn't black and white. Owning guns doesn't make one a gun nut. Not liking guns doesn't make you a commie pussy. Owning guns and not being able to restrain your firearm-oriented behavior makes you a gun nut and an asshole.


Honestly, I think many of us can. My wife and I just went to a Gun and Knife show in Dayton. Plenty of folks there to make fun of. Very polite people, as a rule, but definitely some damned oddballs and idiots floating around.

That being said, how does carrying a concealed weapon to an Arts and Crafts fair make one an asshole or a gun nut? If you normally carry concealed and no one sees it, how does that impact anyone at the Fair?

Secondly, what good reason is there for prohibiting firearms at an area where it's perfectly legal at all other times to carry?
 
2010-08-08 05:39:12 PM  

ronaprhys: Satanic_Hamster:
Now, I know you're a troll who's claimed that Brietbart has never edited videos for his political advantage and that anything you type should be suspected idiocy, but what the hell:
Yes the city can. The city is within their rights to rent out public property and let it be temporarily under different rules.

Under your logic, it's illegal for the festival runners to charge admission, because they're turning public land into private.

To some extent, yes. Charging admission for an event has a specific purpose. No charge, no event. Temporarily banning firearms serves what purpose, exactly?


It serves the specific purpose have having no guns on the property. Because the event runners don't want them. Because they control the property for the duration of the event. Because it's their right.

Now, could the city, say, put a clause in their rental agreements that people renting city property not do this? Sure. But until they do, it's the legal right of the even runners do prohibit carrying guns.
 
2010-08-08 05:40:21 PM  

ra-ra-raw: Airfoilsguy: Why stop at the 2nd amendment, why not toss them all out at the festival

I'm sure you feel the same about the NRA (new window).


Wait. What?! o_O

Methinks they need to find a new place to hold their convention...
 
2010-08-08 05:42:51 PM  

KrispyKritter: crocheted


whatnottocrochet.files.wordpress.com

Indeed. It's a whole untapped market out there!
 
2010-08-08 05:43:04 PM  
Maybe the fair organizers want to create an atmosphere that cant be had while paranoid people are carrying guns.
 
2010-08-08 05:43:39 PM  

ronaprhys: NoSugarAdded: How dare the festival organization trample upon our constitutional rights. No firearms. Cannot enter without paying. This is public land. How dare them!

False equivalence is false.

CruiserTwelve: I was thinking just that. Why do these people feel the need to carry a gun to a friggin' craft fair in Royal Oak? It's not like they're in Highland Park or somewhere they might actually need a gun. These guys wouldn't be caught dead in a real city with real crime.

/grew up in Royal Oak.

Since when did it become your right to determine where they can practice rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution (not granted by it, though)? I'm not saying I'd feel the need, but what good reason do you have to prevent someone who's had a full background check and registered themselves with the government from carrying a firearm? Hell, even the city themselves aren't sure whether or not this ban is legal.

And, remember, prior to putting forth a reason, put one that doesn't contain you feeling they don't need to carry a firearm. That's not a relevant reason and carries no bearing here whatsoever.


NoSugarAdded's point is valid; the festival is renting the land from the government, hence it is effectively private land for the duration of the festival.

CruiserTwelve being a cop, is probably not a fan of individual citizens owning/carrying; all the CCW holders I know complain of police harassment as a result of their CCW permit.
 
2010-08-08 05:44:53 PM  

ronaprhys: That being said, how does carrying a concealed weapon to an Arts and Crafts fair make one an asshole or a gun nut? If you normally carry concealed and no one sees it, how does that impact anyone at the Fair?


If you do it to make a point, you just might be a gun nut.

Satanic_Hamster: Now, could the city, say, put a clause in their rental agreements that people renting city property not do this? Sure. But until they do, it's the legal right of the even runners do prohibit carrying guns.


Pick one: Businesses can force you to check your weapons at their own discretion; or you can fire up the gun control advocates by making asses out of yourselves over nothing.
 
2010-08-08 05:45:54 PM  

cuzsis: whatnottocrochet.files.wordpress.com

Indeed. It's a whole untapped market out there!


And they wonder why all the penis jokes keep coming in.
 
2010-08-08 05:46:35 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: It serves the specific purpose have having no guns on the property. Because the event runners don't want them. Because they control the property for the duration of the event. Because it's their right.

Now, could the city, say, put a clause in their rental agreements that people renting city property not do this? Sure. But until they do, it's the legal right of the even runners do prohibit carrying guns.


Actually, it may not be their right. If you read the article you'll note that the city is looking into it and it's not a decided issue.

While I agree with your interpretation on private land, I disagree on public land. Yes - this is still public land. It does not become private. Want doesn't come into play here at all. They can charge admission as they can't (theoretically) support the Fair without that admission charge. That makes it a need. There's no need to prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms.

If I were to elect to wear a tee shirt that were deemed offensive to artists (but was in no way obscene) and is legal at all other times, they have no right to ask me to leave. Freedom of speech. I'm also permitted to say whatever I'd like (within normal bounds of law). I'm not permitted to be disruptive, though. For you to make an argument you have to prove that someone carrying concealed is disruptive.
 
2010-08-08 05:48:13 PM  

Corvus: people who think you should be able to carry a gun anywhere is are gun nuts.


Why not? Are you personally more likely to shoot someone in a park versus a craft fair? Or are you not going to shoot anyone unless they are an actual threat to someone's life?

/concealed means concealed
//never understood why guns should be disallowed at certain citizen venues.
///Are they planning to attempt to drive everyone to a murderous insanity or something?
 
2010-08-08 05:49:12 PM  

ronaprhys: If I were to elect to wear a tee shirt that were deemed offensive to artists (but was in no way obscene) and is legal at all other times, they have no right to ask me to leave. Freedom of speech. I'm also permitted to say whatever I'd like (within normal bounds of law). I'm not permitted to be disruptive, though. For you to make an argument you have to prove that someone carrying concealed is disruptive.


If it's a private gathering controlled by the non-government, they have the right to ban, say, all white people if they felt about it, let alone you for wearing your t-shirt.
 
2010-08-08 05:50:48 PM  

ronaprhys: They can charge admission as they can't (theoretically) support the Fair without that admission charge. That makes it a need. There's no need to prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms.


They're both choices. And it is legal for a renter of public property to make either one of them. People have weddings receptions on public property all the time. If they didn't want guns in their wedding reception, they can legally make it so. They could also tell any gate crashers to f*ck off. And any well-armed wedding crasher howling about public land and getting aggressive would get arrested.
 
B A [TotalFark]
2010-08-08 05:51:46 PM  

BadReligion: As a gun owner & Concealed Handgun Permit holder, I gotta disagree with the protesters. There are certain places that concealed weapons are not allowed, and permit holders have to respect that. Just as I have the right to carry, business owners & festival organizers can choose not to allow firearms in their business.


Actually they shouldn't have the right to ban arms. While I agree that the liklehood of needing my pistol at an arts & crafts fair is small I would argue that my constitutional right to bear is FAR more important than your right to feel threatened by a permit holders concealed arms. Actually I would argue that requiring permits is, in itself, a violation of my right to keep & bear arms. As to predicting when firearms might be needed: That's much like predictiong when an ambulance/ER/MD might be needed & banning them from certain areas because you think the possibility of someone having a heart attack is low enough to make the presence of such protections uneccessary.
 
2010-08-08 05:52:25 PM  

misanthropic1: NoSugarAdded's point is valid; the festival is renting the land from the government, hence it is effectively private land for the duration of the festival.


That is not a fact, that's an opinion. Read the article - the city has openly said that they aren't sure they they can prohibit concealed carry.

CruiserTwelve being a cop, is probably not a fan of individual citizens owning/carrying; all the CCW holders I know complain of police harassment as a result of their CCW permit.

That may or may not be the case. I've not interacted with too many officers on the subject.

thamike: If you do it to make a point, you just might be a gun nut.


Might be, guess that depends on your view. However, would you like to answer the question? If someone normally carries concealed and is carrying concealed at this Fair, how are they being an asshole? I won't ask about being a gun nut (we'd likely disagree here), but an asshole? Hell, no one would even know it.
 
2010-08-08 05:54:14 PM  

ronaprhys: If I were to elect to wear a tee shirt that were deemed offensive to artists (but was in no way obscene) and is legal at all other times, they have no right to ask me to leave. Freedom of speech. I'm also permitted to say whatever I'd like (within normal bounds of law). I'm not permitted to be disruptive, though. For you to make an argument you have to prove that someone carrying concealed is disruptive.


Why is this such a hard concept to understand? If there's an event that is being held (not by the--let's say--gun friendly city, but merely in that city), the renters can ban weapons. They can ban cigarettes. They can make you wear a tie. They can charge an entrance fee.
 
2010-08-08 05:54:18 PM  
Rather than showing up to city hall openly packing, why not show up to the event you're so desperately wanting to attend while packing?

It's your constitutional right, so farking exercise it. If the police try to take you away, let them.

You know what happens next.

Instead you farking AW at city hall regarding something you probably don't even want to go to and make sane, responsible gun owners (who want to carry) look like backwoods crazy assholes. Nice going, assholes.
 
2010-08-08 05:57:29 PM  

ronaprhys: Might be, guess that depends on your view. However, would you like to answer the question? If someone normally carries concealed and is carrying concealed at this Fair, how are they being an asshole? I won't ask about being a gun nut (we'd likely disagree here), but an asshole? Hell, no one would even know it.


I didn't call people who carry concealed weapons assholes. I called people who take weapons into a place that doesn't want them there just to start a fight assholes. Almost my entire family has or has had concealed weapons permits, and used them. I don't really need one in VA. My glove compartment is just fine.
 
2010-08-08 05:58:25 PM  

Salt Lick Steady: Instead you farking AW at city hall regarding something you probably don't even want to go to and make sane, responsible gun owners (who want to carry) look like backwoods crazy assholes. Nice going, assholes.


That's what I meant by "assholes."
 
2010-08-08 05:58:56 PM  

thamike: ronaprhys: If I were to elect to wear a tee shirt that were deemed offensive to artists (but was in no way obscene) and is legal at all other times, they have no right to ask me to leave. Freedom of speech. I'm also permitted to say whatever I'd like (within normal bounds of law). I'm not permitted to be disruptive, though. For you to make an argument you have to prove that someone carrying concealed is disruptive.

Why is this such a hard concept to understand? If there's an event that is being held (not by the--let's say--gun friendly city, but merely in that city), the renters can ban weapons. They can ban cigarettes. They can make you wear a tie. They can charge an entrance fee.


You can't 'rent' a public sidewalk like that, such that it's no longer subject to constitutional parameters. And this cuts both ways; research constitutional law regarding whether you have to pay to have a parade.
 
2010-08-08 05:59:27 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: If it's a private gathering controlled by the non-government, they have the right to ban, say, all white people if they felt about it, let alone you for wearing your t-shirt.


Then why didn't the city just point that out and be done with it?

thamike: They're both choices. And it is legal for a renter of public property to make either one of them. People have weddings receptions on public property all the time. If they didn't want guns in their wedding reception, they can legally make it so. They could also tell any gate crashers to f*ck off. And any well-armed wedding crasher howling about public land and getting aggressive would get arrested.


A wedding is different than a public admission event. Bad comparison.

As for their legal right, that's not settled. Try to the argument without resorting to an unproven point.
 
2010-08-08 05:59:51 PM  
I think we can all agree that handing some random child a firearm is unwise. Why would the perception be any different for adults who act like children?
 
2010-08-08 06:01:16 PM  
Me too. There is a place near me where people wear military fatigues all the time. They carry guns all the time too. What is wrong with those people on the base?

Soooo.. Midwest craft fairs and military bases are the same thing?
How dare those military bases restrict ME! A Tax-paying CITIZEN from wandering wherever I like! It's public land! They should also let me carry my gun everywhere I wander, right?

To some extent, yes. Charging admission for an event has a specific purpose. No charge, no event. Temporarily banning firearms serves what purpose, exactly?

Makes it less likely that someone will get careless and get hurt. People with small children have a thing about that. And lots of these come to craft fairs.

You can leave your gun in your car.
Gay guy can't leave his gay in the car.
Which is a great argument on private property. This is not private property. This is public property where it's legal to carry concealed every other day of the year. What makes these days special?
Secondly, what good reason is there for prohibiting firearms at an area where it's perfectly legal at all other times to carry?


In case you missed it the first dozen times it was said - Because they are renting the land, it effectively becomes private property for the duration of the contract. They can require everyone paint their toenails purple if they want. Don't like it? Then don't go to their event. Not like alot of these tough gun-toten guys would go to a craft fair anyway.
 
2010-08-08 06:02:20 PM  

ronaprhys: misanthropic1: NoSugarAdded's point is valid; the festival is renting the land from the government, hence it is effectively private land for the duration of the festival.

That is not a fact, that's an opinion. Read the article - the city has openly said that they aren't sure they they can prohibit concealed carry.


The legality of banning firearms on private property is ironclad; the issue here is if the terms of the rental constitutes private property for intensive purposes, it would seem to me. I'm sure the local government can interpret either way. It seems it would make more sense to side with the festival organizers IMHO, but it's not our call, ostensibly.
 
2010-08-08 06:04:38 PM  

ronaprhys: A wedding is different than a public admission event. Bad comparison.


Not if it's on "public land" which is what we are talking about. Apt comparison. Just because it is public land doesn't mean a privately owned group that rents the space can't call the shots.

Salt Lick Steady: You can't 'rent' a public sidewalk like that, such that it's no longer subject to constitutional parameters. And this cuts both ways; research constitutional law regarding whether you have to pay to have a parade.


Who cares if you have to pay? That's not even an issue here. Speaking of bad comparisons, let's take your parade. It closes down the street, right? Film and television shoots also close down the street. You don't have to pay to get in, they just won't let you. They have a PERMIT. Try walking into one of those unannounced carrying a piece. Same goes for parades.
 
2010-08-08 06:05:12 PM  

thamike: Why is this such a hard concept to understand? If there's an event that is being held (not by the--let's say--gun friendly city, but merely in that city), the renters can ban weapons. They can ban cigarettes. They can make you wear a tie. They can charge an entrance fee.


Actually, they may not be able to do so. Read the article. The city isn't sure if they can legally ban those with concealed carry permits from carrying concealed.

No, I'm not letting that point go. Make the argument for need to ban concealed carry without that.

thamike: I didn't call people who carry concealed weapons assholes. I called people who take weapons into a place that doesn't want them there just to start a fight assholes. Almost my entire family has or has had concealed weapons permits, and used them. I don't really need one in VA. My glove compartment is just fine.


So insisting on not having your rights infringed makes you an asshole? That's all this is. Would you also call someone an asshole who showed up a the city meeting and insisted on freedom of speech (by wearing some placard, tee shirt, or the like that offended the commissioners but not a good portion of the population) an asshole?
 
2010-08-08 06:06:23 PM  
Why do gay people need to get married anyway.
 
2010-08-08 06:07:24 PM  

misanthropic1: ronaprhys: misanthropic1: NoSugarAdded's point is valid; the festival is renting the land from the government, hence it is effectively private land for the duration of the festival.

That is not a fact, that's an opinion. Read the article - the city has openly said that they aren't sure they they can prohibit concealed carry.

The legality of banning firearms on private property is ironclad; the issue here is if the terms of the rental constitutes private property for intensive purposes, it would seem to me. I'm sure the local government can interpret either way. It seems it would make more sense to side with the festival organizers IMHO, but it's not our call, ostensibly.


Public parks and sidewalks have long been recognized as public fora for the purposes of first amendment jurisprudence. This means the local KKK can't rent the park for the day and prohibit people from saying non-Aryan things while they're there.

There's a body of jurisprudence to be written now, but methinks the same basic principle applies regarding concealed carrying. Who knows though.
 
2010-08-08 06:07:33 PM  
Glad to see Pocket Ninja bring the voice of reason to this thread.
 
2010-08-08 06:08:31 PM  

paygun: Why do gay people need to get married anyway.


They don't; it's a conspiracy perpetuated by wedding planners and florists.
 
2010-08-08 06:09:08 PM  

ronaprhys: So insisting on not having your rights infringed makes you an asshole? That's all this is. Would you also call someone an asshole who showed up a the city meeting and insisted on freedom of speech (by wearing some placard, tee shirt, or the like that offended the commissioners but not a good portion of the population) an asshole?


Ever kill a man with your speech?

Yes the 2nd Amendment is a constitutional right, but let's not play footsie about what guns are.

You can defend your legal rights and still be an asshole, you know.

All I'm saying is, have some class. Gunholes are ruining it for the rest of us.
 
2010-08-08 06:11:52 PM  
What purpose is served by carrying a gun to a craft show? Do you do it because its your right? Why the need? To you go to church because its your constitutional right? Do you publish a paper because its your right? Do you stand on the street corner yelling conspiracy theories? Do you vote just because you can? If you do any of these, Im sure you have a reason, not just because you can. So why the need to carry at a craft show?
 
2010-08-08 06:12:00 PM  

thamike:

Who cares if you have to pay? That's not even an issue here. Speaking of bad comparisons, let's take your parade. It closes down the street, right? Film and television shoots also close down the street. You don't have to pay to get in, they just won't let you. They have a PERMIT. Try walking into one of those unannounced carrying a piece. Same goes for parades.


You... don't get it. Are you unfamiliar with the first amendment right of assembly? Are you sure a permit is necessary for a parade on a public sidewalk or park?

I somehow doubt it.
 
2010-08-08 06:12:49 PM  

ronaprhys: Actually, they may not be able to do so. Read the article. The city isn't sure if they can legally ban those with concealed carry permits from carrying concealed.

No, I'm not letting that point go. Make the argument for need to ban concealed carry without that.


No, I understand that it's under review. But, since I'm not an asshole, if I walked into an arts and crafts show (of all things)and they told me to stow my weapon, I would. It's called courtesy.

/unless I was going to stick the place up, in which case I would just be a different kind of asshole.
 
2010-08-08 06:13:19 PM  

NotARocketScientist: Makes it less likely that someone will get careless and get hurt. People with small children have a thing about that. And lots of these come to craft fairs.


Think of the children? Really? Failure of an argument. A person with a CCW is incredibly unlikely (read this as zero chance, for all practical purposes) to commit a crime or not appropriately handle their firearm.

In case you missed it the first dozen times it was said - Because they are renting the land, it effectively becomes private property for the duration of the contract. They can require everyone paint their toenails purple if they want. Don't like it? Then don't go to their event. Not like alot of these tough gun-toten guys would go to a craft fair anyway.

Actually, you can't prove the private property point. That legal point has not been decided. In fact, the city openly admits that they've got to research it.

misanthropic1: The legality of banning firearms on private property is ironclad; the issue here is if the terms of the rental constitutes private property for intensive purposes, it would seem to me. I'm sure the local government can interpret either way. It seems it would make more sense to side with the festival organizers IMHO, but it's not our call, ostensibly.


I agree with you on private property. Absolutely the landowner's choice. No argument.

On public property, however, that's completely different. I disagree that they should side with the organizers here, though. No need has been demonstrated that shows there's any negative impacts. Hell, it's probably more dangerous to allow senior citizens to drive near there as they seem to have problems with farmer's markets and the like.

thamike: Not if it's on "public land" which is what we are talking about. Apt comparison. Just because it is public land doesn't mean a privately owned group that rents the space can't call the shots.


No - they are different. At a fair like this anyone who pays the admission fee has to be admitted. At a wedding, that's completely different. One has to be invited.

Who cares if you have to pay? That's not even an issue here. Speaking of bad comparisons, let's take your parade. It closes down the street, right? Film and television shoots also close down the street. You don't have to pay to get in, they just won't let you. They have a PERMIT. Try walking into one of those unannounced carrying a piece. Same goes for parades.

Why shouldn't you be able to carry at a public event? If there's no law that prohibits carrying during normal times, it's unlikely that a law will prohibit viewing the parade while carrying concealed.
 
2010-08-08 06:14:42 PM  

ronaprhys: Satanic_Hamster: If it's a private gathering controlled by the non-government, they have the right to ban, say, all white people if they felt about it, let alone you for wearing your t-shirt.

Then why didn't the city just point that out and be done with it?


You think a bunch of gutless city officials gives a shiat about this? They're caught between two desires; renting out the property to a group they don't want to bully or piss off because it brings tourism and money into their coffers and dealing with a bunch of whiney loud mouths who are implicitly threatening to sue.
 
2010-08-08 06:15:09 PM  
I made a gun out of macaroni and peppercorns earlier, so I'm really getting a kickback from this thread,
 
2010-08-08 06:16:04 PM  

Salt Lick Steady: You... don't get it. Are you unfamiliar with the first amendment right of assembly? Are you sure a permit is necessary for a parade on a public sidewalk or park?

I somehow doubt it.


I am aware, actually. You need a permit. It usually doesn't cost anything (unless you're a movie studio), but yes you need a permit in most cases. You think Macy's Day or St. Patrick's Day happens on the fly? Do you think the police keep the Westboro Baptist Church people from getting torn limb from limb because it's their hobby?
 
2010-08-08 06:16:44 PM  

thamike: cuzsis: whatnottocrochet.files.wordpress.com

Indeed. It's a whole untapped market out there!

And they wonder why all the penis jokes keep coming in.


I'm not sure where you were going with that...

Unless you are trying to make the crotched holster out to be some kind of condom. I hope not though, that wouldn't work well at all.
 
2010-08-08 06:17:59 PM  

ronaprhys: Why shouldn't you be able to carry at a public event?


Should has nothing to do with it. You can't if they say you can't. If you have a problem with this you have too much time on your hands and pay way too much attention to your firearm.
 
2010-08-08 06:18:47 PM  

cuzsis: Unless you are trying to make the crotched holster out to be some kind of condom. I hope not though, that wouldn't work well at all.


Come on, it looks like a cackenballs nuzzle.
 
2010-08-08 06:20:13 PM  

brynaldo: Whatever keeps your mind off your tiny dicks.


I like guns and have a giant cock, so there.

Farkin' anti-gun idiots. STFU.
 
2010-08-08 06:20:34 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Are you farking kidding me? Subby, there's very little difference between an arts and crafts festival and an armory.


"I have a robot that runs with scissors."
 
2010-08-08 06:21:37 PM  
 
2010-08-08 06:21:51 PM  
And as far as constitutionality goes, free assembly is protected by the constitution if it is peaceable. Brandishing firearms is questionable.
 
2010-08-08 06:23:25 PM  

Salt Lick Steady: Public parks and sidewalks have long been recognized as public fora for the purposes of first amendment jurisprudence. This means the local KKK can't rent the park for the day and prohibit people from saying non-Aryan things while they're there.

There's a body of jurisprudence to be written now, but methinks the same basic principle applies regarding concealed carrying. Who knows though.


There's a huge difference between a disturbance and acting on a right. Seriously - those acting for the ban to be lifted have no stated agenda, nor even what appears to be an implied one, that would lead one to think they're planning to disrupt the event in any way. They just want the ability to exercise their right if they so choose.

thamike: Ever kill a man with your speech?

Yes the 2nd Amendment is a constitutional right, but let's not play footsie about what guns are.

You can defend your legal rights and still be an asshole, you know.

All I'm saying is, have some class. Gunholes are ruining it for the rest of us.


It is, in fact, possible to harm someone with speech. This is a recognized legal principle. I also don't argue that one can defend their rights and be an asshole. No doubt about it.

How does carrying concealed, where no one will see it, at a Fair make one an asshole?

Jeebus Saves: What purpose is served by carrying a gun to a craft show? Do you do it because its your right? Why the need? To you go to church because its your constitutional right? Do you publish a paper because its your right? Do you stand on the street corner yelling conspiracy theories? Do you vote just because you can? If you do any of these, Im sure you have a reason, not just because you can. So why the need to carry at a craft show?


Need doesn't enter into the discussion when it's a right. Rights are not justified by needs.

thamike: No, I understand that it's under review. But, since I'm not an asshole, if I walked into an arts and crafts show (of all things)and they told me to stow my weapon, I would. It's called courtesy.

/unless I was going to stick the place up, in which case I would just be a different kind of asshole.


If I was carrying concealed I'd probably then ask for my fare back and leave. Depends on the situation - if I really wanted something I might comply. Then again, other circumstances might make me not comply - not in a dickish way, mind you. The kind of manner that politely states that they've no legal right whatsoever, that this is public property, and if they'd like I'll happily and quietly wait right there while they get an officer to make a determination. Now, if the officer says I've got to leave then I will (unless I'm looking to make a case like Heller or McDonald.

I literally see this as no different than free speech. I'm not saying be an asshole, but I absolutely support not having the right infringed.
 
2010-08-08 06:23:55 PM  

ronaprhys: Actually, you can't prove the private property point. That legal point has not been decided. In fact, the city openly admits that they've got to research it.


Dude, do you HONESTLY think this is the first time this issue has come up? Really?
 
2010-08-08 06:24:08 PM  

thamike: Salt Lick Steady: You... don't get it. Are you unfamiliar with the first amendment right of assembly? Are you sure a permit is necessary for a parade on a public sidewalk or park?

I somehow doubt it.

I am aware, actually. You need a permit. It usually doesn't cost anything (unless you're a movie studio), but yes you need a permit in most cases. You think Macy's Day or St. Patrick's Day happens on the fly? Do you think the police keep the Westboro Baptist Church people from getting torn limb from limb because it's their hobby?


Sometimes for a larger gathering a permit can be constitutionally required. It doesn't mean people can be banned from 'getting in' as you said. And for most gatherings, a permit is generally an unconstitutional barrier to the right of assembly and speech.
 
2010-08-08 06:24:15 PM  
I'm with Bermuda59. Gonna carry a big hammer around with me.

It'll go great with my winged helmet, greaves, and breastplate with six big white dots on it.

PS: B59 -- St. David's? I know some folks with your last name on that island.
 
2010-08-08 06:25:16 PM  

Salt Lick Steady: "Speech cannot be financially burdened, any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob...." (new window)

I'll leave this for you, thamike


Yeah, that's about using fees as censorship. What of it?
 
2010-08-08 06:25:28 PM  
I've been to concerts where they wouldn't allow bottles or cameras. Should I have held a national protest or realized that these rules are at the discretion of the people holding the event and just shut up and enjoy the concert?
 
2010-08-08 06:26:35 PM  

thamike: And as far as constitutionality goes, free assembly is protected by the constitution if it is peaceable. Brandishing firearms is questionable.


"Brandishing" has a specific legal connotation that's not at issue here. And there is nothing about carrying a weapon that is inherently "unpeaceable."
 
2010-08-08 06:27:26 PM  

FuturePastNow: Because these people think you need a gun everywhere. They're not sane.


It's difficult to say exactly where you will need a weapon I agree. To say that there is NO need for a weapon at a street fair is not exactly correct though. There was a murder of a young child (7-9 years old) at a 1980's street fair in Middletown CT. The murderer legally purchased a knife from a vendor and within moments plunged it into the chest of a nearby child that was standing with her mom. A police officer was less than 20 feet away.

I remember that the murderer was from the local mental hospital and all that but I can't remember the outcome of the trial if there was one.
I was living about three blocks away at the time.

As a rule, my family and I won't attend this type of thing until all of us are able to fend for themselves. When we need to go to the mall I let my significant other and children walk ahead a few feet and I trail and watch the crowd.
The Middletown murder affected me that much. I never want to be that parent - ever.
 
2010-08-08 06:27:33 PM  

ronaprhys: If I was carrying concealed I'd probably then ask for my fare back and leave.


Then you aren't one of the assholes I'm talking about. We'll leave it at that, yes?
 
2010-08-08 06:28:07 PM  

thamike: Salt Lick Steady: "Speech cannot be financially burdened, any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob...." (new window)

I'll leave this for you, thamike

Yeah, that's about using fees as censorship. What of it?


farking reading skills, how do they work?

Listen, ass, I know you didn't attempt to read that article in three minutes or attempt to divine from where I'm coming, so just shut the fark up about matters you know nothing of.
 
2010-08-08 06:28:52 PM  

thamike: Should has nothing to do with it. You can't if they say you can't. If you have a problem with this you have too much time on your hands and pay way too much attention to your firearm.


That's simply not true. You've not proven this in any way and you keep repeating it. Bad form. Demonstrate where this right to prohibit firearms exists. Not a general argument, but a specific quote from the article or a similar article on the same subject that comes from the city saying that your view is correct.

thamike: And as far as constitutionality goes, free assembly is protected by the constitution if it is peaceable. Brandishing firearms is questionable.


Whoa there. You've been reasonable to this point, why start the wharbbblegrbbl now? No one is talking about brandishing. Concealed carrying doesn't equate to brandishing. If you keep up this sort of argument you're literally becoming a lying douchebag and a troll.

Satanic_Hamster: You think a bunch of gutless city officials gives a shiat about this? They're caught between two desires; renting out the property to a group they don't want to bully or piss off because it brings tourism and money into their coffers and dealing with a bunch of whiney loud mouths who are implicitly threatening to sue.


Doesn't matter one way or the other. The point is that it's not legally decided whether or not the organizers can ban those with legal CCW permits from carrying concealed. All of your stuff above doesn't touch on that.
 
2010-08-08 06:28:56 PM  
Subby ... why would you need a gun at a craft fair in the first place? ...

The whole point of concealed carry is, you really don't know when or where you'll need your firearm. Don't leave home without it.
 
2010-08-08 06:29:27 PM  

John Buck 41: I like guns and have a giant cock, so there.


Do you charge people $5 to see it?
 
2010-08-08 06:29:42 PM  

ronaprhys: Since when did it become your right to determine where they can practice rights specifically enumerated in the Constitution (not granted by it, though)? I'm not saying I'd feel the need, but what good reason do you have to prevent someone who's had a full background check and registered themselves with the government from carrying a firearm? Hell, even the city themselves aren't sure whether or not this ban is legal.


You're missing my point, and probably intentionally so.

I'm not arguing anyone's right to carry a gun. You can carry ten guns if it makes you feel better. It matters not to me.

However, a craft fair in one of the safest suburbs of Detroit? This is where these people choose to fight the battle for gun rights? The one place where actually needing a gun is the remotest of possibilities?

There's a reason these particular guys are living in Royal Oak and not Highland Park. In Highland Park they might actually have to shoot somebody. They can't just carry their guns and feel all smug and manly about it, they might actually have to use the damn thing. If they really felt having a gun was making them safe from crime, they'd go live and shop in high crime areas. After all, they have a gun to protect them, right? No, they go to Royal Oak where the likelyhood of actually having to use a gun is remote, then they whine because they can't carry at a damn craft fair for chrissakes.

/rant off
 
2010-08-08 06:30:17 PM  

Salt Lick Steady: "Brandishing" has a specific legal connotation that's not at issue here. And there is nothing about carrying a weapon that is inherently "unpeaceable."


Yeah, you're right. I misused the term. But I do believe that if my firearm was making people uncomfortable, I would stow it, unless I thought I needed it. That's all my main point was. People who make people uncomfortable by carrying a deadly weapon, and insist on turning it into a big f*cking deal are assholes, in my book. And they give rational gun owners, carriers, and collectors a stigma that they don't deserve.
 
2010-08-08 06:32:04 PM  

thamike: Then you aren't one of the assholes I'm talking about. We'll leave it at that, yes?


We can leave this particular point at that, yes. There are other unresolved ones, though.

Satanic_Hamster: Dude, do you HONESTLY think this is the first time this issue has come up? Really?


It may be. With the SCOTUS knocking down unConstitutional laws left and right (see Heller and McDonald, this may be the first time it's come up.

However, what relevance does that have. If it wasn't, don't you think the city would point that out?
 
2010-08-08 06:32:06 PM  
I know if I see another pottery soap dispenser I'd want to shoot somebody.
 
2010-08-08 06:33:01 PM  

Dr. Nick Riviera: Guairdean: Criminals notice the places where firearms are prohibited. These are called "Mugger Safe Zones". After all, the muggers are perfectly safe.

How would you know? Do you see a lot of criminals while peering out your basement window?


Criminals are always safe when honest people have been disarmed. You panicky hoplophobes (Look it up) (new window) always seem to miss this simple fact.
 
2010-08-08 06:33:16 PM  

ronaprhys: Doesn't matter one way or the other. The point is that it's not legally decided whether or not the organizers can ban those with legal CCW permits from carrying concealed. All of your stuff above doesn't touch on that.


Again, the city can't outlaw state ccl's in the part while the part is a *public* park. As soon as it is rented out to an event, it's no longer a public park. It's not open to the part. It's only open to people who the renters want to enter.

And *they* are the ones who can prohibit weapons in the park for the duration they control access to it.

Again, ron. This is NOT the first time or place this has come up.
 
2010-08-08 06:33:48 PM  
That building isn't on fire, why would you want fire extinguishers?
 
2010-08-08 06:34:41 PM  

Salt Lick Steady: farking reading skills, how do they work?

Listen, ass, I know you didn't attempt to read that article in three minutes or attempt to divine from where I'm coming, so just shut the fark up about matters you know nothing of.


I read it. It ruled that having broad, varying fees on different public assemblies was unconstitutional because it was at the city's discretion what the fee amount would be and that inevitably results in a form of censorship. Why don't you tell me what your point is instead of acting like a twat?
 
2010-08-08 06:35:13 PM  
in this post: everything I normally say in gun threads.
 
2010-08-08 06:35:54 PM  
Anyone who thinks they have a legal right to carry a firearm into any "public place" whatsoever should try taking one into their local criminal courts. They will shortly find that the law is, indeed, quite well settled on these matters.
The rights conferred by the second amendment are conditional, and not absolute - and the same applies to all rights.
The first amendment does not confer a global freedom of speech. There are things you cannot say, and times and places you cannot say them. And the same applies to the second.
There are no absolute and unconditional rights.
 
2010-08-08 06:37:48 PM  

CruiserTwelve: You're missing my point, and probably intentionally so.

I'm not arguing anyone's right to carry a gun. You can carry ten guns if it makes you feel better. It matters not to me.

However, a craft fair in one of the safest suburbs of Detroit? This is where these people choose to fight the battle for gun rights? The one place where actually needing a gun is the remotest of possibilities?

There's a reason these particular guys are living in Royal Oak and not Highland Park. In Highland Park they might actually have to shoot somebody. They can't just carry their guns and feel all smug and manly about it, they might actually have to use the damn thing. If they really felt having a gun was making them safe from crime, they'd go live and shop in high crime areas. After all, they have a gun to protect them, right? No, they go to Royal Oak where the likelyhood of actually having to use a gun is remote, then they whine because they can't carry at a damn craft fair for chrissakes.

/rant off


No - I see your point. It's based on need vs right. I don't say that I see any particular need to carry at a craft fair because the chance of fire is minimal. But, then again, I have a fire extinguisher at home, too. While I've not bolted one in my Xterra yet, I absolutely will be doing so. It's incredibly unlikely that I'll ever need either, but it's still my right to do so.

Same thing here - maybe I normally carry concealed and decide, randomly, to attend the fair. How would anyone even know I'm carrying? If so, why should it be an issue? Stowing it could be even more problematic as cars are broken into at events like this all the time. If I got the gate and had to go back and stow, it's now become more likely that someone could see me stowing and decide to steal the weapon (I'd know, I'd report it, etc., but damn if that's not a hassle that I don't need).

I just can't see any good reason that anyone should be prohibited - especially not if they've got a CCW. The only reason I've seen here is that artsy types are afraid of them. And honestly, that's not sufficient.

So, I ask you directly - who would I be harming if I were carrying concealed?
 
2010-08-08 06:38:35 PM  

jso2897: Anyone who thinks they have a legal right to carry a firearm into any "public place" whatsoever should try taking one into their local criminal courts.


Or the Holocaust Museum.
 
2010-08-08 06:38:45 PM  

ra-ra-raw: What a craft fair gun may look like:


Awesome...

Man w/ the golden gun anyone?

/nick nack
 
2010-08-08 06:39:35 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Again, the city can't outlaw state ccl's in the part while the part is a *public* park. As soon as it is rented out to an event, it's no longer a public park. It's not open to the part. It's only open to people who the renters want to enter.

And *they* are the ones who can prohibit weapons in the park for the duration they control access to it.

Again, ron. This is NOT the first time or place this has come up.



Show me the other times it's come up.

Secondly, you cannot say the city can ban firearms at this particular event because not even the city can say that. It's right there in the article. Plain and simple.
 
2010-08-08 06:39:57 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Are you farking kidding me? Subby, there's very little difference between an arts and crafts festival and an armory. I tell you what. Go to one, if you dare, and look around. You're going to be surrounded by knives, needles (knitting needles, by the way, which I could use as skewers to cook you), scissors, hammers. In some cases, saws and various other implements of cutting, hewing, and scorching. There will be fire. There will be glass. There will be bottles and planks of wood and perhaps even a shillelagh or two. These events are veritable powder kegs waiting to go off, always teetering on the knife's edge between civil, harmless entertainments and a bloodbath. Maybe you're willing to stroll through this potential warzone cloaked only in the clothes on your back and a blissful naivete, but I'm not. I'm not.


Lay a hand on my yarn and I WILL garrote you with my circular knitting needles.
 
2010-08-08 06:41:02 PM  

Marcintosh: There was a murder of a young child (7-9 years old) at a 1980's street fair in Middletown CT. The murderer legally purchased a knife from a vendor and within moments plunged it into the chest of a nearby child that was standing with her mom. A police officer was less than 20 feet away.


So this murder took place while a guy with a gun was twenty feet away, but yet you think you need a gun to protect yourself from such a thing. I don't get it.
 
2010-08-08 06:41:34 PM  

ronaprhys: So, I ask you directly - who would I be harming if I were carrying concealed?


Nobody, unless you shot someone, which I am imagining isn't your intention. Or unless people didn't want some guy with a gun around them. Either way, only a complete dick would have tried to turn this into a legal extravaganza.
 
2010-08-08 06:42:41 PM  
Speech cannot be financially burdened any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob

Jesus. Who's the twat?
 
2010-08-08 06:43:25 PM  

Guairdean: You panicky hoplophobes (Look it up)


Your link says this:

True medical phobias of firearms and other weapons can exist, but are unusual.

The term hoplophobe has been used to encourage constituent letter writing and to raise funds by at least one gun rights advocacy group. They have employed the term hoplophobe to characterize their opponents as outrageous fear-mongerers, and as being irrationally fearful.


So you are saying that although the condition you are pointing out does not actually exist you are going to insist that people you oppose are being irrationally fearful even though they are not because you provide a wiki link you hope they won't read.

Nothing like the smell of hypocrisy on a sunday afternoon.
 
2010-08-08 06:43:47 PM  

ronaprhys: Show me the other times it's come up.


Yes, it is a pretty obscure issue (new window).
 
2010-08-08 06:44:00 PM  

ronaprhys: So, I ask you directly - who would I be harming if I were carrying concealed?


Nobody. Like I said, I have no issue with you carrying anywhere you like. I'm just puzzled that these guys would choose a craft fair for their battleground on the issue.
 
2010-08-08 06:44:43 PM  

Salt Lick Steady: Speech cannot be financially burdened any more than it can be punished or banned, simply because it might offend a hostile mob

Jesus. Who's the twat?


Are you drunk?
 
2010-08-08 06:47:21 PM  

CruiserTwelve: So this murder took place while a guy with a gun was twenty feet away, but yet you think you need a gun to protect yourself from such a thing. I don't get it.


Because it's quite possible that a family member who carries concealed might pay more attention to their family members than a cop who's likely out of eyesight, surrounded by hundreds of people, and might not even be able to hear or locate the source of the yelling in time to stop the crime.

Yes - I can definitely see how you've got this right.

thamike: Nobody, unless you shot someone, which I am imagining isn't your intention. Or unless people didn't want some guy with a gun around them. Either way, only a complete dick would have tried to turn this into a legal extravaganza.


Yeah - of all the events I'm not sure why they'd pick this one. However, if they prove their point and it's clearly demonstrated that CCW holders can't be legally barred, that's a huge win across the state (and potentially the country). Maybe they picked this one simply because they know it's the weakest possible case out there to attack?

However, if open and/or concealed carry are allowed in a state, I don't see any good reason to ban it at an event like this. It's an unreasonable position with no real reason to prevent legal carry.
 
2010-08-08 06:48:04 PM  

Guairdean: Criminals are always safe when honest people have been disarmed. You panicky hoplophobes (Look it up) (new window) always seem to miss this simple fact.


Wow, I'm so impressed you read an NRA newsletter. Why are gun nuts always panicky hicks whose knowledge of criminals comes primarily from 80's action movies and Law & Order reruns?
 
2010-08-08 06:49:39 PM  

ronaprhys: Which is a great argument on private property. This is not private property. This is public property where it's legal to carry concealed every other day of the year. What makes these days special?


Perhaps I should have said "property that I have jurisdiction over, for as long as I have jurisdiction over it." This would include property that I rent, be it from a private citizen or the government.

ronaprhys: No - they are different. At a fair like this anyone who pays the admission fee has to be admitted. At a wedding, that's completely different. One has to be invited.


That is not even a little bit true. Upon paying the admission fee, and upon agreement of certain terms and conditions, you are admitted. If you at any time fail to live up to your end of those terms and conditions, then your admission, "invitation" if you will, can be immediately revoked without recourse. You walk in, slam back six beers and start being obnoxous/violent/etc., the organizers can run you. Concert events at municipal venues across the country have dress codes that must be adhered to, and admission is routinely denied for people who do not meet these arbitrary regulations. Even if they bought a ticket in advance.

If one of those regulations is "no guns," then no guns. You can always carry you gun somewhere else.

At the risk of reducto ad absurdum, does a person who lives in public housing have the right to prevent people from bringing firearms into his home?
 
2010-08-08 06:52:14 PM  

thamike: Yes, it is a pretty obscure issue (new window).


We're talking specifically about whether or not an organizer can ban firearms for their event when it'd legally be allowed at all other times, not whether or firearms-related cases have come up.

Unless you were attempting to support my point by showing that it's not come up before. If so, I retract my point.

CruiserTwelve: Nobody. Like I said, I have no issue with you carrying anywhere you like. I'm just puzzled that these guys would choose a craft fair for their battleground on the issue.


Seems that you're arguing they shouldn't be allowed to carry at the Fair.
 
2010-08-08 06:56:25 PM  

CruiserTwelve: ronaprhys: So, I ask you directly - who would I be harming if I were carrying concealed?

Nobody. Like I said, I have no issue with you carrying anywhere you like. I'm just puzzled that these guys would choose a craft fair for their battleground on the issue.


Well, I guess that's their privilege. reading TFA, it sounds like this really hinges on what the city decides. They are empowered to place any limitations they wish on the conditions under which they rent to Eats 'n Beats - or not. But if they decide that Eats 'n Beats can make that restriction during the time that they have legal possession of the venue, there's really no Constitutional issue. One of the gun enthusiasts did pointedly say that they are not planning any legal action, which indicates to me that they are aware of the legal situation - they seem to just want a clear enunciation of how the law will be applied. Which, I guess, is reasonable. I never criticize people for wanting what they want, as long as they are reasonable about accepting that they can't always have it.
 
2010-08-08 06:57:15 PM  

CommiePuddin: Perhaps I should have said "property that I have jurisdiction over, for as long as I have jurisdiction over it." This would include property that I rent, be it from a private citizen or the government.


That would be better, but as a legal issue that's not decided.

That is not even a little bit true. Upon paying the admission fee, and upon agreement of certain terms and conditions, you are admitted. If you at any time fail to live up to your end of those terms and conditions, then your admission, "invitation" if you will, can be immediately revoked without recourse. You walk in, slam back six beers and start being obnoxous/violent/etc., the organizers can run you. Concert events at municipal venues across the country have dress codes that must be adhered to, and admission is routinely denied for people who do not meet these arbitrary regulations. Even if they bought a ticket in advance.

If one of those regulations is "no guns," then no guns. You can always carry you gun somewhere else.

At the risk of reducto ad absurdum, does a person who lives in public housing have the right to prevent people from bringing firearms into his home?


No - a wedding is a private event whereas a street fair is a public event. These are two distinct things. Where the events are occurring is irrelevant. I can legally restrict anyone I like at a wedding - anyone at all for any reason. I cannot refuse fare to anyone I like at a public event. I can refuse fare to those who are actively being disruptive or are actively breaking the law, but I can't stop anyone else.

As for the public housing, seriously? That's recognized as their domicile. Totally different than a public street fair.

The simple fact here is that, legally, it's an open question as to whether or not they can ban firearms at the fair. This is not in question - the matter has not been decided. As such, the appropriate question is should they be allowed, and if so, what reasoning can be given to support an overwhelming need to prevent legal carry at a public event.
 
2010-08-08 07:02:43 PM  
Ron, again, for the love farking god. Do you HONESTLY farking think this is the only festival on public land that bans fire arms? This is NOT the first time this has come up.

The private party running the event can ban SHOES if they feel like it, much less guns.
 
2010-08-08 07:03:41 PM  
"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State."

~Heinrich Himmler
 
2010-08-08 07:04:08 PM  

ronaprhys:

Actually, you can't prove the private property point. That legal point has not been decided. In fact, the city openly admits that they've got to research it.

misanthropic1: The legality of banning firearms on private property is ironclad; the issue here is if the terms of the rental constitutes private property for intensive purposes, it would seem to me. I'm sure the local government can interpret either way. It seems it would make more sense to side with the festival organizers IMHO, but it's not our call, ostensibly.

I agree with you on private property. Absolutely the landowner's choice. No argument.

On public property, however, that's completely different. I disagree that they should side with the organizers here, though. No need has been demonstrated that shows there's any negative impacts. Hell, it's probably more dangerous to allow senior citizens to drive near there as they seem to have problems with farmer's markets and the like.

thamike: Not if it's on "public land" which is what we are talking about. Apt comparison. Just because it is public land doesn't mean a privately owned group that rents the space can't call the shots.

No - they are different. At a fair like this anyone who pays the admission fee has to be admitted. At a wedding, that's completely different. One has to be invited.

Who cares if you have to pay? That's not even an issue here. Speaking of bad comparisons, let's take your parade. It closes down the street, right? Film and television shoots also close down the street. You don't have to pay to get in, they just won't let you. They have a PERMIT. Try walking into one of those unannounced carrying a piece. Same goes for parades.

Why shouldn't you be able to carry at a public event? If there's no law that prohibits carrying during normal times, it's unlikely that a law will prohibit viewing the parade while carrying concealed.


The organizers of this event require people entering the grounds to buy tickets at $3.00 per.

According to the First Amendment, I have the right to stand on a soap box and call Barack Obama every name in the book, but if I buy a ticket--which is a contract, if you think about it--to an event, on which it is printed that I am not allowed to talk politics there, the organizers have every right to throw me out if I start to do so, because by buying the ticket I have implicitly agreed to all the terms printed on it.

I think that organizers would therefore legally have a right to require me temporarily to give up my second amendment rights at an event, too, if they they made it clear beforehand that by buying a ticket I implicitly agreed to do so.
 
2010-08-08 07:04:37 PM  
Just a couple of points to ponder (or not):

1. In some states, jurisdiction matters. If the state has a law setting state law supreme on the matter of firearms (such as in Nebraska), the city may not be able to enter into an agreement to disallow firearms at a public venue. The Nebraska CHP law goes as far as to say that ANY local ordinances pertaining to firearms is NULL AND VOID as applied to the holder of a state issued CHP. Since the venue is only privatized temporarily by an ordinance of the city, and the city cannot enforce a "no guns" ordinance on a CHP holder, this would probably not be an issue in a state with laws like Nebraska. It would be interesting to see how this particular state's laws read.

2. As a CHP holder, nobody should know that I am carrying a firearm anyway, so why make a big fuss over it. If your really think you have the right to do something, do it and STFU about it.

/ Big dick and small pistol.
// Keep both concealed lest people panic.
 
2010-08-08 07:06:10 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: Ron, again, for the love farking god. Do you HONESTLY farking think this is the only festival on public land that bans fire arms? This is NOT the first time this has come up.

The private party running the event can ban SHOES if they feel like it, much less guns.


Unless you can prove this, it doesn't matter. It may have come up other times, but unless you can demonstrate that and the specific bearing on this instance, you've got nothing. It seems to me that the city itself is saying they're not sure whether or not they can ban firearms at a public event.

Make no mistake - this is a public event, not a private party. The two are different. Quit arguing that they aren't because, simply put, you're wrong.
 
2010-08-08 07:07:33 PM  

ronaprhys: Unless you can prove this, it doesn't matter. It may have come up other times, but unless you can demonstrate that and the specific bearing on this instance, you've got nothing. It seems to me that the city itself is saying they're not sure whether or not they can ban firearms at a public event.

Make no mistake - this is a public event, not a private party. The two are different. Quit arguing that they aren't because, simply put, you're wrong.


If they require money to get it, it's NOT a public event.
 
2010-08-08 07:07:53 PM  

ra-ra-raw: Guairdean: You panicky hoplophobes (Look it up)

Your link says this:

True medical phobias of firearms and other weapons can exist, but are unusual.

The term hoplophobe has been used to encourage constituent letter writing and to raise funds by at least one gun rights advocacy group. They have employed the term hoplophobe to characterize their opponents as outrageous fear-mongerers, and as being irrationally fearful.

So you are saying that although the condition you are pointing out does not actually exist you are going to insist that people you oppose are being irrationally fearful even though they are not because you provide a wiki link you hope they won't read.

Nothing like the smell of hypocrisy on a sunday afternoon.


A misread and improper link on my part. Do a little more looking around, you'll find better references.
 
2010-08-08 07:10:51 PM  

tirob: The organizers of this event require people entering the grounds to buy tickets at $3.00 per.


If that's the amount, okay. It has no bearing on the issue at hand, though. It's a public event, not a private event. As such, it's open to anyone who pays admission.

According to the First Amendment, I have the right to stand on a soap box and call Barack Obama every name in the book, but if I buy a ticket--which is a contract, if you think about it--to an event, on which it is printed that I am not allowed to talk politics there, the organizers have every right to throw me out if I start to do so, because by buying the ticket I have implicitly agreed to all the terms printed on it.

And here's where you've got it wrong. Bringing out the soap box is a disruption. You do not have the right to disrupt an organized event, public or private. Carrying concealed in no way causes any disruption. The two are not equivalent.

I think that organizers would therefore legally have a right to require me temporarily to give up my second amendment rights at an event, too, if they they made it clear beforehand that by buying a ticket I implicitly agreed to do so.

You may think that - but in many states you'd be wrong. Michigan may, in fact, be one of those states. It's a public event on public property. Banning a right that causes no disruption? On what grounds? Why do they need to ban those who are legally licensed to carry firearms from having them? Or what need exists to prohibit legal carrying?
 
2010-08-08 07:11:28 PM  

I'm The Foot Farking Master: "Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State."

~Heinrich Himmler


Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
 
2010-08-08 07:11:38 PM  

Satanic_Hamster:
If they require money to get it, it's NOT a public event.


This is the only post in the thread I need to read to know there is a bunch of idiot armchair lawyers spouting off.
 
2010-08-08 07:11:41 PM  
You don't have to have a "need" to excercise a right.

I just thought you ladies might want to know that.
 
2010-08-08 07:13:03 PM  

Bermuda59: We have gun owners out here in CA who like to go around public with their guns on display. They say it's safe as their weapons are unloaded and they say that they don't even have ammo with them.


This is done by the lower end of the spectrum, they obsessively worship Rush, Beck and Hannity and for them the only way to "make their voices heard" is to be Narcissistic d!cks about it! Where I live in Cali if someone has a gun it's loaded and you won't see it unless you are doing evil. These guys are no different than the morons who showed up with ARs at Obamas Phoenix appearance.

Just because you can in many case is not a good reason, and in many instances will turn the very people you are trying to recruit to your cause against you Such as in this case.
 
2010-08-08 07:13:31 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: If they require money to get it, it's NOT a public event.


You do realize you're wrong, don't you? A public event is one that's open to anyone. There may be a fee, there may not. A private event is, by definition, exclusionary. There may still be fees, but just because you pay the fee (or can pay the fee) does not mean you'll be granted admittance. Two separate things.
 
2010-08-08 07:17:38 PM  

ronaprhys: Satanic_Hamster: If they require money to get it, it's NOT a public event.

You do realize you're wrong, don't you? A public event is one that's open to anyone. There may be a fee, there may not. A private event is, by definition, exclusionary. There may still be fees, but just because you pay the fee (or can pay the fee) does not mean you'll be granted admittance. Two separate things.


It IS exclusionary, numbnuts. It excludes anyone without four damn dollars to get it or anyone not agreeing to play by the rules of the event runners.

Open TO the public is NOT the same thing as a public event.
 
2010-08-08 07:18:06 PM  
Yay, gun control flamewar!

I'm a gun owner but have never carried in public and don't even own a pistol yet. But I support the right of others to do so if they choose. They should be able to carry wherever they want as long as it is legal and it sounds like they are pursuing a legitimate issue here. The event is on a public street, but is fenced off with an entrance fee. Does that mean they can make their own rules, or do basic constitutional rights still apply? I honestly don't know and think the courts should decided.

But the question "Why carry at an arts and crafts fair?" is stupid. Sure, you probably don't need it there, just like you probably don't need it most other places. But if you want to have it and can do so LEGALLY and RESPONSIBLY, there is no reason to deny that right.

Or are "free speech zones" ok because you can always go someplace else to speak? If you want to support the constitution you should support all of it, not just the rights you like. (this goes both ways, I support the 2nd and am an ACLU member, fark those tards going after the 14th)
 
2010-08-08 07:19:10 PM  
You don't have to have a "reason" to excercise a right.

I just thought you ladies might want to know that, too.
 
2010-08-08 07:21:44 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: It IS exclusionary, numbnuts. It excludes anyone without four damn dollars to get it or anyone not agreeing to play by the rules of the event runners.

Open TO the public is NOT the same thing as a public event.


Wrong. They cannot turn down anyone unless it's for lack of payment. At a private event, I can turn down anyone I want regardless of ability to pay. You can say it as many times as you want, but you're wrong. If you think I'm wrong - prove it. Find a legal definition that states a street fair the requires an admission fair is a private event. Go ahead. Find a link.
 
2010-08-08 07:26:07 PM  

feckingmorons: CruiserTwelve: Why should anyone fear a guy that wears military fatigues and openly carries a gun to a city council meeting? Sounds like a perfectly sane person to me.

Me too. There is a place near me where people wear military fatigues all the time. They carry guns all the time too. What is wrong with those people on the base?

Why are you afraid of guns?


Me personally, I'm not afraid of guns, but there is a big difference between people trained to use guns (cops, the guys in the fatigues on base)and the members of SEAL team Fark looking to be a hero. That's what I'm afraid of, the guy who looks for potential threats/chances to be a hero every time somebody reaches into a coat pocket to grab their cell phone. Because those knuckleheads don't have the training to make good split second decisions/ not accidentally shoot me.

You want to carry a gun anywhere, I want to know you have the good sense to keep the thing holstered, and the skill to not miss your intended target if you do decide to whip it out.
 
2010-08-08 07:30:12 PM  

buwolverine: Me personally, I'm not afraid of guns, but there is a big difference between people trained to use guns (cops, the guys in the fatigues on base)and the members of SEAL team Fark looking to be a hero. That's what I'm afraid of, the guy who looks for potential threats/chances to be a hero every time somebody reaches into a coat pocket to grab their cell phone. Because those knuckleheads don't have the training to make good split second decisions/ not accidentally shoot me.

You want to carry a gun anywhere, I want to know you have the good sense to keep the thing holstered, and the skill to not miss your intended target if you do decide to whip it out.


Most folks who go through all the effort of getting a license to carry concealed are actually good shots, conscientious citizens, law-abiding, etc. In fact, they tend to be the types that practice marksmanship regularly. Simply put, these aren't the folks that break the law nor in any way match your description.
 
2010-08-08 07:30:16 PM  

buwolverine: feckingmorons: CruiserTwelve: Why should anyone fear a guy that wears military fatigues and openly carries a gun to a city council meeting? Sounds like a perfectly sane person to me.

Me too. There is a place near me where people wear military fatigues all the time. They carry guns all the time too. What is wrong with those people on the base?

Why are you afraid of guns?

Me personally, I'm not afraid of guns, but there is a big difference between people trained to use guns (cops, the guys in the fatigues on base)and the members of SEAL team Fark looking to be a hero. That's what I'm afraid of, the guy who looks for potential threats/chances to be a hero every time somebody reaches into a coat pocket to grab their cell phone. Because those knuckleheads don't have the training to make good split second decisions/ not accidentally shoot me.

You want to carry a gun anywhere, I want to know you have the good sense to keep the thing holstered, and the skill to not miss your intended target if you do decide to whip it out.


When you excercise your freedom of speech I'd like the same assurances that nothing stupid is going to fall out of your mouth.
 
2010-08-08 07:30:22 PM  

buwolverine: feckingmorons: CruiserTwelve: Why should anyone fear a guy that wears military fatigues and openly carries a gun to a city council meeting? Sounds like a perfectly sane person to me.

Me too. There is a place near me where people wear military fatigues all the time. They carry guns all the time too. What is wrong with those people on the base?

Why are you afraid of guns?

Me personally, I'm not afraid of guns, but there is a big difference between people trained to use guns (cops, the guys in the fatigues on base)and the members of SEAL team Fark looking to be a hero. That's what I'm afraid of, the guy who looks for potential threats/chances to be a hero every time somebody reaches into a coat pocket to grab their cell phone. Because those knuckleheads don't have the training to make good split second decisions/ not accidentally shoot me.

You want to carry a gun anywhere, I want to know you have the good sense to keep the thing holstered, and the skill to not miss your intended target if you do decide to whip it out.


There's trained to use guns, and trained to use guns proficiently. Most cops fall into the former category.

Sleep tight.
 
2010-08-08 07:32:39 PM  

Dr. Nick Riviera: Guairdean: Criminals are always safe when honest people have been disarmed. You panicky hoplophobes (Look it up) (new window) always seem to miss this simple fact.

Wow, I'm so impressed you read an NRA newsletter. Why are gun nuts always panicky hicks whose knowledge of criminals comes primarily from 80's action movies and Law & Order reruns?


My knowledge of criminals comes from a far more definitive source than movies and TV. It comes from contact with the real thing. As for reading NRA pamphlets, I've read articles on both sides of the argument. That's one reason I've been a life member of the NRA since (quite probably) before you were born. I've taught two daughters and two grandsons how to safely handle firearms, how to use them properly, and the consequences of using them. You've been taught to fear a tool, I was taught to learn it's proper use and to respect it.
 
2010-08-08 07:33:35 PM  

ronaprhys: buwolverine: Me personally, I'm not afraid of guns, but there is a big difference between people trained to use guns (cops, the guys in the fatigues on base)and the members of SEAL team Fark looking to be a hero. That's what I'm afraid of, the guy who looks for potential threats/chances to be a hero every time somebody reaches into a coat pocket to grab their cell phone. Because those knuckleheads don't have the training to make good split second decisions/ not accidentally shoot me.

You want to carry a gun anywhere, I want to know you have the good sense to keep the thing holstered, and the skill to not miss your intended target if you do decide to whip it out.

Most folks who go through all the effort of getting a license to carry concealed are actually good shots, conscientious citizens, law-abiding, etc. In fact, they tend to be the types that practice marksmanship regularly. Simply put, these aren't the folks that break the law nor in any way match your description.


sounds like delusions of grandeur to me. Every numbskull who owns a gun thinks they are the greatest marksman on the farking planet.
 
2010-08-08 07:36:40 PM  

Jakevol2: sounds like delusions of grandeur to me. Every numbskull who owns a gun thinks they are the greatest marksman on the farking planet.


Been wondering when you were going to start trolling. Try harder. Maybe you'll get actual bites.
 
2010-08-08 07:39:25 PM  

ronaprhys: Jakevol2: sounds like delusions of grandeur to me. Every numbskull who owns a gun thinks they are the greatest marksman on the farking planet.

Been wondering when you were going to start trolling. Try harder. Maybe you'll get actual bites.


no, really, every knucklehead who loves their guns on Fark comes in here touting their expertise with firearms, I am saying law of averages determines that to be impossible. I am also saying that if you brag about your prowess as a marksman than you probably couldn't hit the broadside of a farking mountain. And no I don't want those type of people anywhere near a firearm.
 
2010-08-08 07:43:38 PM  

Jakevol2: ronaprhys: Jakevol2: sounds like delusions of grandeur to me. Every numbskull who owns a gun thinks they are the greatest marksman on the farking planet.

Been wondering when you were going to start trolling. Try harder. Maybe you'll get actual bites.

no, really, every knucklehead who loves their guns on Fark comes in here touting their expertise with firearms, I am saying law of averages determines that to be impossible. I am also saying that if you brag about your prowess as a marksman than you probably couldn't hit the broadside of a farking mountain. And no I don't want those type of people anywhere near a firearm.


Try harder. You don't have enough in there and it's too plainly obvious that you're trolling. You can't contradict yourself within three posts and expect anyone to take you seriously.

And that position that you're taking? Obvious troll. You need to tone it down a bit. Your second position is a bit closer to a workable troll, but still not there.
 
2010-08-08 07:44:30 PM  
Where's the gun porn?
 
2010-08-08 07:47:51 PM  

ronaprhys: Jakevol2: ronaprhys: Jakevol2: sounds like delusions of grandeur to me. Every numbskull who owns a gun thinks they are the greatest marksman on the farking planet.

Been wondering when you were going to start trolling. Try harder. Maybe you'll get actual bites.

no, really, every knucklehead who loves their guns on Fark comes in here touting their expertise with firearms, I am saying law of averages determines that to be impossible. I am also saying that if you brag about your prowess as a marksman than you probably couldn't hit the broadside of a farking mountain. And no I don't want those type of people anywhere near a firearm.

Try harder. You don't have enough in there and it's too plainly obvious that you're trolling. You can't contradict yourself within three posts and expect anyone to take you seriously.

And that position that you're taking? Obvious troll. You need to tone it down a bit. Your second position is a bit closer to a workable troll, but still not there.


if that is external rationalization you want to take then that's your problem not mine. I have never met a gun owner that has a coherent thought in their head, and seriously doubt I ever will. Think about this, if guns were banned today, my life would go on as if nothing had happened, you would go apeshiat.
 
2010-08-08 07:49:49 PM  

Jakevol2: if that is external rationalization you want to take then that's your problem not mine. I have never met a gun owner that has a coherent thought in their head, and seriously doubt I ever will. Think about this, if guns were banned today, my life would go on as if nothing had happened, you would go apeshiat.


Still an obvious troll. I'm done with you.
 
2010-08-08 07:51:16 PM  
Why would you "need" to wear underwear at a craft fair? Why would you "need" to wear earrings at a craft fair? Why would you "need" your sunglasses? Why would you "need" that emery board you always carry in your purse? Why would you "need" your lipstick? Why would you "need" to take every credit card in your wallet? Why not leave some of them at home? Do you really NEED all of that stuff?

You stuff-nuts really freak me out with this NEED you have to feel secure by carrying around nail files and wearing underwear.
 
2010-08-08 07:52:19 PM  

ronaprhys: Jakevol2: if that is external rationalization you want to take then that's your problem not mine. I have never met a gun owner that has a coherent thought in their head, and seriously doubt I ever will. Think about this, if guns were banned today, my life would go on as if nothing had happened, you would go apeshiat.

Still an obvious troll. I'm done with you.


You know I am right and don't know how to respond. You are a small town narrow minded hayseed.
 
2010-08-08 07:52:41 PM  

EmployeeOfTheMinute: Where's the gun porn?


Now leave them alone, they are busy trying to be superior to each other. But since you asked:

antzinpantz.com
 
2010-08-08 07:55:09 PM  

Guairdean: Dr. Nick Riviera: Guairdean: Criminals are always safe when honest people have been disarmed. You panicky hoplophobes (Look it up) (new window) always seem to miss this simple fact.

Wow, I'm so impressed you read an NRA newsletter. Why are gun nuts always panicky hicks whose knowledge of criminals comes primarily from 80's action movies and Law & Order reruns?

My knowledge of criminals comes from a far more definitive source than movies and TV. It comes from contact with the real thing. As for reading NRA pamphlets, I've read articles on both sides of the argument. That's one reason I've been a life member of the NRA since (quite probably) before you were born. I've taught two daughters and two grandsons how to safely handle firearms, how to use them properly, and the consequences of using them. You've been taught to fear a tool, I was taught to learn it's proper use and to respect it.


Nice comeback.
 
2010-08-08 07:55:30 PM  

Jakevol2: You know I am right and don't know how to respond. You are a small town narrow minded hayseed.


I know I said I'm done - but here's your other problem. You've tried this sort of thread-shiatting in many other threads and been exposed as a troll. Keep trying, though. Maybe one day you'll be good enough to get bites.
 
2010-08-08 07:55:55 PM  

John Buck 41: Guairdean: Dr. Nick Riviera: Guairdean: Criminals are always safe when honest people have been disarmed. You panicky hoplophobes (Look it up) (new window) always seem to miss this simple fact.

Wow, I'm so impressed you read an NRA newsletter. Why are gun nuts always panicky hicks whose knowledge of criminals comes primarily from 80's action movies and Law & Order reruns?

My knowledge of criminals comes from a far more definitive source than movies and TV. It comes from contact with the real thing. As for reading NRA pamphlets, I've read articles on both sides of the argument. That's one reason I've been a life member of the NRA since (quite probably) before you were born. I've taught two daughters and two grandsons how to safely handle firearms, how to use them properly, and the consequences of using them. You've been taught to fear a tool, I was taught to learn it's proper use and to respect it.

Nice comeback.


when all you have is a hammer all you see are nails.
 
2010-08-08 07:58:11 PM  

ronaprhys: Jakevol2: You know I am right and don't know how to respond. You are a small town narrow minded hayseed.

I know I said I'm done - but here's your other problem. You've tried this sort of thread-shiatting in many other threads and been exposed as a troll. Keep trying, though. Maybe one day you'll be good enough to get bites.


you really are very unaware of yourself? All you have in your life is your sexual attachment to your gun. When anyone tries to come between you and your fetish you get cold sweats don't you? You start shaking and feeling anxious. Seek psychiatric help.
 
2010-08-08 07:59:42 PM  

ronaprhys: Jakevol2: if that is external rationalization you want to take then that's your problem not mine. I have never met a gun owner that has a coherent thought in their head, and seriously doubt I ever will. Think about this, if guns were banned today, my life would go on as if nothing had happened, you would go apeshiat.

Still an obvious troll. I'm done with you.


Sheesh, all you have to do is read his/her bio to know sanity and decency has taken a permanent vacation.
 
2010-08-08 07:59:57 PM  

ronaprhys: Jakevol2: You know I am right and don't know how to respond. You are a small town narrow minded hayseed.

I know I said I'm done - but here's your other problem. You've tried this sort of thread-shiatting in many other threads and been exposed as a troll. Keep trying, though. Maybe one day you'll be good enough to get bites.


You're screwing up the functionality of my ignore list here...
 
2010-08-08 08:01:34 PM  

ronaprhys: Because it's quite possible that a family member who carries concealed might pay more attention to their family members than a cop who's likely out of eyesight, surrounded by hundreds of people, and might not even be able to hear or locate the source of the yelling in time to stop the crime.


What yelling? From the sounds of it, even if every person at that event were armed, including the little girl, the murder would still have happened. My point is that guns don't make you bulletproof.
 
2010-08-08 08:01:56 PM  

Swede: You don't have to have a "need" to excercise a right.

I just thought you ladies might want to know that.


I am a lady, or at least a woman, and I am well aware of that. If your intent was to insult the anti-Second Amendment nuts by comparing them with women, then screw you.

However, I appreciate your comment as intended for others' benefit.
 
2010-08-08 08:02:32 PM  
http://abclocal.

ronaprhys: CruiserTwelve: So this murder took place while a guy with a gun was twenty feet away, but yet you think you need a gun to protect yourself from such a thing. I don't get it.

Because it's quite possible that a family member who carries concealed might pay more attention to their family members than a cop who's likely out of eyesight, surrounded by hundreds of people, and might not even be able to hear or locate the source of the yelling in time to stop the crime.

Yes - I can definitely see how you've got this right.


Well, these guys (new window) who had craft fair shootings seem to agree with you both.
 
2010-08-08 08:04:54 PM  

Jakevol2: sounds like delusions of grandeur to me. Every numbskull who owns a gun thinks they are the greatest marksman on the farking planet.


And they think hitting a paper bad guy is the same has hitting a real bad guy.
 
2010-08-08 08:07:13 PM  
So at 6 flags I can't bring my own water.
It's open to the any of the public who pays admission.

Why is this craftfair any different with the ban of firearms?

antzinpantz.com
 
2010-08-08 08:09:56 PM  

misanthropic1: You're screwing up the functionality of my ignore list here...


Sorry - I'm just killing time waiting for the first game of hand-egg to start. I figured there might be some who don't know him for a pathetic troll so having a bit of fun at his expense seemed to be a good, clean fun, at the time.
 
2010-08-08 08:11:55 PM  

ronaprhys: misanthropic1: You're screwing up the functionality of my ignore list here...

Sorry - I'm just killing time waiting for the first game of hand-egg to start. I figured there might be some who don't know him for a pathetic troll so having a bit of fun at his expense seemed to be a good, clean fun, at the time.


Quite alright, to be honest I don't have much better to do with my time for the better part of the next hour; carry on.
 
2010-08-08 08:12:59 PM  

ronaprhys: misanthropic1: You're screwing up the functionality of my ignore list here...

Sorry - I'm just killing time waiting for the first game of hand-egg to start. I figured there might be some who don't know him for a pathetic troll so having a bit of fun at his expense seemed to be a good, clean fun, at the time.


so throwing a pout is your idea of having fun of my expense eh? The question isn't did your mom drop you on the head a as a baby but is it did she throw you down and how many times? Does you mother know about your sexual hang-ups?
 
2010-08-08 08:15:40 PM  

misanthropic1: Quite alright, to be honest I don't have much better to do with my time for the better part of the next hour; carry on.


Well, now that the game's started I'm off.
 
2010-08-08 08:16:46 PM  

ArkAngel: Hippies


This. Shooting hippies isn't just a hobby, it's a way of life.
 
2010-08-08 08:17:18 PM  
Remember, kids! If you see these nice fellows wielding firearms outside of, say, a courthouse or polling station:

newsone.com

Or these guys:

www.naturalselectionanddarwinism.com

Or even these guys:

counterterrorismblog.org

They're just using their First Amendment rights to peaceably assemble and their Second Amendment rights to bear arms!
 
2010-08-08 08:20:30 PM  

ronaprhys: We're talking specifically about whether or not an organizer can ban firearms for their event when it'd legally be allowed at all other times, not whether or firearms-related cases have come up.


Yes we are. Look at all the cases and links. In fact, google "conceal carry" and you will find that this is not a topic that has been intellectually avoided in the public discourse.
 
2010-08-08 08:21:00 PM  

ronaprhys: tirob: The organizers of this event require people entering the grounds to buy tickets at $3.00 per.

If that's the amount, okay. It has no bearing on the issue at hand, though. It's a public event, not a private event. As such, it's open to anyone who pays admission.

According to the First Amendment, I have the right to stand on a soap box and call Barack Obama every name in the book, but if I buy a ticket--which is a contract, if you think about it--to an event, on which it is printed that I am not allowed to talk politics there, the organizers have every right to throw me out if I start to do so, because by buying the ticket I have implicitly agreed to all the terms printed on it.

And here's where you've got it wrong. Bringing out the soap box is a disruption. You do not have the right to disrupt an organized event, public or private. Carrying concealed in no way causes any disruption. The two are not equivalent.

I think that organizers would therefore legally have a right to require me temporarily to give up my second amendment rights at an event, too, if they they made it clear beforehand that by buying a ticket I implicitly agreed to do so.

You may think that - but in many states you'd be wrong. Michigan may, in fact, be one of those states. It's a public event on public property. Banning a right that causes no disruption? On what grounds? Why do they need to ban those who are legally licensed to carry firearms from having them? Or what need exists to prohibit legal carrying?


For the purposes of contract law, if I print "no firearms allowed" on a ticket to an event that I organize, and you buy my ticket, you have agreed not to bring firearms to my event. Your agreement is with me, not with the property owner whose land I am leasing for the purposes of the event. Different result, probably, if this were a free event.

I don't think a public policy argument is relevant to the issue here. You can agree temporarily to give up a Constitutional right in exchange for the right to enter a paid event whether that right be disruptive or not.
 
2010-08-08 08:21:00 PM  

trelane99: gay gay lesbians lesbians lesbian

CommiePuddin: Gay gay

paygun: gay



I think I need to go polish my gaydar.
 
2010-08-08 08:23:06 PM  

misanthropic1: ronaprhys: misanthropic1: You're screwing up the functionality of my ignore list here...

Sorry - I'm just killing time waiting for the first game of hand-egg to start. I figured there might be some who don't know him for a pathetic troll so having a bit of fun at his expense seemed to be a good, clean fun, at the time.

Quite alright, to be honest I don't have much better to do with my time for the better part of the next hour; carry on.


It is kind of interesting, watching him and others expose themselves as the "sexual fetish"-obsessed bigots they are. It's like watching one of those cartoons where someone's mouth is actually frothing, sort of like the Tasmanian Devil.

Some people just will not accept that other people aren't exactly like them and don't march in lockstep with their thinking. It's xenophobia combined with prejudice, but in a form that's acceptable in their peer group (whose approval they crave), so they don't try to enlighten themselves or seek self-improvement in any way.

Or they're just trolls.
 
2010-08-08 08:24:11 PM  

CruiserTwelve: Jakevol2: sounds like delusions of grandeur to me. Every numbskull who owns a gun thinks they are the greatest marksman on the farking planet.

And they think hitting a paper bad guy is the same has hitting a real bad guy.


Any smart person who was involved in either wouldn't buy the notions brought up by NRA gerbil-feeder newsletters.
 
2010-08-08 08:25:42 PM  

thamike: Yes we are. Look at all the cases and links. In fact, google "conceal carry" and you will find that this is not a topic that has been intellectually avoided in the public discourse.


I don't argue that concealed carry hasn't been discussed. I argue whether or not it's been discussed with regards to this particular event or a public event of similar circumstances in Michigan, or elsewhere, for that matter.

I've been very clear about that and haven't referenced or said anything to cast doubt on that.

tirob: For the purposes of contract law, if I print "no firearms allowed" on a ticket to an event that I organize, and you buy my ticket, you have agreed not to bring firearms to my event. Your agreement is with me, not with the property owner whose land I am leasing for the purposes of the event. Different result, probably, if this were a free event.

I don't think a public policy argument is relevant to the issue here. You can agree temporarily to give up a Constitutional right in exchange for the right to enter a paid event whether that right be disruptive or not.


The argument isn't whether or not they bought the tickets - it's can they legally ban firearms. So, in your example, it's prior to the tickets being printed.
 
2010-08-08 08:26:20 PM  

ronaprhys: buwolverine:

Most folks who go through all the effort of getting a license to carry concealed are actually good shots, conscientious citizens, law-abiding, etc. In fact, they tend to be the types that practice marksmanship regularly. Simply put, these aren't the folks that break the law nor in any way match your description.


Apparently you don't know as many rednecks as I do. I live in a town where one out of every four people couldn't manage to get through public school- a really bad public school at that.

Swede:

When you excercise your freedom of speech I'd like the same assurances that nothing stupid is going to fall out of your mouth.

When me calling you a douchebag can you leave you brain dead... sorry, I just realized that's what must have happened. My apologies.

John Buck 41
There's trained to use guns, and trained to use guns proficiently. Most cops fall into the former category.

Sleep tight.


Just because cops need to be better trained doesn't make it ok for everybody else to not know how to use theirs.
 
2010-08-08 08:27:37 PM  

tirob: For the purposes of contract law, if I print "no firearms allowed" on a ticket to an event that I organize, and you buy my ticket, you have agreed not to bring firearms to my event. Your agreement is with me, not with the property owner whose land I am leasing for the purposes of the event. Different result, probably, if this were a free event.


One doesn't even have to do that. They pay for a ticket, the guy says, "no firearms allowed." Put that piece somewhere else. That's how it works. The only people who have a vocal problem with this are the kind of people who give gun owners a bad name.
 
2010-08-08 08:28:08 PM  
Now...why would you need a gun at a craft fair in the first place?

Honestly? You probably don't. But a better question is, why would you need to ban guns at a craft fair?
 
2010-08-08 08:28:31 PM  

ronaprhys: thamike: Yes we are. Look at all the cases and links. In fact, google "conceal carry" and you will find that this is not a topic that has been intellectually avoided in the public discourse.

I don't argue that concealed carry hasn't been discussed. I argue whether or not it's been discussed with regards to this particular event or a public event of similar circumstances in Michigan, or elsewhere, for that matter.

I've been very clear about that and haven't referenced or said anything to cast doubt on that.

tirob: For the purposes of contract law, if I print "no firearms allowed" on a ticket to an event that I organize, and you buy my ticket, you have agreed not to bring firearms to my event. Your agreement is with me, not with the property owner whose land I am leasing for the purposes of the event. Different result, probably, if this were a free event.

I don't think a public policy argument is relevant to the issue here. You can agree temporarily to give up a Constitutional right in exchange for the right to enter a paid event whether that right be disruptive or not.

The argument isn't whether or not they bought the tickets - it's can they legally ban firearms. So, in your example, it's prior to the tickets being printed.


no, they can't. Buying a ticket the event is in effect signing a terms of agreement. And if one of the terms is no guns, then guess what, you are shiat out of luck. Besides why would any mook who owns a gun go to an art fair anyway? They think the highest form of art is a velevet painting of fat Elvis.
 
2010-08-08 08:28:39 PM  

ronaprhys: I don't argue that concealed carry hasn't been discussed. I argue whether or not it's been discussed with regards to this particular event or a public event of similar circumstances in Michigan, or elsewhere, for that matter.


Oh for f*ck's sake.
 
2010-08-08 08:29:33 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: But a better question is, why would you need to ban guns at a craft fair?


So people don't get shot with one.
 
2010-08-08 08:31:50 PM  
thamike: So people don't get shot with one.

I'm not sure how making a rule that you can't have guns there would solve that.
 
2010-08-08 08:33:23 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: I'm not sure how making a rule that you can't have guns there would solve that.


Liability. Someone gets shot by someone you let carry a gun on to the premises, it's your fault.
 
2010-08-08 08:34:21 PM  
I'm offended at music festivals when I can't carry my DSLR, but point and shoot cmeras are permitted. I think that photography is a form of speech, and that it is pretty crappy to regulate it because I want to take a slightly better photo than I could with a point-and-shoot.

I think that prohibiting concealed carry at an art fair on public property is just as stupid.

I do wish that somebody would take both kinds of cases to court so I would be able to have a modicum of freedom to do as I please, without hurting anyone. I don't want to expend the time or effort or money, but if somebody else does, great.
 
2010-08-08 08:34:55 PM  
thamike: Liability. Someone gets shot by someone you let carry a gun on to the premises, it's your fault.

That's not the same thing as preventing a shooting.
 
2010-08-08 08:35:45 PM  

thamike: ronaprhys: I don't argue that concealed carry hasn't been discussed. I argue whether or not it's been discussed with regards to this particular event or a public event of similar circumstances in Michigan, or elsewhere, for that matter.

Oh for f*ck's sake.


No - you don't get off that easily. Not at all. Go back and look what I was replying to. It's very clear that I was referring to this event as was the person I was responding to.

Now, if you want to acknowledge that, we can move on and discuss whether or not there's been any relevant commentary regarding CCW and public fairs of this sort in the media. If so, find it and let's discuss.
 
2010-08-08 08:36:01 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: thamike: Liability. Someone gets shot by someone you let carry a gun on to the premises, it's your fault.

That's not the same thing as preventing a shooting.


No, it's not. What does that matter?
 
2010-08-08 08:38:00 PM  

ronaprhys: Now, if you want to acknowledge that, we can move on and discuss whether or not there's been any relevant commentary regarding CCW and public fairs of this sort in the media. If so, find it and let's discuss.


Why don't you find something other than your emotional appeals? I've supplied you with a diving board to information. Come back with something tangible, and yes, then we can discuss it.
 
2010-08-08 08:38:46 PM  

buwolverine: ronaprhys: buwolverine:

Most folks who go through all the effort of getting a license to carry concealed are actually good shots, conscientious citizens, law-abiding, etc. In fact, they tend to be the types that practice marksmanship regularly. Simply put, these aren't the folks that break the law nor in any way match your description.

Apparently you don't know as many rednecks as I do. I live in a town where one out of every four people couldn't manage to get through public school- a really bad public school at that.

Swede:

When you excercise your freedom of speech I'd like the same assurances that nothing stupid is going to fall out of your mouth.

When me calling you a douchebag can you leave you brain dead... sorry, I just realized that's what must have happened. My apologies.

John Buck 41
There's trained to use guns, and trained to use guns proficiently. Most cops fall into the former category.

Sleep tight.

Just because cops need to be better trained doesn't make it ok for everybody else to not know how to use theirs.


Hey, you're the one who brought up cops, not me.
 
2010-08-08 08:39:28 PM  

thamike: Noticeably F.A.T.: But a better question is, why would you need to ban guns at a craft fair?

So people don't get shot with one.


Show me any meaningful statistics where legal CCW owners (or those legal up until the crime) are randomly shooting people at public events, private events, etc. Be sure to post statistics showing how many people (approximate will be okay) have a CCW and how many have illegally shot someone.

Seriously - this isn't even a relevant argument. Plain and simple - it doesn't happen with enough frequency to even warrant mentioning.
 
2010-08-08 08:39:46 PM  

BobDeluxe: EmployeeOfTheMinute: Where's the gun porn?

Now leave them alone, they are busy trying to be superior to each other. But since you asked:


Since I own that gun, I'm getting a kick.

Also, and I mean this in the most polite way possible:

When has a ban on firearms ever *prevented* a crime?
 
2010-08-08 08:39:55 PM  

Pocket Ninja: Are you farking kidding me? Subby, there's very little difference between an arts and crafts festival and an armory. I tell you what. Go to one, if you dare, and look around. You're going to be surrounded by knives, needles (knitting needles, by the way, which I could use as skewers to cook you), scissors, hammers. In some cases, saws and various other implements of cutting, hewing, and scorching. There will be fire. There will be glass. There will be bottles and planks of wood and perhaps even a shillelagh or two. These events are veritable powder kegs waiting to go off, always teetering on the knife's edge between civil, harmless entertainments and a bloodbath. Maybe you're willing to stroll through this potential warzone cloaked only in the clothes on your back and a blissful naivete, but I'm not. I'm not.


The voice of reason and moderation. This is why I come here to fark.
 
2010-08-08 08:40:42 PM  
thamike: No, it's not. What does that matter?

It matters because my question was "why would you need to ban guns at a craft fair?" and your answer was "So people don't get shot with one.".
 
2010-08-08 08:41:32 PM  

CruiserTwelve: Jakevol2: sounds like delusions of grandeur to me. Every numbskull who owns a gun thinks they are the greatest marksman on the farking planet.

And they think hitting a paper bad guy is the same has hitting a real bad guy.


Well, you have experience that teaches you different. So do I, and I am painfully aware of how invulnerable and omnipotent a gun does NOT make you.
But if someone else actually feels that they are going to be safer if they are carrying, and are willing to respect my rights and the law - I don't feel comfortable questioning their right to want what they want.
And while I learned, at a very young age that, as a member of an organized, lawful society, I can't always HAVE what I want, I'll be damned if I'll allow anyone to presume to question my right to WANT what I want.
 
2010-08-08 08:42:40 PM  

thamike: Why don't you find something other than your emotional appeals? I've supplied you with a diving board to information. Come back with something tangible, and yes, then we can discuss it.


Point out where I've made emotional appeals with regards to this particular point.

thamike: No, it's not. What does that matter?


Because your original point was that they should ban them to prevent a shooting. When called on how the ban might do that you responded with something completely irrelevant to that point.

Now, how would the ban prevent someone from carrying in a firearm and shooting someone?
 
2010-08-08 08:43:03 PM  

ronaprhys: Show me any meaningful statistics where legal CCW owners (or those legal up until the crime) are randomly shooting people at public events, private events, etc. Be sure to post statistics showing how many people (approximate will be okay) have a CCW and how many have illegally shot someone.

Seriously - this isn't even a relevant argument. Plain and simple - it doesn't happen with enough frequency to even warrant mentioning.


None of that matters. Somebody running a function doesn't want guns there, they can tell you to stow it. Turning it into a big legal deal is a detriment to your own cause. Be an asshole if you want, but own it.
 
2010-08-08 08:46:59 PM  

thamike: None of that matters. Somebody running a function doesn't want guns there, they can tell you to stow it. Turning it into a big legal deal is a detriment to your own cause. Be an asshole if you want, but own it.


A public event on public property? It damn well does matter. If someone is going to restrict a person's rights at such an event, they must establish an over-riding need to do so.
 
2010-08-08 08:47:49 PM  

ronaprhys: Now, how would the ban prevent someone from carrying in a firearm and shooting someone?


It doesn't matter what someone could do. What matters is that they don't want guns there. If some maniac shoots up the place, well, that's what they were going to do. They would have shot the guy who would have asked you to please not bring any firearms inside before he got a chance to ask. What's your point, Choose-Your-Own-Adventure?
 
2010-08-08 08:48:25 PM  

Guairdean: My knowledge of criminals comes from a far more definitive source than movies and TV. It comes from contact with the real thing.


Uh huh. In the grand internet tradition, next you're going to tell me how that ankle holster was the only thing that saved you from those violent criminal masterminds in Middle-of-Nowhere, Texas.

As for reading NRA pamphlets, I've read articles on both sides of the argument. That's one reason I've been a life member of the NRA since (quite probably) before you were born. I've taught two daughters and two grandsons how to safely handle firearms, how to use them properly, and the consequences of using them. You've been taught to fear a tool, I was taught to learn it's proper use and to respect it.

And I never said I was afraid of guns. I am simply wary of paranoid gun "collectors" who see danger in every shadow and seem to think that their manhood is only measured in what they have the power to destroy. Compared to other obsessive-compulsives, they have a much higher tendency of killing a lot of people who don't deserve it.

/stick that comeback in your barrel and smoke it, John Buck 41.
 
2010-08-08 08:48:27 PM  
thamike: None of that matters. Somebody running a function doesn't want guns there, they can tell you to stow it. Turning it into a big legal deal is a detriment to your own cause. Be an asshole if you want, but own it.

Yes, they are within their legal rights to ban guns. That doesn't make it right for them to do so, and it doesn't make the folks fighting it assholes. If someone wants to open a public event, them ban certain members of the public for BS reasons, they need to be called out on it.
 
2010-08-08 08:49:31 PM  

ronaprhys: A public event on public property? It damn well does matter. If someone is going to restrict a person's rights at such an event, they must establish an over-riding need to do so.


I retract my previous statement. Apparently you are one of those guys. Can you do us a favor and stop cheapening our rights?
 
2010-08-08 08:50:57 PM  
This is why.......
 
2010-08-08 08:51:02 PM  
Got news for you rednecks...the organizers can make whatever f-ing rule they want while in their event. Including keeping your stupid pointless firearms off their property!!!!

static.tvfanatic.com
Dumbass!!
 
2010-08-08 08:51:07 PM  

jso2897: Well, you have experience that teaches you different. So do I, and I am painfully aware of how invulnerable and omnipotent a gun does NOT make you.


What's the old saying... 'Give a man a gun and he's Superman?'

There's another one I'm fond of: 'Get in the first shot. Boot to the head.' (Don't miss.)
 
2010-08-08 08:51:47 PM  
no sway in the 2nd amendment, but these same right wing nuts gladly give up their first amendment rights like it was going out of style.
 
2010-08-08 08:52:45 PM  

thamike: It doesn't matter what someone could do. What matters is that they don't want guns there. If some maniac shoots up the place, well, that's what they were going to do. They would have shot the guy who would have asked you to please not bring any firearms inside before he got a chance to ask. What's your point, Choose-Your-Own-Adventure?


So you acknowledge that your original reason used to justify the ban is irrelevant and unfounded? That's all I can assume from your failure to actually defend the point.

But, the next argument you bring up is whether or not their need is sufficient to ban firearms. Simply put, someone's desire, fear, or what have you simply doesn't qualify as a reason to restrict a citizen's rights. They have provide overwhelming proof of why they need to do so.

Remember - public event on public property.
 
2010-08-08 08:53:01 PM  

thamike: ronaprhys: Show me any meaningful statistics where legal CCW owners (or those legal up until the crime) are randomly shooting people at public events, private events, etc. Be sure to post statistics showing how many people (approximate will be okay) have a CCW and how many have illegally shot someone.

Seriously - this isn't even a relevant argument. Plain and simple - it doesn't happen with enough frequency to even warrant mentioning.

None of that matters. Somebody running a function doesn't want guns there, they can tell you to stow it. Turning it into a big legal deal is a detriment to your own cause. Be an asshole if you want, but own it.


That's the thing - just as no one has the right to question WHY someone would wish to carry, provided they do so lawfully, no one has the right to question WHY anyone would wish to exclude guns from their presence if they can lawfully do so.
 
2010-08-08 08:53:48 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: Yes, they are within their legal rights to ban guns. That doesn't make it right for them to do so, and it doesn't make the folks fighting it assholes. If someone wants to open a public event, them ban certain members of the public for BS reasons, they need to be called out on it.


Eh. I really can't say more than I have on the matter. Own guns. Store guns. Horde guns. Carry guns. I'm all for it. But I am of the opinion that gun owners aren't retarded and discourteous by nature. Some people need to learn some manners. They know this. It's probably why they flash their pieces all over the place. No class.
 
2010-08-08 08:55:07 PM  
thamike: Can you do us a favor and stop cheapening our rights?

So, restricting rights for no good reason doesn't cheapen them, but fighting said restrictions does?

mikemc3: Got news for you rednecks...the organizers can make whatever f-ing rule they want while in their event. Including keeping your stupid pointless firearms off their property!!!!

I've got some news for you retards, we can fight whatever farking rule you want to come up with, including your asinine ones about banning inanimate objects for no good reason.
 
2010-08-08 08:55:15 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.:
Yes, they are within their legal rights to ban guns. That doesn't make it right for them to do so, and it doesn't make the folks fighting it assholes. If someone wants to open a public event, them ban certain members of the public for BS reasons, they need to be called out on it.


Actually, this is still open to debate. The city has openly stated that they aren't sure if it's legal as this event is being held on public property and is open to anyone who buys a ticket. Really, the question here actually is whether or not they have the right to ban firearms.
 
2010-08-08 08:55:36 PM  

jso2897: That's the thing - just as no one has the right to question WHY someone would wish to carry, provided they do so lawfully, no one has the right to question WHY anyone would wish to exclude guns from their presence if they can lawfully do so.


There you go. Thanks.
 
2010-08-08 08:56:25 PM  

mikemc3: Got news for you rednecks...the organizers can make whatever f-ing rule they want while in their event. Including keeping your stupid pointless firearms off their property!!!!


Dumbass!!


You know how I know you didn't read the article?
 
2010-08-08 08:56:30 PM  
Noticeably F.A.T. [TotalFark] Quote 2010-08-08 08:55:07 PM

restricting rights for no good reason

>>>>

it isn't for no good reason and who are you to decide what is a good and not good one?
 
2010-08-08 08:57:47 PM  

jso2897: That's the thing - just as no one has the right to question WHY someone would wish to carry, provided they do so lawfully, no one has the right to question WHY anyone would wish to exclude guns from their presence if they can lawfully do so.


That's the key word. It's unknown if this is a legal ban or not. If it's not legal, we sure as shiat get to question why.
 
2010-08-08 08:58:30 PM  

Jakevol2: John Buck 41: Guairdean: Dr. Nick Riviera: Guairdean: Criminals are always safe when honest people have been disarmed. You panicky hoplophobes (Look it up) (new window) always seem to miss this simple fact.

Wow, I'm so impressed you read an NRA newsletter. Why are gun nuts always panicky hicks whose knowledge of criminals comes primarily from 80's action movies and Law & Order reruns?

My knowledge of criminals comes from a far more definitive source than movies and TV. It comes from contact with the real thing. As for reading NRA pamphlets, I've read articles on both sides of the argument. That's one reason I've been a life member of the NRA since (quite probably) before you were born. I've taught two daughters and two grandsons how to safely handle firearms, how to use them properly, and the consequences of using them. You've been taught to fear a tool, I was taught to learn it's proper use and to respect it.

Nice comeback.

when all you have is a hammer all you see are nails.


And there are none so blind as those who will not see.
 
2010-08-08 08:58:45 PM  

Big Al: it isn't for no good reason and who are you to decide what is a good and not good one?


What good reason? Provide stats and data to provide your point.
 
2010-08-08 08:58:47 PM  
You just sneak one into the festival in your waist band. Cholo style.

Holsters are for honest people.
 
2010-08-08 08:59:02 PM  
It is not a public event

It is an event open to the Public

The Sponsor is the "lessee" of the property it does not matter if it is City property.

The event sponsor, when they sign the agreement to use the property is given certain aspects of ownership for the duration of the Contract

It is within their legal right to ban firearms, outside liquids, cameras, recording devices and attire and anything else based not Based on Race Sex or Religion.

If this offends you, you have the right not to patronize the event!

If it really offends you, you have the right to redress your grievance with your elected officials and encourage them not to allow the lease of City property to people who set these conditions

The Guys bringing this issue up need to learn not only the Constitution, but common property law as well.

All this shiat does is harm Second Amendment Advocacy and makes us all look like Palin Americans.

Is it any wonder are Nation is Farked?
 
2010-08-08 09:00:04 PM  
Big Al: it isn't for no good reason

Oh? Then what is the reason?

and who are you to decide what is a good and not good one?

I can decide whatever the hell I want. That's just my opinion though. That's why it's being taken to a court.
 
2010-08-08 09:02:23 PM  

thamike: I retract my previous statement. Apparently you are one of those guys. Can you do us a favor and stop cheapening our rights?


I'm not cheapening them at all. If it's legal to carry concealed at a public event on public property, then the organizer cannot be permitted to ban them. That's no different than them banning free speech or any other right when there's no over-riding need.

You've not proven, in any way, shape, or form, that there's a need to prevent legal CCW permit-holders from carrying legally at an event like this. You've shown that they want to, that's for sure. But not that there's a need or that their want to ban them should matter.
 
2010-08-08 09:03:09 PM  
Well, why would you need a craft at a gun fair?
 
2010-08-08 09:05:29 PM  

ronaprhys: Actually, this is still open to debate. The city has openly stated that they aren't sure if it's legal as this event is being held on public property and is open to anyone who buys a ticket. Really, the question here actually is whether or not they have the right to ban firearms.


They are doing this to appease the screamers, or they need to fire the City Attorney! There is massive rulings concerning Property and Contract law establishes the right of the lessee to be able to do this.

The key issue is that the City is not the sponsor,and the sponsor is granting admission in exchange for an entry fee and agreement to their terms and conditions. This makes it an event open to the public not a public event.
 
2010-08-08 09:06:30 PM  

Azlefty: It is not a public event

It is an event open to the Public

The Sponsor is the "lessee" of the property it does not matter if it is City property.

The event sponsor, when they sign the agreement to use the property is given certain aspects of ownership for the duration of the Contract

It is within their legal right to ban firearms, outside liquids, cameras, recording devices and attire and anything else based not Based on Race Sex or Religion.

If this offends you, you have the right not to patronize the event!

If it really offends you, you have the right to redress your grievance with your elected officials and encourage them not to allow the lease of City property to people who set these conditions

The Guys bringing this issue up need to learn not only the Constitution, but common property law as well.

All this shiat does is harm Second Amendment Advocacy and makes us all look like Palin Americans.

Is it any wonder are Nation is Farked?


Actually, while some of your interpretation is correct (an event open to the public vs a public event, though I'd argue the distinction is not particularly meaningful here), you fail to realize that even leasing the land for this period of time cannot trump or arbitrarily restrict a citizen's rights.

To be fair, the city acknowledges that they're not sure whether or not they can ban firearms for legal carriers.

My personal feeling is that you can't do this on public land. On private land, that's another story. Honestly, that's the key distinction here. Public vs private land.
 
2010-08-08 09:06:45 PM  

ronaprhys: jso2897: That's the thing - just as no one has the right to question WHY someone would wish to carry, provided they do so lawfully, no one has the right to question WHY anyone would wish to exclude guns from their presence if they can lawfully do so.

That's the key word. It's unknown if this is a legal ban or not. If it's not legal, we sure as shiat get to question why.


Exactly - this is dependent upon a number of factors, some of which vary from one place to another. At any rate, since the carry advocates have stated that they don't intend to take it to court, it probably hinges upon the way the local government decides to designate the event - but I don't know the laws in that state. The law is often complex and ambiguous on "gray area" issues like this.
 
2010-08-08 09:06:51 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: thamike: None of that matters. Somebody running a function doesn't want guns there, they can tell you to stow it. Turning it into a big legal deal is a detriment to your own cause. Be an asshole if you want, but own it.

Yes, they are within their legal rights to ban guns. That doesn't make it right for them to do so, and it doesn't make the folks fighting it assholes. If someone wants to open a public event, them ban certain members of the public for BS reasons, they need to be called out on it.


People don't get banned, guns get banned.
 
2010-08-08 09:08:20 PM  
Seriously, gun people, what the fark?
 
2010-08-08 09:09:07 PM  

Azlefty: They are doing this to appease the screamers, or they need to fire the City Attorney! There is massive rulings concerning Property and Contract law establishes the right of the lessee to be able to do this.

The key issue is that the City is not the sponsor,and the sponsor is granting admission in exchange for an entry fee and agreement to their terms and conditions. This makes it an event open to the public not a public event.


I believe you're correct for private property, but not public property. I may be proven wrong when or if there ends up being a court case on this. Until then, the point is open.

Note that someone here provided some insight into Nebraska law which would specifically prohibit the ban.
 
2010-08-08 09:12:01 PM  

jso2897: Exactly - this is dependent upon a number of factors, some of which vary from one place to another. At any rate, since the carry advocates have stated that they don't intend to take it to court, it probably hinges upon the way the local government decides to designate the event - but I don't know the laws in that state. The law is often complex and ambiguous on "gray area" issues like this.


Yep - it'll be interesting if a follow-up article comes up. I probably won't follow it (the state up north generally shall not be acknowledged), but it's difficult for me to see how they could decide so without opening themselves up for legal action and potentially another SCOTUS case.

Of course, for that to happen, someone would really, really need to want to push this.
 
2010-08-08 09:12:55 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: Big Al: it isn't for no good reason

Oh? Then what is the reason?

and who are you to decide what is a good and not good one?

I can decide whatever the hell I want. That's just my opinion though. That's why it's being taken to a court.


I don't mean to be argumentative, but based on TFA, it does not appear that this is headed for court at this time, actually.
 
2010-08-08 09:16:33 PM  

Dr. Nick Riviera: Guairdean: My knowledge of criminals comes from a far more definitive source than movies and TV. It comes from contact with the real thing.

Uh huh. In the grand internet tradition, next you're going to tell me how that ankle holster was the only thing that saved you from those violent criminal masterminds in Middle-of-Nowhere, Texas.



No, my closer contacts with the criminal element have been limited to meetings on somewhat neutral ground. By the way, you might want to check out some NRA pamphlets. They'll explain why you shouldn't use an ankle holster for your primary defense weapon.
 
2010-08-08 09:17:10 PM  
ronaprhys Quote 2010-08-08 08:58:45 PM

What good reason? Provide stats and data to provide your point.

>>>>

a business can decide not to allow weapons. The end
 
2010-08-08 09:17:31 PM  

ronaprhys: jso2897: Exactly - this is dependent upon a number of factors, some of which vary from one place to another. At any rate, since the carry advocates have stated that they don't intend to take it to court, it probably hinges upon the way the local government decides to designate the event - but I don't know the laws in that state. The law is often complex and ambiguous on "gray area" issues like this.

Yep - it'll be interesting if a follow-up article comes up. I probably won't follow it (the state up north generally shall not be acknowledged), but it's difficult for me to see how they could decide so without opening themselves up for legal action and potentially another SCOTUS case.

Of course, for that to happen, someone would really, really need to want to push this.


I agree - this might be an issue that stops at the state level, depending on how that states laws are written. The 2nd alone doesn't answer to this, because their are dual issues involved - and I don't really think Heller speaks to this - but there might be other case law that does. IANAL, and I dunno.
 
2010-08-08 09:17:41 PM  
I'll keep my guns away from the craft fairs when the craft people keep their crafts away from the gun shows.

/crafts
 
2010-08-08 09:17:55 PM  

jso2897: I don't mean to be argumentative, but based on TFA, it does not appear that this is headed for court at this time, actually.


Doesn't seem that way. I'm wondering if it's worth it to fight this particular one. I'm pretty happy with the current trend in SCOTUS rulings right now but I don't want to see the issue lose momentum. If folks are going to try and challenge rulings and unConstitutional laws or decrees like this, they need to do so where they're clear-cut violations and further reverse the tide of private firearm ownership and carry rules.
 
2010-08-08 09:19:23 PM  
I went to a gun show a couple of weeks ago and did see some people with crafts. I don't think anyone raised a complaint about them.

Seriously, I didn't know what to expect, but found the people there were friendly, helpful, and very knowledgeable. I found a good deal on a my first handgun and am now just waiting for my CCW to arrive in the mail next week. Georgia has pretty streamlined rules.
 
2010-08-08 09:20:21 PM  

Big Al: a business can decide not to allow weapons. The end


On their property? Absolutely. On public property? Absolutely not. This is somewhere in the middle and the ruling has yet to be made. In order to argue that they should be able to ban firearms on public property that's been leased for a temporary event like this you have to prove need.

Now, prove need.
 
2010-08-08 09:22:45 PM  

Guairdean: Dr. Nick Riviera: Guairdean: My knowledge of criminals comes from a far more definitive source than movies and TV. It comes from contact with the real thing.

Uh huh. In the grand internet tradition, next you're going to tell me how that ankle holster was the only thing that saved you from those violent criminal masterminds in Middle-of-Nowhere, Texas.

No, my closer contacts with the criminal element have been limited to meetings on somewhat neutral ground. By the way, you might want to check out some NRA pamphlets. They'll explain why you shouldn't use an ankle holster for your primary defense weapon.


I have some literature of my own that you might want to check out.
 
2010-08-08 09:22:57 PM  

ronaprhys: I believe you're correct for private property, but not public property.


My point is when a person enters into an agreement to use property it in many ways becomes "their" property allowing them many of the rights given to other property owners and among those are the ability to restrict things as long as they are not based on, race religion or sex if it is an event open to the public. When you rent an apartment, subject to the terms of the agreement, you "own" that apartment the landlord cannot tell you who or what can be allowed in your apartment, it works the same when a person enters intro an agreement to use publicly owned property. The title holder is not the decider, the decider is who has the legal right to use the property, in this case the agreement holder since for the time of the agreement the city has granted them exclusive use of the property- temporary ownership. If it is as you say it is they would not be able to charge admission since it is a public event and it is illegal to base participation in a public event on the ability to pay.
 
2010-08-08 09:25:46 PM  

ronaprhys: Big Al: a business can decide not to allow weapons. The end

On their property? Absolutely. On public property? Absolutely not. This is somewhere in the middle and the ruling has yet to be made. In order to argue that they should be able to ban firearms on public property that's been leased for a temporary event like this you have to prove need.

Now, prove need.


I've been reading the law here in Georgia because I just applied for a CCW. The new law, SB308, states:


Part 1, Section 1-3(c)"... private property owners or persons in legal control of property through a lease, rental agreement, licensing agreement, contract, or any other agreement to control access to such property shall have the right to forbid possession of a weapon or long gun on their property, except as provided in Code Section 16-11-135. A violation of subsection (b) of this Code section shall not create or give rise to a civil action for damages."

So, in Georgia at least, the crafts fair could ban weapons if they had a lease or rental agreement that gave them control of access to the property specifically in the signed contract.
 
2010-08-08 09:26:50 PM  

ronaprhys: jso2897: I don't mean to be argumentative, but based on TFA, it does not appear that this is headed for court at this time, actually.

Doesn't seem that way. I'm wondering if it's worth it to fight this particular one. I'm pretty happy with the current trend in SCOTUS rulings right now but I don't want to see the issue lose momentum. If folks are going to try and challenge rulings and unConstitutional laws or decrees like this, they need to do so where they're clear-cut violations and further reverse the tide of private firearm ownership and carry rules.


I think the most dubious issue here is the degree to which property rights are (or may be) conferred upon a temporary user - and that can depend upon local, state, and even some federal law - a lot of it decision based case law. It would probably take a legal specialist in the matter to know all the ins and outs - it's a complicated body of law.
If it were me,I would tend toward not wanting to bring something to a venue of this nature where it was not wanted, even if I were legally able to do so - but that's purely a personal view, and not any kind of legal or ethical imperative.
 
2010-08-08 09:27:38 PM  

Azlefty: My point is when a person enters into an agreement to use property it in many ways becomes "their" property allowing them many of the rights given to other property owners and among those are the ability to restrict things as long as they are not based on, race religion or sex if it is an event open to the public. When you rent an apartment, subject to the terms of the agreement, you "own" that apartment the landlord cannot tell you who or what can be allowed in your apartment, it works the same when a person enters intro an agreement to use publicly owned property. The title holder is not the decider, the decider is who has the legal right to use the property, in this case the agreement holder since for the time of the agreement the city has granted them exclusive use of the property- temporary ownership. If it is as you say it is they would not be able to charge admission since it is a public event and it is illegal to base participation in a public event on the ability to pay.


Your points work well for private property, not necessarily for public property. There are definite differences between the two. Charging admission, however, is a different point as there can be a clear-cut need to do so in order for the event to actually be held. It's in the city's best interest to allow this as it brings in additional revenue all around.

In terms of banning firearms, near as I can tell, there's no real need whatsoever. It won't prevent crime, won't make anything safer, won't create a disturbance, etc.
 
2010-08-08 09:29:24 PM  
ronaprhys Quote 2010-08-08 09:20:21 PM

On their property? Absolutely. On public property? Absolutely not. This is somewhere in the middle and the ruling has yet to be made. In order to argue that they should be able to ban firearms on public property that's been leased for a temporary event like this you have to prove need.

Now, prove need.

>>>

the law, learn it.
 
2010-08-08 09:34:17 PM  

NuttierThanEver: you have a very small penis and are compensating?


SO MUCH THIS!!!!!
 
2010-08-08 09:35:14 PM  

jso2897: I think the most dubious issue here is the degree to which property rights are (or may be) conferred upon a temporary user - and that can depend upon local, state, and even some federal law - a lot of it decision based case law. It would probably take a legal specialist in the matter to know all the ins and outs - it's a complicated body of law.
If it were me,I would tend toward not wanting to bring something to a venue of this nature where it was not wanted, even if I were legally able to do so - but that's purely a personal view, and not any kind of legal or ethical imperative.


I agree with you in that it's a very complicated case, especially considering that this is a very temporary lease. For a long term lease at a place of business, that's one thing. For a very short term lease like this where it's not a business owner, but an organizer and a bunch business owners.

As for my personal action, I agree with not carrying a firearm where it's not wanted. At least, I'd certainly not open carry. That's being dickish. However, in my personal view, the organizers are being dickish with the prohibition. There's simply no good reason for it. To me, concealed carry splits the difference.

remus: I've been reading the law here in Georgia because I just applied for a CCW. The new law, SB308, states:


Part 1, Section 1-3(c)"... private property owners or persons in legal control of property through a lease, rental agreement, licensing agreement, contract, or any other agreement to control access to such property shall have the right to forbid possession of a weapon or long gun on their property, except as provided in Code Section 16-11-135. A violation of subsection (b) of this Code section shall not create or give rise to a civil action for damages."

So, in Georgia at least, the crafts fair could ban weapons if they had a lease or rental agreement that gave them control of access to the property specifically in the signed contract.


I'd be interested in Code Section 16-11-135. It'd also be interesting to see if this qualifies as an actual lease or a temporary use permit.
 
2010-08-08 09:36:04 PM  

Big Al: the law, learn it.


Unfortunately for you, the law hasn't been clearly determined here. Try again.
 
2010-08-08 09:38:31 PM  
I just saw this thread. I haven't read any of it. don't think I even care to really.. I think I can FEEL the stupidity hovering over this comment window.

I'm just hopping to write that in the year 2010. the state of Virginia has banned smoking in all restaurants/bars and has allowed any one with a concealed permit to bring their firearm into said bar/restaurant.

so... there ya go.. have fun kids
 
2010-08-08 09:49:58 PM  

ronaprhys: jso2897: I think the most dubious issue here is the degree to which property rights are (or may be) conferred upon a temporary user - and that can depend upon local, state, and even some federal law - a lot of it decision based case law. It would probably take a legal specialist in the matter to know all the ins and outs - it's a complicated body of law.
If it were me,I would tend toward not wanting to bring something to a venue of this nature where it was not wanted, even if I were legally able to do so - but that's purely a personal view, and not any kind of legal or ethical imperative.

I agree with you in that it's a very complicated case, especially considering that this is a very temporary lease. For a long term lease at a place of business, that's one thing. For a very short term lease like this where it's not a business owner, but an organizer and a bunch business owners.

As for my personal action, I agree with not carrying a firearm where it's not wanted. At least, I'd certainly not open carry. That's being dickish. However, in my personal view, the organizers are being dickish with the prohibition. There's simply no good reason for it. To me, concealed carry splits the difference.

remus: I've been reading the law here in Georgia because I just applied for a CCW. The new law, SB308, states:


Part 1, Section 1-3(c)"... private property owners or persons in legal control of property through a lease, rental agreement, licensing agreement, contract, or any other agreement to control access to such property shall have the right to forbid possession of a weapon or long gun on their property, except as provided in Code Section 16-11-135. A violation of subsection (b) of this Code section shall not create or give rise to a civil action for damages."

So, in Georgia at least, the crafts fair could ban weapons if they had a lease or rental agreement that gave them control of access to the property specifically in the signed contract.

I'd be interested in Code Section 16-11-135. It'd also be interesting to see if this qualifies as an actual lease or a temporary use permit.


I hope we get a follow up on that. And I super-agree with you about open-carry. My motto regarding firearms has always been: Keep it hidden, keep it safe, and keep it secret.
Open carry makes you a target - for one thing, guns are worth a lot of money - and I've been plenty of places where walking around with a gun on display would be the equivalent of walking around with a big gold Rolex on display. Plus, cops don't like it much either - and while I have nothing against cops, I do try to stay off their radar - they can be a real pain when annoyed.
 
2010-08-08 09:50:29 PM  

CruiserTwelve: Jakevol2: sounds like delusions of grandeur to me. Every numbskull who owns a gun thinks they are the greatest marksman on the farking planet.

And they think hitting a paper bad guy is the same has hitting a real bad guy.


Some civilian CHP holders have had far more training than many of you doughnut eaters. And few of us have shot people in handcuffs, or killed people in their beds because we had the wrong address. And unlike cops, we actually are held accountable when we make mistakes. No "thin blue line" or "qualified immunity" for us. From what I have seen in my more than 30 years of shooting, most cops also think that hitting a real bad guy is like hitting paper targets, and they tend not to be very proficient at either. My experience has shown that the more proficient the policeman is in his duties, the less problem he has with civilians arming themselves and participating in their own defense. Some even take the time to work with us and help us become more proficient.

As an aside, there is data (available on the web) that states that civilians tend to have a higher hit ratio when shooting at bad guys than cops. Most data that I have seen puts cops at about 25 - 35% hits, with civilians at over 50%. One source said the civilian hit ratio was three times higher than the police, with far fewer "questionable shoots" (up to 25% for cops). A good source, and very cop friendly, is a report put out by Thomas Aveni and available on the web. The numbers show police in a bit better light than some reports that I have read, but Mr. Aveni (a former policeman) also seems to have done a bit better job of gathering his data.

/ not anti-cop, just not in awe of the profession
// trained by VERY proficient cops who, surprisingly, feel the same way that I do.
 
B A [TotalFark]
2010-08-08 09:55:36 PM  

tirob: ronaprhys: tirob: The organizers of this event require people entering the grounds to buy tickets at $3.00 per.

If that's the amount, okay. It has no bearing on the issue at hand, though. It's a public event, not a private event. As such, it's open to anyone who pays admission.

According to the First Amendment, I have the right to stand on a soap box and call Barack Obama every name in the book, but if I buy a ticket--which is a contract, if you think about it--to an event, on which it is printed that I am not allowed to talk politics there, the organizers have every right to throw me out if I start to do so, because by buying the ticket I have implicitly agreed to all the terms printed on it.

And here's where you've got it wrong. Bringing out the soap box is a disruption. You do not have the right to disrupt an organized event, public or private. Carrying concealed in no way causes any disruption. The two are not equivalent.

I think that organizers would therefore legally have a right to require me temporarily to give up my second amendment rights at an event, too, if they they made it clear beforehand that by buying a ticket I implicitly agreed to do so.

You may think that - but in many states you'd be wrong. Michigan may, in fact, be one of those states. It's a public event on public property. Banning a right that causes no disruption? On what grounds? Why do they need to ban those who are legally licensed to carry firearms from having them? Or what need exists to prohibit legal carrying?

For the purposes of contract law, if I print "no firearms allowed" on a ticket to an event that I organize, and you buy my ticket, you have agreed not to bring firearms to my event. Your agreement is with me, not with the property owner whose land I am leasing for the purposes of the event. Different result, probably, if this were a free event.

I don't think a public policy argument is relevant to the issue here. You can agree temporarily to give up a Constitutional right in exchange for the right to enter a paid event whether that right be disruptive or not.


Actually, at least in texas, you'd be wrong. Here there are cery specific forms that must be posted for a weapons ban to apply to specific property. Link (new window)
 
2010-08-08 09:56:50 PM  

jso2897: I hope we get a follow up on that. And I super-agree with you about open-carry. My motto regarding firearms has always been: Keep it hidden, keep it safe, and keep it secret.
Open carry makes you a target - for one thing, guns are worth a lot of money - and I've been plenty of places where walking around with a gun on display would be the equivalent of walking around with a big gold Rolex on display. Plus, cops don't like it much either - and while I have nothing against cops, I do try to stay off their radar - they can be a real pain when annoyed.


Definitely some good points there. I've not talked to my local officers about it (we've got a small township and honestly, they seem to be very reasonable - unless you're speeding. That's one thing they LOVE to get you for.), but I think I might do so if I decided to open carry (which, for the points you mention, would be very, very dependent on the situation. If I were to be in a situation where the extra speed provided by open carry were needed, that's one thing. However, that's pretty rare and likely reserved for hunting.)
 
2010-08-08 09:59:50 PM  

CruiserTwelve: Why should anyone fear a guy that wears military fatigues and openly carries a gun to a city council meeting? Sounds like a perfectly sane person to me.


Actually, you might be surprised. My late father had a penchant for fatigues (ALWAYS wore them when not in uniform or dressed up for work, church, etc), was a reserve deputy with the local Sheriff, and carried his sidearm regularly. I can assure you he was quite sane. (and was a lifetime NRA member)

not saying the guy in question wasnt a crackpot, but strictly based on the attire,you cant say for sure.

/with that out of the way, yeah he prolly is a freak with a bus buried in his backyard full of guns and MREs.
 
2010-08-08 10:02:15 PM  

CameraMonkey: Actually, you might be surprised. My late father had a penchant for fatigues (ALWAYS wore them when not in uniform or dressed up for work, church, etc), was a reserve deputy with the local Sheriff, and carried his sidearm regularly. I can assure you he was quite sane. (and was a lifetime NRA member)

not saying the guy in question wasnt a crackpot, but strictly based on the attire,you cant say for sure.

/with that out of the way, yeah he prolly is a freak with a bus buried in his backyard full of guns and MREs.


Burying a bus is a very good idea. Thanks!


That's probably cheaper than trying to get some sort of cylinder or other structure put up. However, it might be more traceable. A cheap cinderblock structure might work better if I water proof it well, make sure I've got plenty of disguised sources of fresh air and water.
 
2010-08-08 10:02:58 PM  
Ya know the owner of the clay pigeon booth is going to be nervous.
 
2010-08-08 10:09:20 PM  

jso2897: ronaprhys: jso2897: I think the most dubious issue here is the degree to which property rights are (or may be) conferred upon a temporary user - and that can depend upon local, state, and even some federal law - a lot of it decision based case law. It would probably take a legal specialist in the matter to know all the ins and outs - it's a complicated body of law.
If it were me,I would tend toward not wanting to bring something to a venue of this nature where it was not wanted, even if I were legally able to do so - but that's purely a personal view, and not any kind of legal or ethical imperative.

I agree with you in that it's a very complicated case, especially considering that this is a very temporary lease. For a long term lease at a place of business, that's one thing. For a very short term lease like this where it's not a business owner, but an organizer and a bunch business owners.

As for my personal action, I agree with not carrying a firearm where it's not wanted. At least, I'd certainly not open carry. That's being dickish. However, in my personal view, the organizers are being dickish with the prohibition. There's simply no good reason for it. To me, concealed carry splits the difference.

remus: I've been reading the law here in Georgia because I just applied for a CCW. The new law, SB308, states:


Part 1, Section 1-3(c)"... private property owners or persons in legal control of property through a lease, rental agreement, licensing agreement, contract, or any other agreement to control access to such property shall have the right to forbid possession of a weapon or long gun on their property, except as provided in Code Section 16-11-135. A violation of subsection (b) of this Code section shall not create or give rise to a civil action for damages."

So, in Georgia at least, the crafts fair could ban weapons if they had a lease or rental agreement that gave them control of access to the property specifically in the signed contract.

I'd be interested in Code Section 16-11-135. It'd also be interesting to see if this qualifies as an actual lease or a temporary use permit.

I hope we get a follow up on that. And I super-agree with you about open-carry. My motto regarding firearms has always been: Keep it hidden, keep it safe, and keep it secret.
Open carry makes you a target - for one thing, guns are worth a lot of money - and I've been plenty of places where walking around with a gun on display would be the equivalent of walking around with a big gold Rolex on display. Plus, cops don't like it much either - and while I have nothing against cops, I do try to stay off their radar - they can be a real pain when annoyed.


Sorry for the delay, I was away from the keyboard.

Here's the followup: In lieu of a long post, here is the original section 16-11-135 at: Link (note you can follow their link to lexis-nexis to view the original if you wish, they just have it cut out to make it easier to read. (new window) And here is the amendments as posted in the new SB 308: Link (new window)
 
2010-08-08 10:22:53 PM  
FTA: Shaun McElory, who came to the meeting in military fatigues, said he was not asking permission to bring his weapon to the festival.

I'm sure he'll gladly dump out the contents of his military canteen when the sign says "No outside beverages", leave his rations at the gate when the signs says "No outside food", but take away his gun when the signs says "No firearms allowed", and that outfit is totally ruined.
 
2010-08-08 10:23:50 PM  

trekkiecougar: NuttierThanEver: you have a very small penis and are compensating?

SO MUCH THIS!!!!!


Relating from experience?
 
2010-08-08 10:37:20 PM  
Why is it that there is some idiot on every 2nd Amendment thread who makes the penis/gun analogy? Is there a similar stupid stereotypical comment for the 1st or the 21st?
 
2010-08-08 10:38:04 PM  
Full background check does not necessarily show current or future sanity.
 
2010-08-08 10:48:29 PM  

davenek: Full background check does not necessarily show current or future sanity.


Has anyone ever argued that it does?
 
2010-08-08 10:49:33 PM  

Marcintosh: When we need to go to the mall I let my significant other and children walk ahead a few feet and I trail and watch the crowd.


It's very sad that you live in such fear. If I found myself living in such a place, I would immediately move.
 
2010-08-08 10:51:09 PM  
ronaprhys Quote 2010-08-08 09:36:04 PM

Unfortunately for you, the law hasn't been clearly determined here. Try again.

>>>>>

then where are the lawsuits? Try again.
 
2010-08-08 10:52:08 PM  
see this is exactly the reason it's important to know good stand up martial arts.

i love it when some jackoff gun nut type is all like "well what'll yew doo if i jes shoot yeh"

and i'm like "well do you have your gun now...no? ok then i could kick your ass."

if you want to protect yourself and family, make sure they know how to fight, shoot properly, and the kids have access to condoms lol.

this way you are protected in all areas. you dont need a gun to be safe.

/gun owner and mild enthusiast
//martial arts practitioner
 
2010-08-08 10:59:03 PM  

Big Al: then where are the lawsuits? Try again.


You know how I know you didn't read the article?

Dammit, son, if you're going to play at least try to play to win. Participant ribbons don't count here.
 
2010-08-08 11:08:21 PM  
jso2897: Open carry makes you a target

Do you have any evidence of this, or is it your opinion?

Plus, cops don't like it much either

They can deal with it. They serve us, not the other way 'round.
 
2010-08-08 11:25:16 PM  

ronaprhys: jso2897: I hope we get a follow up on that. And I super-agree with you about open-carry. My motto regarding firearms has always been: Keep it hidden, keep it safe, and keep it secret.
Open carry makes you a target - for one thing, guns are worth a lot of money - and I've been plenty of places where walking around with a gun on display would be the equivalent of walking around with a big gold Rolex on display. Plus, cops don't like it much either - and while I have nothing against cops, I do try to stay off their radar - they can be a real pain when annoyed.

Definitely some good points there. I've not talked to my local officers about it (we've got a small township and honestly, they seem to be very reasonable - unless you're speeding. That's one thing they LOVE to get you for.), but I think I might do so if I decided to open carry (which, for the points you mention, would be very, very dependent on the situation. If I were to be in a situation where the extra speed provided by open carry were needed, that's one thing. However, that's pretty rare and likely reserved for hunting.)


ThomasHayden: see this is exactly the reason it's important to know good stand up martial arts.

i love it when some jackoff gun nut type is all like "well what'll yew doo if i jes shoot yeh"

and i'm like "well do you have your gun now...no? ok then i could kick your ass."

if you want to protect yourself and family, make sure they know how to fight, shoot properly, and the kids have access to condoms lol.

this way you are protected in all areas. you dont need a gun to be safe.

/gun owner and mild enthusiast
//martial arts practitioner


See, that's the thing - if you are in a place where no one unknown to you has any business being, like your home, or a hunting situation, where an approaching threat can be clearly identified, that's one thing. But in a street situation, where any individual who offers you no overt threat can approach you as closely as you wish - a gun is worse than useless - it's a liability. You can't just draw a weapon anytime someone whose looks you don't like approaches you in a public place - at least, not for long. And it has been said that if a person is within 21 feet of you, they can be on you before you can even point and fire a gun - let alone unholster one. When somebody gets the drop on you, you'd better be able to fight them on their terms - because fighting them on yours is no longer an option.
Others are entitled, as I have said, to feel however they want about this - but my life experience has informed me that I am far safer in public, in about 99% of the situations that ACTUALLY OCCUR IN THE REAL WORLD, without a gun than with one.
After all, an intelligent risk assessment requires that liabilities also be taken into account. Packing a piece can get you INTO a whole lot of trouble in a whole lot of situations - most especially with the law - and you can rail against "fascist pigs" all you want - I have no desire for a tombstone with some defiant statement on it.
But, others are, and should be, entitled to think whatever they want, and to do as they wish within the limits of the law. And I will say that while the presence of guns rarely makes me feel any safer, neither does it make me feel any less so.
Indeed, at least for my own safety, I would rather people overestimate the efficacy of guns than underestimate it. The vast majority of gun owners respect guns, and can be trusted with them - and the more they respect them, the better.
For myself, with a few, very rare and unusual circumstances, I'll be leaving my guns at home - and I have no desire to take them among those who don't want them around - scaring or pissing off people gives me no satisfaction - even if I disagree with them about something important.
 
2010-08-08 11:30:21 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: Do you have any evidence of this, or is it your opinion?


Have you considered asking Captain Obvious, I hear he's very helpful in situations like this.
 
2010-08-08 11:30:48 PM  

ronaprhys: tirob: For the purposes of contract law, if I print "no firearms allowed" on a ticket to an event that I organize, and you buy my ticket, you have agreed not to bring firearms to my event. Your agreement is with me, not with the property owner whose land I am leasing for the purposes of the event. Different result, probably, if this were a free event.

I don't think a public policy argument is relevant to the issue here. You can agree temporarily to give up a Constitutional right in exchange for the right to enter a paid event whether that right be disruptive or not.

The argument isn't whether or not they bought the tickets - it's can they legally ban firearms. So, in your example, it's prior to the tickets being printed.


Too many pronouns in your response for it to be clear, but I'll try to answer you anyway: Once I lease a public space for a paid event, I acquire rights in that space that ordinarily do not exist. I can rope it off. I can permit people to set up stands (these people are in effect sub-lessees). I can print tickets to the event, and if I so desire, I can require, as a condition of entry to my event, that you temporarily give up rights, up to and including constitutional rights to carry weapons, as long as you are within the confines of the space that I have leased. If you don't like my rules you can boycott me or try to set up a competing event where firearms are permitted. But you can't come in with your gun without being subject to arrest and/or ejection, because while a person with a ticket to such an event is an invitee, a person without a ticket, or with a ticket and a firearm, is a trespasser.

This is all hornbook property and contract law, BTW. I suspect that our friends in Michigan will learn this in time.
 
2010-08-08 11:31:33 PM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: jso2897: Open carry makes you a target

Do you have any evidence of this, or is it your opinion?

Plus, cops don't like it much either

They can deal with it. They serve us, not the other way 'round.


Just read my posts instead of cherrypicking them, and you'll find the answer to that. I don't repeat myself on command.

And yes, cops can deal with it. They can deal with YOU, too - and put you in your grave and walk away free without working up a sweat. In the REAL world, I mean. If that's what you desire- pursue it. Darwin is waiting for you.
 
2010-08-09 12:09:26 AM  
ronaprhys Quote 2010-08-08 10:59:03 PM

You know how I know you didn't read the article?

Dammit, son, if you're going to play at least try to play to win. Participant ribbons don't count here.

>>>

You know how I know you don't understand a thing about law?
 
2010-08-09 12:10:20 AM  
jso2897: Just read my posts instead of cherrypicking them, and you'll find the answer to that. I don't repeat myself on command.

I just wanted to see if you were basing your opinions on anything but wild assumptions. I would have thought so, what with the certainty of your statements, but I guess I'm wrong.

And yes, cops can deal with it. They can deal with YOU, too - and put you in your grave and walk away free without working up a sweat. In the REAL world, I mean. If that's what you desire- pursue it. Darwin is waiting for you.

I the real world I live in, cops don't just open fire as soon as they see a gun. Yes, I have had police hassle me over OC. Yes, it sucked. Yes, I went to the police office afterwords and complained about their behavior. And yes, it's never happened again (to me anyway, in Aurora). It seems to me that instead of just letting the folks who are supposed to be serving us just walk all over law abiding citizens, it's better to stand up up to them. Do you know why they think they can "deal with me (and you)"? Because for to long we've been letting them do just that. They have no legal leg to stand on, they rely on intimidation. It's amazing just how far a little backbone will get you.

/Go ahead, keep hiding your gun like it's something to be ashamed of. Just don't act like I'm the bad guy for not cowering.
 
2010-08-09 12:13:06 AM  
As long as there is one we'll need more than one.
 
2010-08-09 12:14:20 AM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: Yes, they are within their legal rights to ban guns. That doesn't make it right for them to do so, and it doesn't make the folks fighting it assholes.


How dos it make them "wrong"?
 
2010-08-09 12:16:46 AM  
Big Al: You know how I know you don't understand a thing about law?

It's pretty obvious that nobody here understands law. After all, you've destroyed all arguments with such amazing retorts as "the law, learn it" and "Try again". Truly, you are a master of all things law and we should just stop trying to match your legal knowledge.
 
2010-08-09 12:20:00 AM  
your emotional attachment to your savior the almighty gun has blinded you from having any sort of debate.
 
2010-08-09 12:20:06 AM  
log_jammin: How dos it make them "wrong"?

They have decided to ban an inanimate object on the grounds that it's scary. Doesn't sound right to me. That's just my opinion though.
 
2010-08-09 12:22:57 AM  
People in developed countries are not allowed to carry firearms around, and don't seem to have a problem with it.

People who have a need to carry a gun on an everyday basis either (i) live in some romanticized vision of the wild west in their heads, or (ii) have very small penises.

/or both
 
2010-08-09 12:24:04 AM  
Big Al: your emotional attachment to your savior the almighty gun has blinded you from having any sort of debate.

Oh no, you're not going to insist that we're wrong without showing evidence to support your side. Whatever will we do without your amazing wit and logic.
 
2010-08-09 12:25:07 AM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: They have decided to ban an inanimate object on the grounds that it's scary. Doesn't sound right to me. That's just my opinion though.


Is it wrong if someone has a party at his house and says "no guns allowed"?

I just don't see how or why the right to carry a gun should trump another right to ban them at your event.
 
2010-08-09 12:27:30 AM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: jso2897: Just read my posts instead of cherrypicking them, and you'll find the answer to that. I don't repeat myself on command.

I just wanted to see if you were basing your opinions on anything but wild assumptions. I would have thought so, what with the certainty of your statements, but I guess I'm wrong.

And yes, cops can deal with it. They can deal with YOU, too - and put you in your grave and walk away free without working up a sweat. In the REAL world, I mean. If that's what you desire- pursue it. Darwin is waiting for you.

I the real world I live in, cops don't just open fire as soon as they see a gun. Yes, I have had police hassle me over OC. Yes, it sucked. Yes, I went to the police office afterwords and complained about their behavior. And yes, it's never happened again (to me anyway, in Aurora). It seems to me that instead of just letting the folks who are supposed to be serving us just walk all over law abiding citizens, it's better to stand up up to them. Do you know why they think they can "deal with me (and you)"? Because for to long we've been letting them do just that. They have no legal leg to stand on, they rely on intimidation. It's amazing just how far a little backbone will get you.

/Go ahead, keep hiding your gun like it's something to be ashamed of. Just don't act like I'm the bad guy for not cowering.


Then you didn't read my posts. OK. But why comment on what you haven't read? Makes no sense to me.
 
2010-08-09 12:27:34 AM  
ParaHandy: People in developed countries are not allowed to carry firearms around, and don't seem to have a problem with it.

Yes they are.

live in some romanticized vision of the wild west in their heads

If you say so.

have very small penises.

Anti-gun folks think about dick a lot. NTTATWWT, but if there's one thing that's sure to happen in a gun thread, it's some anti speculating about gun owner cock.
 
2010-08-09 12:28:37 AM  
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I don't see that part where it says "unless your at the craft fair."
Or any other gaddam place.

/Owns no firearms.
//Content that you do.
///Just don't point 'em at me.
////Long live the shash!
 
2010-08-09 12:30:07 AM  
Barbecue Bob Quote 2010-08-09 12:28:37 AM
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I don't see that part where it says "unless your at the craft fair."
Or any other gaddam place.

>>>>

AMEN BROTHER! I want my ICBM and to yell FIRE in a crowded theater! Farking specifics of laws and their intent how does it work?
 
2010-08-09 12:30:44 AM  
log_jammin: Is it wrong if someone has a party at his house and says "no guns allowed"?

I just don't see how or why the right to carry a gun should trump another right to ban them at your event.


Different situations. Private property is not the same as public property.
 
2010-08-09 12:31:00 AM  
The USA has only double the murder rate of India (new window)

How can we compete with the 3rd world without more permissive gun laws?
 
2010-08-09 12:31:44 AM  

Barbecue Bob: I don't see that part where it says "unless your at the craft fair."


You know how stupid your argument is?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I don't see the part that says "unless you yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire".

That's how stupid it is.
 
2010-08-09 12:32:57 AM  
ParaHandy: How can we compete with the 3rd world without more permissive gun laws?

And how are those more restrictive laws working out?
 
2010-08-09 12:35:50 AM  
Welp, I'm off. Have fun folks.
 
2010-08-09 12:36:01 AM  

Noticeably F.A.T.: Different situations. Private property is not the same as public property.


A festival requiring the purchase of a ticket is not public property. The property is essentially being leased.

So no, it is not a different situation.
 
2010-08-09 12:55:41 AM  
jso2897: Open carry makes you a target

yeah, because some druggie looking for cash is going to try mugging they guy carrying a gun (and is probably good at using it if he's that proud of it).
 
2010-08-09 01:04:01 AM  
It was just a crazy misunderstanding...
www.thereheis.com
 
2010-08-09 01:12:13 AM  

BetaFlame: jso2897: Open carry makes you a target

yeah, because some druggie looking for cash is going to try mugging they guy carrying a gun (and is probably good at using it if he's that proud of it).


Yes, actually. Any person who wants to approach you in public in a non threatening way, in public, can do so. If you pull a gun on anybody who walks up to you whose looks you don't like, you're going to have a pretty short shelf life. And if they're two feet away, and decide to take your ass, all the guns in the world won't help you - as I have personally known several dumbasses to find out the hard way.
But, for about the tenth time - that's my view, based on MY life experience. If you feel different, and want to do that which I feel is unwise, you have my full blessing (assuming you remain within the law). Your decisions do not imperil my survival, even if they are foolish in my view. If packing everywhere you go makes you feel safer, that's your business. Do it.
But kindly don't cry to me about your "rights" if it doesn't work out for you.
I'm sixty years old, and have lived fifty of those years in L.A. - and not the nicer parts, either. My particular set of survival percepts seem to have worked out just fine for me - and I hope yours serve you as well. It's a free country, and I like it that way.
 
2010-08-09 01:49:12 AM  
This would be great, except the gun enthusiasts don't want black people to carry guns (they only want to sell drugs and jack your car) and they certainly don't want Ay-rabs to carry guns (they are all terrorists).
 
2010-08-09 02:11:21 AM  

The Beatings Will Continue Until Morale Improves: This would be great, except the gun enthusiasts don't want black people to carry guns (they only want to sell drugs and jack your car) and they certainly don't want Ay-rabs to carry guns (they are all terrorists).


I think that's pretty much a fringe view - and I don't think it's all that hard to tell the sane gun owners from the nutters.
If you read this thread, or others like it , it's not hard to tell. The nutters talk about how their "rights" - but aren't satisfied with them - what they really demand is total agreement with their narrative.
Note the guy who was giving me a ration of shiat, not because I want to take any of his rights away - I don't - but because I don't choose to excercise my second amendment rights in the manner he thinks I should.
My respect for his rights wasn't enough - he demanded agreement. And, because I wouldn't give it to him, he ended up more or less accusing me of being responsible for his "oppression" because I don't choose to believe or behave as he does. And that level of insecurity is not healthy - it's a sign of mental imbalance. It's like some religious nut who think God will punish the world if he can't convert everybody else to his faith.
 
2010-08-09 02:23:09 AM  
I open carry. Apparently, some of you think that means I have a micropenis. Your thoughts on my dick matter to me about as much as your thoughts on my firearm, which is to say "not much, unless your thoughts result in action affecting my rights."

I'm sorry you're scared by a visibly holstered sidearm. Really, whatever causes that irrational fear and loathing must be a terrible affliction. Perhaps if you laugh a bit more about your perception of my genitalia, it'll make you less scared. So go ahead, say what you want, I guarantee I've been called worse, and will likely smile through whatever idiocy you send my way :).
 
2010-08-09 02:43:31 AM  

cuzsis: Indeed. It's a whole untapped market out there!


They're called "willie warmers." I know someone who sells them on Etsy.

www.thedietdiary.com
 
2010-08-09 03:02:39 AM  

feckingmorons: BadReligion: As a gun owner & Concealed Handgun Permit holder, I gotta disagree with the protesters. There are certain places that concealed weapons are not allowed, and permit holders have to respect that. Just as I have the right to carry, business owners & festival organizers can choose not to allow firearms in their business.

I certainly agree that a business can bar otherwise lawfully legal firearm possession on its premises, the city cannot reclassify public property on an ad hoc basis. A city park is a city park if there is a gathering or not. If none of the disqualifying events, alcohol sales that comprise the majority of the profit, the turning of the street into an open air Courthouse, or some such similar absurdity then the city park and city streets remain a park and streets.


Sadly though, cities can rent out parks and streets and temporarily change them from public to private spaces...

Cities own all sorts of properties that they rent out, including parking spaces on city streets, community centers, convention centers, stadiums, etc. They can just as easily rent out entire streets for an event if they want, and (in some states) that allows the private event organizers to disallow firearms just like any private business can.

However, there are some caveats:

People that live or own a business in the leased space can not be restricted in anyway.
In most states signs mean nothing, so a simple sign announcing the restriction does not make it illegal to enter the area with a firearm.
It is up to duly appointed representatives of the organization leasing the space to identify gun carriers and ask them to leave or refuse them entry.
The police do not have rights to enforce the rule because it is a private rule, not public law. They can only get involved if you are asked to leave because you have a firearm and you refuse.
 
MrT
2010-08-09 04:48:01 AM  
I can see reasons for wanting to keep firearms out of such an event.

I'm not sure how it works in the US, but over here in the UK, "folk-festivals" and "Arts and Crafts fairs" can often degenerate into fronts for the AGM of the regional traveller-community crime gangs. Where my wife used to live there's an annual fair that's so notorious that the police presence would be more appropriate for a G8 protest than a community event. And that's in the UK, where firearms are almost universally banned.

Throw into the mix the fact that these events are also great places to offload stolen goods (stolen artwork and antiques) and that even the most low tech drug-ring benefits from a front business (particularly one where people pay cash and merchandise isn't logged or tracked) to attribute profits to and you can see why these places are actually very attractive to criminal gangs.

Criminal gangs crammed into a small area with guns is a bad mixture.
 
2010-08-09 05:00:06 AM  

Tawnos: I open carry. Apparently, some of you think that means I have a micropenis. Your thoughts on my dick matter to me about as much as your thoughts on my firearm, which is to say "not much, unless your thoughts result in action affecting my rights."

I'm sorry you're scared by a visibly holstered sidearm. Really, whatever causes that irrational fear and loathing must be a terrible affliction. Perhaps if you laugh a bit more about your perception of my genitalia, it'll make you less scared. So go ahead, say what you want, I guarantee I've been called worse, and will likely smile through whatever idiocy you send my way :).


You aren't sorry. It's the whole reason you carry the farking thing. Why oh why would a person show fear when a person is walking around armed with a deadly weapon? It's so irrational! Oh look, that guy has a gun! I feel so safe and secure, he must be one of the good guys who will protect me from the rampant muggings!
The fact that there are people who want to bring their guns to a craft fair is evidence that the background checks aren't stringent enough.
 
B A [TotalFark]
2010-08-09 05:01:26 AM  

ParaHandy: People in developed countries are not allowed to carry firearms around, and don't seem to have a problem with it.

People who have a need to carry a gun on an everyday basis either (i) live in some romanticized vision of the wild west in their heads, or (ii) have very small penises.

/or both


Find a new meme boy. This one's tired and innacurate. Those "developed" countries you're talking about have not only taken their citizens guns but have taken to prosecuting citizens for protecting themselves. Read a little & you'll find stories about people being imprisoned because they fought back while being robbed. Want that sort of life here? Keep letting your rights be taken away - you'll get it!
 
B A [TotalFark]
2010-08-09 05:20:26 AM  

log_jammin: Barbecue Bob: I don't see that part where it says "unless your at the craft fair."

You know how stupid your argument is?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I don't see the part that says "unless you yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire".

That's how stupid it is.


If I yell fire in a crowded theatre I create public hazard (unless it's actually on fire). If I carry a gun I only create a hazard if I pull it out and start indiscriminately firing into the crowd. See the difference there?

MrT: I can see reasons for wanting to keep firearms out of such an event.

I'm not sure how it works in the US, but over here in the UK, "folk-festivals" and "Arts and Crafts fairs" can often degenerate into fronts for the AGM of the regional traveller-community crime gangs. Where my wife used to live there's an annual fair that's so notorious that the police presence would be more appropriate for a G8 protest than a community event. And that's in the UK, where firearms are almost universally banned.

Throw into the mix the fact that these events are also great places to offload stolen goods (stolen artwork and antiques) and that even the most low tech drug-ring benefits from a front business (particularly one where people pay cash and merchandise isn't logged or tracked) to attribute profits to and you can see why these places are actually very attractive to criminal gangs.

Criminal gangs crammed into a small area with guns is a bad mixture.

God forbid a law abiding citizen would have a gun when outlaws are on the streets!

mrjared: Tawnos: I open carry. Apparently, some of you think that means I have a micropenis. Your thoughts on my dick matter to me about as much as your thoughts on my firearm, which is to say "not much, unless your thoughts result in action affecting my rights."

I'm sorry you're scared by a visibly holstered sidearm. Really, whatever causes that irrational fear and loathing must be a terrible affliction. Perhaps if you laugh a bit more about your perception of my genitalia, it'll make you less scared. So go ahead, say what you want, I guarantee I've been called worse, and will likely smile through whatever idiocy you send my way :).

You aren't sorry. It's the whole reason you carry the farking thing. Why oh why would a person show fear when a person is walking around armed with a deadly weapon? It's so irrational! Oh look, that guy has a gun! I feel so safe and secure, he must be one of the good guys who will protect me from the rampant muggings!
The fact that there are people who want to bring their guns to a craft fair is evidence that the background checks aren't stringent enough.

I'm a Paramedic - I carry some of my gear everywhere. Think it's ridiculous that I might think I could need that gear at a craft fair? BTW - I carry my gun everywhere my permit allows me to carry it. I'm less likely to need the gun than the medical gear but if I do need it it too is a matter of life and death. More importantly, to me, the gun would be a matter of MY life or death. BTW - The only accidental shooting I've ever worked was a hunting accident and involved a dropped shotgun. Weapons aren't any more dangerous than cars - only the operators are dangerous. Mzaybe we should outlaw cars.
 
2010-08-09 05:40:49 AM  

B A: If I yell fire in a crowded theatre I create public hazard (unless it's actually on fire). If I carry a gun I only create a hazard if I pull it out and start indiscriminately firing into the crowd. See the difference there?


That wasn't the argument that was made.
 
B A [TotalFark]
2010-08-09 06:08:55 AM  

log_jammin: B A: If I yell fire in a crowded theatre I create public hazard (unless it's actually on fire). If I carry a gun I only create a hazard if I pull it out and start indiscriminately firing into the crowd. See the difference there?

That wasn't the argument that was made.


The argument was civil rights, speech vs 2nd amendment, and I continued it. Go back and read your own posts.
 
2010-08-09 06:15:30 AM  
I am a long-standing veteran of craft fairs. Those customers are farked up.

/Am seriously wondering if one could take out Grandpa Crazy Driver heading for the Farmer's Market with a legal gun and sufficent training.
 
2010-08-09 06:17:32 AM  
CruiserTwelve
Why should anyone fear a guy that wears military fatigues and openly carries a gun to a city council meeting? Sounds like a perfectly sane person to me.


Thank god all insane people openly carry guns.
 
2010-08-09 06:31:26 AM  

B A: The argument was civil rights, speech vs 2nd amendment, and I continued it. Go back and read your own posts.


Christ your thick.

see this? This is the argument Barbecue Bob made.

Barbecue Bob: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I don't see that part where it says "unless your at the craft fair."
Or any other gaddam place.


to which I replied...

"You know how stupid your argument is?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I don't see the part that says "unless you yell fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire".

That's how stupid it is."

his argument had nothing to do with what is public hazard and what isn't. It was "the constitution doesn't list this as a restriction so it can't be restricted!". I gave an example of what that argument was farking retarded.

and since apparently you need things spelled out to you I'll explain a tad more. It's a retarded argument because all rights have restrictions that are not spelled out in the constitution.


do you understand now? I can type slower if you need me to.
 
2010-08-09 07:06:34 AM  
i303.photobucket.com
 
2010-08-09 07:50:41 AM  
i.imgur.com
FUPA provided for your viewing pleasure.
 
2010-08-09 08:05:15 AM  
obviously you hippie libs don't understand. It is not about why would you need a gun at a craft fair. It is about liberty. Something the officials you hippie libs elected are constantly infringing upon.
 
2010-08-09 08:17:21 AM  

Tawnos: I open carry. Apparently, some of you think that means I have a micropenis. Your thoughts on my dick matter to me about as much as your thoughts on my firearm, which is to say "not much, unless your thoughts result in action affecting my rights."

I'm sorry you're scared by a visibly holstered sidearm. Really, whatever causes that irrational fear and loathing must be a terrible affliction. Perhaps if you laugh a bit more about your perception of my genitalia, it'll make you less scared. So go ahead, say what you want, I guarantee I've been called worse, and will likely smile through whatever idiocy you send my way :).


Not a bit of it. You go ahead on son - knock yourself out.
You are no threat to me, and it's a free country.
And Darwin never sleeps.
 
2010-08-09 08:42:09 AM  
I am licensed to carry concealed but I rarely ever do. I have it mostly so I can carry if I ever decide to do so. Two years ago I was cleaning a couple of my pieces and decided on a whim to carry while I ran a few errands. I stopped by Blockbuster on my way home to pick up a movie. Upon entering the store I noticed that it was mostly empty. I also noticed to VERY sketchy looking dudes in the store. One was in the back of the store and instead of looking at the movies like most people, he was watching the clerk at the front. The other was standing in the kid's section and he too was looking more at the cashier than at the movies. I walked over by the one guy and pulled back my jacket just enough to let him see that I was armed. He headed straight for the door. I then headed to the front of the store and made a similar display for the second guy who was already starting for the door after his buddy. After they left I called the police, reported what had happened and gave a description of the guys and their vehicle to the police. I also let the cashier know that if she saw these guys again that she should notify the police.

When I returned my videos a couple days later there was a picture of one of the guys hanging on the door with a request for information leading to their arrest. They had robbed two Blockbusters in my county. I told the manager what had happened and that the man from the picture had been in her store. She thanked me and offered me a free rental. As I was checking out she asked, "Why do you feel you need to carry a gun?" I was a bit dumbfounded that she even asked the question.

/I know, cool story bro!
 
2010-08-09 08:46:29 AM  

jso2897: Not a bit of it. You go ahead on son - knock yourself out.
You are no threat to me, and it's a free country.
And Darwin never sleeps.


What amazes me (and shouldn't) is the number of trolls who pop into a basically dead thread to start posting stupid pictures or other nonsense.
 
2010-08-09 09:51:15 AM  

ronaprhys: jso2897: Not a bit of it. You go ahead on son - knock yourself out.
You are no threat to me, and it's a free country.
And Darwin never sleeps.

What amazes me (and shouldn't) is the number of trolls who pop into a basically dead thread to start posting stupid pictures or other nonsense.


Trolls never sleep either. Neither does rust - or so I've heard.
 
2010-08-09 09:56:37 AM  

CruiserTwelve: Why should anyone fear a guy that wears military fatigues and openly carries a gun to a city council meeting? Sounds like a perfectly sane person to me.


You run around armed in a silly uniform too, and don't try to tell me the standards for becoming a police officer are high enough to weed out all the nutbags. Hell, you even open carry, obviously there are practical reasons for that or officers would be forced to jam their firearm into their waist band, just like you want the general population to be limited to.

Sorry man, most cops are decent and you seem all right but when I see that uniform I don't really have any more assurance that you aren't going to be batshiat crazy than I do when I see an open carry nut walking around. come to think of it, I'd probably feel safer with the open carry guy, the crime rate for people with carry permits is actually lower than for police officers, and the penalties for a "civilian" making a mistake with a gun are historically higher than for officers, and while there are plenty of criminals out there wearing a badge there aren't many criminals who walk around openly armed.

On a side note, I have police officers in my family, and everytime I hear police call non-police "civilians" it pisses me off, you represent a civil authority, no matter how much black kit and fyapowah you are issued you are still a civilian too.
 
2010-08-09 10:07:36 AM  

thamike: ronaprhys: That being said, how does carrying a concealed weapon to an Arts and Crafts fair make one an asshole or a gun nut? If you normally carry concealed and no one sees it, how does that impact anyone at the Fair?

If you do it to make a point, you just might be a gun nut.


so, your problem with this is that someone is making a point?
 
2010-08-09 10:21:20 AM  

chairborne: thamike: ronaprhys: That being said, how does carrying a concealed weapon to an Arts and Crafts fair make one an asshole or a gun nut? If you normally carry concealed and no one sees it, how does that impact anyone at the Fair?

If you do it to make a point, you just might be a gun nut.


so, your problem with this is that someone is making a point?


It's not that hard to distinguish the responsible gun owner from the nutter. The responsible gun owner insists upon having his rights respected. The nutter insists upon Agreement, with a capital "A".
Just read this thread - it's easy to see the difference.
 
2010-08-09 10:59:54 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: ronaprhys: Satanic_Hamster:
It serves the specific purpose have having no guns on the property. Because the event runners don't want them. Because they control the property for the duration of the event. Because it's their right.


Wrong. It serves the specific purpose of having no legal guns present.

There is a subtle, but monumentally huge difference that many people are not able to grasp.
 
2010-08-09 11:25:19 AM  

jso2897: chairborne: thamike: ronaprhys: That being said, how does carrying a concealed weapon to an Arts and Crafts fair make one an asshole or a gun nut? If you normally carry concealed and no one sees it, how does that impact anyone at the Fair?

If you do it to make a point, you just might be a gun nut.


so, your problem with this is that someone is making a point?

It's not that hard to distinguish the responsible gun owner from the nutter. The responsible gun owner insists upon having his rights respected. The nutter insists upon Agreement, with a capital "A".
Just read this thread - it's easy to see the difference.



personally I think that the craft fair, as a private for-profit endeavor probably has the right to ban firearms if this makes them *feel* safer. I can guarantee it doesn't *make* them safer unless they also have a security cordon and metal detectors, but some people will go a long way for the illusion of safety.

But if these gun nuts want to make a legal point that's their prerogative, and if they wanted to stage a public protest, that should be fine too, even if they are slinging HOLYshiatASSAULTRIFFFFLES on their backs while doing so. Mere possession of a firearm slung, holstered, or in an otherwise safe condition shouldn't be a crime and isn't most places subject to a little government intrusion here and there. They might seem a little extreme to non gun owners and even middle of the road firearms enthusiasts, but that doesn't make them extremist, extremists *would* be something to worry about.

I don't feel strongly about the incident in the article either way, but it's not just random nuttery, it's activism, and that's the point of activism from any part of the political spectrum, to be an ass and draw attention to a percieved injustice. This happens in any social group, a lot of gays think that the over the top behavior at gay pride parades and elsewhere is damaging to their cause, but some might argue would argue that the moderates wouldn't enjoy the acceptance that they do now if the flamers hadn't pushed the envelope.

Firearms rights in the US have been on an upward trend for decades now despite post 9/11, post school shooting paranoia, and it just may be that the assholes at the extremes are the ones who have done more to push us in that direction, if only by making moderates seem more palatable in comparison.

And it's funny that someone posted the black panther and KKK pics as an anti-gun jab. First off, the reason why open carry was outlawed/nuetered in California is that the Black Panthers were legally open carrying and that scared a lot of honkeys at the state capitol and they started legislatering. The KKK reference is even funnier since most gun laws started off as blatantly racist measures, the first gun laws in the country were put in place after the civil war specifically to prevent freed slaves from owning firearms and later on the laws against "saturday night special" were aimed at keeping inexpensive firearms out of the hands of scary negros who at that point in history mostly couldn't afford anything else for self defense and certainly couldn't depend on the police to protect them.

Hell, in an interesting intersection one of the founders of the Black Panthers actually got a charter from the NRA (new window)to start a chapter mostly comprised of black WW2 vets and ran the KKK out of their town without a single person being killed. I don't agree with how extremist the Panthers got eventually but you got to love the way they started out, and you have to admit that the civil rights movement might not have won in the end without assholes like them pushing the envelope.

i36.tinypic.com
 
2010-08-09 11:44:04 AM  

chairborne: On a side note, I have police officers in my family, and everytime I hear police call non-police "civilians" it pisses me off, you represent a civil authority, no matter how much black kit and fyapowah you are issued you are still a civilian too.


Bingo. I'm legitmatelely able to call others 'civilians'. I don't generally do it in front of others because it's just rude. Used it in my unit a few times because it IS an accurate word for 'non-military'. 'We want to avoid killing civilians when possible' sort of stuff.

The police use it as part of a 'us vs them' distinction. Heck, I even got CALLED a civilian by police once.
 
2010-08-09 11:44:57 AM  

chairborne: personally I think that the craft fair, as a private for-profit endeavor probably has the right to ban firearms if this makes them *feel* safer. I can guarantee it doesn't *make* them safer unless they also have a security cordon and metal detectors, but some people will go a long way for the illusion of safety.


If the fair was on private property, I'd absolutely agree. Since it's not, though, I'm not sure they should be allowed (regardless of actual legality). It's a very temporary permit to use the property. The actual property rights they'd obtain would be very, very limited (no damage, no changes, etc) so they're already restricted in what they can do. Without proving an overwhelming need to restrict a right I don't see how they've any ability to do so.
 
2010-08-09 11:55:06 AM  
Like anything, people who take their view to the extreme are a bunch of dicks. Fine, do what you want, but do you have to rub it in people's faces so arrogantly?
Having someone show up at a craft fair solely to flaunt their gun rights flirts with impeding on other peoples rights to the pursuit of happiness. Obviously I'm not talking about the folks who want to go to the fair and just happen to have their legal firearm with them.
 
2010-08-09 12:02:55 PM  

winsecure: Satanic_Hamster: ronaprhys: Satanic_Hamster:
It serves the specific purpose have having no guns on the property. Because the event runners don't want them. Because they control the property for the duration of the event. Because it's their right.

Wrong. It serves the specific purpose of having no legal guns present.

There is a subtle, but monumentally huge difference that many people are not able to grasp.


No shiat, Sherlock. I said that myself earlier in the thread.

Again: The festival banning guns? Meaningless, ineffective, pointless, but FULLY LEGAL.
 
2010-08-09 12:14:24 PM  

NationalHero: Like anything, people who take their view to the extreme are a bunch of dicks. Fine, do what you want, but do you have to rub it in people's faces so arrogantly?
Having someone show up at a craft fair solely to flaunt their gun rights flirts with impeding on other peoples rights to the pursuit of happiness. Obviously I'm not talking about the folks who want to go to the fair and just happen to have their legal firearm with them.


just like them gays *flaunting* it in parades, or those brown people forcing themselves into white lunch counters huh? Throwing it right in your face?

Just cause you don't like something doesn't mean you've got a right to preserve your narrow world view kiddo. You don't have a problem with someone who's legally *hiding* a weapon going? How about a police officer who's *flaunting* his firearm (out in the open, gasp) attending an event like this? Wait, I guess they don't count, especially since officers were replaced by perfectly impartial androids incapable of injustice and programmed to protect and serve back in the mid 80's. Or was that robocop? I forget sometimes.

But it's a silly stance, hell, I can understand someone who wants to ban guns 100 percent, even if that's an impossibly impractical dream, but you? You just don't want to *see* guns, presumably so you can *pretend* they don't exist.
 
2010-08-09 12:20:46 PM  

Satanic_Hamster: No shiat, Sherlock. I said that myself earlier in the thread.

Again: The festival banning guns? Meaningless, ineffective, pointless, but FULLY LEGAL.


That has not been decided nor have you proven that. You've been asked for links and provided none.
 
2010-08-09 12:27:23 PM  

chairborne: jso2897: chairborne: thamike: ronaprhys: That being said, how does carrying a concealed weapon to an Arts and Crafts fair make one an asshole or a gun nut? If you normally carry concealed and no one sees it, how does that impact anyone at the Fair?

If you do it to make a point, you just might be a gun nut.


so, your problem with this is that someone is making a point?

It's not that hard to distinguish the responsible gun owner from the nutter. The responsible gun owner insists upon having his rights respected. The nutter insists upon Agreement, with a capital "A".
Just read this thread - it's easy to see the difference.


personally I think that the craft fair, as a private for-profit endeavor probably has the right to ban firearms if this makes them *feel* safer. I can guarantee it doesn't *make* them safer unless they also have a security cordon and metal detectors, but some people will go a long way for the illusion of safety.

But if these gun nuts want to make a legal point that's their prerogative, and if they wanted to stage a public protest, that should be fine too, even if they are slinging HOLYshiatASSAULTRIFFFFLES on their backs while doing so. Mere possession of a firearm slung, holstered, or in an otherwise safe condition shouldn't be a crime and isn't most places subject to a little government intrusion here and there. They might seem a little extreme to non gun owners and even middle of the road firearms enthusiasts, but that doesn't make them extremist, extremists *would* be something to worry about.

I don't feel strongly about the incident in the article either way, but it's not just random nuttery, it's activism, and that's the point of activism from any part of the political spectrum, to be an ass and draw attention to a percieved injustice. This happens in any social group, a lot of gays think that the over the top behavior at gay pride parades and elsewhere is damaging to their cause, but some might argue would argue that the moderates wouldn't enjoy the acceptance that they do now if the flamers hadn't pushed the envelope.

Firearms rights in the US have been on an upward trend for decades now despite post 9/11, post school shooting paranoia, and it just may be that the assholes at the extremes are the ones who have done more to push us in that direction, if only by making moderates seem more palatable in comparison.

And it's funny that someone posted the black panther and KKK pics as an anti-gun jab. First off, the reason why open carry was outlawed/nuetered in California is that the Black Panthers were legally open carrying and that scared a lot of honkeys at the state capitol and they started legislatering. The KKK reference is even funnier since most gun laws started off as blatantly racist measures, the first gun laws in the country were put in place after the civil war specifically to prevent freed slaves from owning firearms and later on the laws against "saturday night special" were aimed at keeping inexpensive firearms out of the hands of scary negros who at that point in history mostly couldn't afford anything else for self defense and certainly couldn't depend on the police to protect them.

Hell, in an interesting intersection one of the founders of the Black Panthers actually got a charter from the NRA (new window)to start a chapter mostly comprised of black WW2 vets and ran the KKK out of their town without a single person being killed. I don't agree with how extremist the Panthers got eventually but you got to love the way they started out, and you have to admit that the civil rights movement might not have won in the end without assholes like them pushing the envelope.


I'm not sure why you addressed that post to me, in particular. There's nothing in it of substance that I would (or have) dispute. What I did, that aroused the ire of a few posters, was state that while I fully endorse the right to bear arms, anywhere that they may lawfully do so, and that it doesn't bother me, or scare me, or make me feel less safe. Indeed, neither the presence or absence of guns makes me feel any safer, or less safe. I also happened to state that I choose not to carry in public places, because sixty years of life experience have informed me that it's not in my self-interest - while at the same time, stressing that I passed no judgment on someone who would make a different choice.
And, for this, I was pretty much excoriated by several individuals, who informed me that I was, among other things, a coward who is "ashamed" of his guns, a "liberal pussy", who is "terrified of armed Americans", and a whole bunch of other shiat too preposterous to bother repeating.
These were not people who were asserting their rights - these were people who demand that I not only agree with them in all things, but that I behave as they do. I have even been told (not in this thread) that I am shirking my duty as a citizen by NOT carrying a gun around, so that I may always be prepared to thwart bank robberies and rescue damsels who are about to be raped and so forth.
And that, my friend, defines the difference between responsible gun owners, and gun nuts.
And that's all I was talking about - I'm a solid believer in the 2nd, and don't need a lecture on gun rights from anybody.
 
2010-08-09 12:32:07 PM  

chairborne: NationalHero: Like anything, people who take their view to the extreme are a bunch of dicks. Fine, do what you want, but do you have to rub it in people's faces so arrogantly?
Having someone show up at a craft fair solely to flaunt their gun rights flirts with impeding on other peoples rights to the pursuit of happiness. Obviously I'm not talking about the folks who want to go to the fair and just happen to have their legal firearm with them.

just like them gays *flaunting* it in parades, or those brown people forcing themselves into white lunch counters huh? Throwing it right in your face?

Just cause you don't like something doesn't mean you've got a right to preserve your narrow world view kiddo. You don't have a problem with someone who's legally *hiding* a weapon going? How about a police officer who's *flaunting* his firearm (out in the open, gasp) attending an event like this? Wait, I guess they don't count, especially since officers were replaced by perfectly impartial androids incapable of injustice and programmed to protect and serve back in the mid 80's. Or was that robocop? I forget sometimes.

But it's a silly stance, hell, I can understand someone who wants to ban guns 100 percent, even if that's an impossibly impractical dream, but you? You just don't want to *see* guns, presumably so you can *pretend* they don't exist.


Your example of the "brown people forcing themselves into white lunch counters" is retarded. Like, super retarded.

My stance is againt people who would normally never go to a craft fair but will in this instance to protect their liberties. From the article it seemed pretty apparent that protest began as a pre-emptive measure. It's not like someone went to the craft fair and got turned away because they were carrying. It was more like someone decided to trumpet this issue ahead of time just in case their liberties were going to be threatened. This has nothing to do with the bravery of people fighting for equal rights due to the color of their skin.

So tear me apart from here on out because I doubt I'll continue with a back and forth on the issue, but at least show enough class to use a more pertinent example next time. Or not, whatever.
 
2010-08-09 01:16:42 PM  
NExD Quote 2010-08-09 08:05:15 AM
obviously you hippie libs don't understand. It is not about why would you need a gun at a craft fair. It is about liberty. Something the officials you hippie libs elected are constantly infringing upon.

>>>

ah yes who can forget the infamous Patriot Act brought forward by the hippie libs
 
2010-08-09 02:31:25 PM  
Subby seems to know when and where one might need a gun. That's awesome! I wonder if subby chooses to leave his spare tire at home on days he thinks he won't need it.

I carry my gun everywhere.
 
2010-08-09 02:49:16 PM  

DoubleActionCHL: Subby seems to know when and where one might need a gun. That's awesome! I wonder if subby chooses to leave his spare tire at home on days he thinks he won't need it.


I might be 'overprepared', but I keep 3 fire extinguishers at home, despite never having had a fire. 2 fire/smoke/CO detectors. A larger than usual first aid kit in my truck, along with a small toolkit, road flares, highway triangle. I'm CPR trained, and while I'm no EMT, I have 'more than average' training.

I've actually USED my carry weapon. Admittably I used it on a deer I hit with my car(shot it in the head after finding it still alive, but broken), but I still used it.
 
2010-08-09 03:32:00 PM  
DoubleActionCHL Quote 2010-08-09 02:31:25 PM

I carry my gun everywhere.

>>>

living in constant fear is more dangerous than being without your gun. enjoy your heart attack at age 45
 
2010-08-09 03:46:50 PM  

Big Al: living in constant fear is more dangerous than being without your gun. enjoy your heart attack at age 45


You're assuming he's more afraid when he has his gun*.

*I really doubt he carries it EVERYWHERE. ;)
 
2010-08-09 03:52:48 PM  
you are more afraid, even with your gun a nut like that is always looking over their shoulder, asking for trouble to come to them.
 
2010-08-09 04:27:20 PM  

Big Al: living in constant fear is more dangerous than being without your gun. enjoy your heart attack at age 45


What a strange thing to say. You know, I made sure my car had a spare tire, and felt not the slightest emotion while doing it. I bought a first aid kit (pops) and, besides appreciating the nice little bag it came in, I was pretty much completely dispassionate about it.

Preparation and fear are two different things.
 
2010-08-09 04:39:18 PM  

chairborne: just like you want the general population to be limited to.


I want this? When did I say that? When did I even think that?

On a side note, I have police officers in my family, and everytime I hear police call non-police "civilians" it pisses me off, you represent a civil authority, no matter how much black kit and fyapowah you are issued you are still a civilian too.

When did I refer to non-police as civilians?

My post referred to a guy that felt it necessary to attend a meeting of the city council while wearing military fatigues and openly carrying a firearm. That's not rational behavior. Normal people don't behave that way. That behavior is delusional and paranoid. A normal person would wear a suit or casual attire to a city council meeting, and if they felt the need to be armed they'd carry their firearm concealed.

What point was this guy trying to make?
 
2010-08-09 04:55:21 PM  

CruiserTwelve: My post referred to a guy that felt it necessary to attend a meeting of the city council while wearing military fatigues and openly carrying a firearm. That's not rational behavior. Normal people don't behave that way. That behavior is delusional and paranoid. A normal person would wear a suit or casual attire to a city council meeting, and if they felt the need to be armed they'd carry their firearm concealed.

What point was this guy trying to make?


Why is that irrational? It's certainly not normal, but that's just a statistical statement.

Also, if the guy did it to make a point and not because it's simply habit, wouldn't you have to know what his point was before judging his actions to be irrational? For example, suppose his point is, "A guy can wear a gun and fatigues and still be a perfectly nice guy". By wearing a gun and fatigues and being a perfectly nice guy, he gave the people an effective object lesson. And what is it about his actions that was "delusional and paranoid"? Was it the fatigues? The gun? The fact that the gun was visible? That it was visible at the meeting?
 
2010-08-09 05:31:28 PM  

treesloth: Also, if the guy did it to make a point and not because it's simply habit, wouldn't you have to know what his point was before judging his actions to be irrational? For example, suppose his point is, "A guy can wear a gun and fatigues and still be a perfectly nice guy". By wearing a gun and fatigues and being a perfectly nice guy, he gave the people an effective object lesson.


I still don't see the point. Why would a rational person think they had to attend a city council meeting in fatigues and carrying a gun just to show that nice people can wear fatigues and carry a gun? Why didn't he wear a clown suit to show that nice people could wear a clown suit? Or a gorilla suit? Or paint himself purple? Why fatigues and a gun? There must be a specific point he was trying to make by that particular choice of attire.

>i> And what is it about his actions that was "delusional and paranoid"? Was it the fatigues? The gun? The fact that the gun was visible? That it was visible at the meeting?

Military fatigues are designed to be functional in military applications. They provide a degree of concealment, large pockets to store items used on a battlefield, they're loose fitting for comfort in the unusual positions that a soldier may find himself in and there are probably other design features specific to military use. They're not designed to be used as casual attire to be worn in non-military situations. This guy wore this clothing to a city council meeting. A CITY COUNCIL meeting. Not to Walmart, not to a neighborhood picnic, not to church, but to a CITY COUNCIL meeting. He wore this specific military attire to a meeting of a non-military civilian political body. And he wore it while openly carrying a firearm? Why? Did he think city council was comprised of enemy combatants? Was he afraid he might suddenly find himself in the midst of a military operation? What possible rational purpose could there be for this particular attire at this particular function?

Don't tell me this guy picked military fatigues because they looked confortable. He chose that attire for a specific purpose. Why? Just give me one rational reason.
 
2010-08-09 05:40:10 PM  

CruiserTwelve: I still don't see the point. Why would a rational person think they had to attend a city council meeting in fatigues and carrying a gun just to show that nice people can wear fatigues and carry a gun? Why didn't he wear a clown suit to show that nice people could wear a clown suit? Or a gorilla suit? Or paint himself purple? Why fatigues and a gun? There must be a specific point he was trying to make by that particular choice of attire.


No - you see the point but you're being obtuse and attempting to combine the BDUs and the firearm. Chances are this particular gentleman wears the BDUs on a consistent basis, so I wouldn't attach any particular importance to that with regards to him wearing them to the meeting. Chances are he wears them to the store as well so I doubt he was trying to make a statement.

The firearm, however, is a different point. My best guess at what he's attempting to show is that it's perfectly legal to openly carry a firearm and that, shockingly enough, actually openly carrying one does not lead directly to people being shot.

Military fatigues are designed to be functional in military applications. They provide a degree of concealment, large pockets to store items used on a battlefield, they're loose fitting for comfort in the unusual positions that a soldier may find himself in and there are probably other design features specific to military use. They're not designed to be used as casual attire to be worn in non-military situations. This guy wore this clothing to a city council meeting. A CITY COUNCIL meeting. Not to Walmart, not to a neighborhood picnic, not to church, but to a CITY COUNCIL meeting. He wore this specific military attire to a meeting of a non-military civilian political body. And he wore it while openly carrying a firearm? Why? Did he think city council was comprised of enemy combatants? Was he afraid he might suddenly find himself in the midst of a military operation? What possible rational purpose could there be for this particular attire at this particular function?

Don't tell me this guy picked military fatigues because they looked confortable. He chose that attire for a specific purpose. Why? Just give me one rational reason.


As I mentioned above, there's a very good chance he wears them frequently. I know I used to (I was actually in the Reserves but wore them many times when I wasn't on duty) before I wore them out. They're comfortable and durable. Many people like to wear them when doing physical work for just that reason. Don't assume that he did so to intimidate them - you simply can't draw that conclusion when there's perfectly good reasons to wear them.

If he said that he specifically picked that outfit out for the meeting, that's a different story - but you can't assume that he did.
 
2010-08-09 06:09:47 PM  
treesloth Quote 2010-08-09 04:27:20 PM

What a strange thing to say. You know, I made sure my car had a spare tire, and felt not the slightest emotion while doing it. I bought a first aid kit (pops) and, besides appreciating the nice little bag it came in, I was pretty much completely dispassionate about it.

Preparation and fear are two different things.

>>>

strange? you call carrying 24/7 as normal and preparation? You really do think you live out in the wild west frontier don't you?
 
2010-08-09 06:27:23 PM  

CruiserTwelve: I still don't see the point. Why would a rational person think they had to attend a city council meeting in fatigues and carrying a gun just to show that nice people can wear fatigues and carry a gun? Why didn't he wear a clown suit to show that nice people could wear a clown suit? Or a gorilla suit? Or paint himself purple?


Probably because he doesn't particularly care about showing that clowns, people in gorilla suits,or painted purple can be nice. "Why didn't he choose to make these other points" doesn't invalidate the one we speculate he did try to make.

CruiserTwelve: Why fatigues and a gun? There must be a specific point he was trying to make by that particular choice of attire.


No, not "must", but yes, probably. It really is possible that that's just how the guy dresses, but setting that aside, the article doesn't say what point he's trying to make. But here's the thing: it doesn't matter. Whatever the point is, it's his to make. It's an unsupported leap to go from disagreeing with his method to saying he's "irrational" and "delusional and paranoid".

CruiserTwelve: Military fatigues are designed to be functional in military applications.


Yes, but as very common, things that are expressly designed for one application are often used to great benefit in others. Not that that matters in this case. If the guy likes fatigues, he likes fatigues. Some of the benefits you mention are certainly applicable outside the military, but here's a couple more: they're durable and dirt cheap at a surplus store. Lots of storage, comfortable, cheap, durable... there's a lot to like. FWIW, I don't own fatigues or anything vaguely like them, but I see the benefits.

CruiserTwelve: This guy wore this clothing to a city council meeting. A CITY COUNCIL meeting. Not to Walmart, not to a neighborhood picnic, not to church, but to a CITY COUNCIL meeting. He wore this specific military attire to a meeting of a non-military civilian political body.


Yep, he wore it to a city council meeting. If, in fact, he did it to make a point, where else should have have worn these things? If he wanted to make a point to the city council, it seems reasonable to go to... the city council.

CruiserTwelve: What possible rational purpose could there be for this particular attire at this particular function?


CruiserTwelve: Don't tell me this guy picked military fatigues because they looked confortable. He chose that attire for a specific purpose. Why? Just give me one rational reason.


Among others, a simple desire to make a point. I really don't know if that's why he did it. And why can't I cite comfort as a reason? I went to high school with a guy that wore old fatigues perhaps once a week. Decent guy, not crazy... he just liked them. Yes, because they were comfortable.

But, rather than letting this spiral into an increasingly picked nits, here's my point: Simply wearing fatigues and carrying a firearm fall considerably short of showing that he's "irrational" and "delusional and paranoid". Can you show otherwise, citing anything besides personal viewpoint?
 
2010-08-09 06:27:48 PM  
Regarding one comment about "flaunting" carry:
This is rarely an issue. The safest, most effective mode of carry is concealed carry.
Also, people who do carry openly, usually do so more for "educational" purposes than to flaunt.

Rights need to be exercised to be preserved. As an example, you can lose a trademark or even property if you don't assert your ownership. This is why Coke and Pepsi employ people to go around and test businesses to make sure that they aren't using Coke and Pepsi as "generic" terms.

The term "Aspirin" was once trademarked by the Bayer company.

In regions where open carry is almost never observed, it can become, by default, a "disturbing the peace" offense. (Some metropolitan areas do this in states where open carry is legal.) Open carry helps keep the public educated that mere possession of a gun is not a crime.

Open carry is important, in my opinion as an option for people who are not yet licensed for concealed carry. This may still be the law in Georgia, where guns are not registered, and anybody can do open carry except felons, etc. In my opinion this is an important right, and especially useful for people who find themselves threatened by an abusive spouse, ex, or stalker, or by a vengeful or aggressive criminal element.

The police cannot protect you, and in fact have no obligation right to do so. This has been tested in court by people who called 911 for help by the police, and the police were shown to be guilty of negligence. They were, however, not held liable, and not legally obligated to protect you.

If you ever find yourself threatened in a state that does not allow open carry, then you will find you cannot get full-time police protection, in almost every case. They just can't afford to do it.

So if you like women being raped and killed by abusive ex boyfriends or spouses, then please continue to oppose open carry.
 
2010-08-09 06:31:55 PM  

Big Al: strange? you call carrying 24/7 as normal and preparation?


I don't particularly care about "normal". As I point out elsewhere, that's simply a statistical statement. But, yes, it's preparation.
 
2010-08-09 07:14:59 PM  

trelane99: My right to have a firearm is the same as your right to be gay. I can't make you not gay, or at least to get you to stop hitting on me (unless you're a pair of hot lesbians, in which case hit on me all you like).

You can't take, or in any way restrict my guns.
/actually a pair of hot lesbians wearing nothing but a chromed 1911's would be even better
//back to the lesbian gunporn!


Note to self: just because a moron says something, doesn't make it true.
 
2010-08-09 07:22:02 PM  

ronaprhys: As I mentioned above, there's a very good chance he wears them frequently. I know I used to (I was actually in the Reserves but wore them many times when I wasn't on duty) before I wore them out. They're comfortable and durable. Many people like to wear them when doing physical work for just that reason. Don't assume that he did so to intimidate them - you simply can't draw that conclusion when there's perfectly good reasons to wear them.


He was attending a city council meeting. Call me strange, but if I was going to try to convince the city council that my position was right, I'd specifically avoid wearing fatigues and a visible gun. I'd worry that they'd think I was a nutcase.
 
2010-08-09 07:27:47 PM  

treesloth: Probably because he doesn't particularly care about showing that clowns, people in gorilla suits,or painted purple can be nice. "Why didn't he choose to make these other points" doesn't invalidate the one we speculate he did try to make.


Okay, for the sake of argument I'll assume your theory to be fact. Now explain why he felt it necessary to convince someone that a person wearing military fatigues in a non-military setting and openly carrying a firearm can be a nice person. Why would he feel it necessary to demonstrate that?

I know why. It's because most people wearing such attire in a business setting are considered a little strange. There's good reason for that.
 
2010-08-09 07:28:19 PM  

ronaprhys: What reason can anyone show for not permitting someone who's gone through a background check, probably (definitely in Ohio) some sort of additional training, and has committed no felonies whatsoever for carrying a firearm in a place where it's perfectly legal every other day of the year?

Should we also prohibit free speech there because someone might criticize the banal and/or crappy art that might be there?


Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words can never hurt you. Crappy art may break your heart, but a gun can blow your stupid farking head off...
...and your stupid comparisons of grossly inequal principles doesn't change that.

...apparently, some people still need nursery rhymes to explain basic common sense.
 
2010-08-09 07:34:01 PM  

ronaprhys: Satanic_Hamster:
Now, I know you're a troll who's claimed that Brietbart has never edited videos for his political advantage and that anything you type should be suspected idiocy, but what the hell:
Yes the city can. The city is within their rights to rent out public property and let it be temporarily under different rules.

Under your logic, it's illegal for the festival runners to charge admission, because they're turning public land into private.

To some extent, yes. Charging admission for an event has a specific purpose. No charge, no event. Temporarily banning firearms serves what purpose, exactly?


It keeps worthless, sociopathic micro-penis morons who show up at city council meetings and art fairs wearing camouflage and carrying guns from freaking out the normal customers who came to look at art, rather than to aggressively advertise their social and sexual inadequacies.
 
2010-08-09 07:35:45 PM  

Giltric: balial: Face it, if you're into the second amendment, you're probably just like this guy:

/hot, unlike 2nd amendment lovers

I've read somewhere that he made those photos on purpose....and trolled a ton of people with them.


Well, I'm pretty gaddamned sure they weren't taken by accident!
 
2010-08-09 07:41:55 PM  

ronaprhys: thamike: Is there anybody here who can see that one can take the 2nd Amendment literally, and be all for any kind of gun ownership, but still make fun of retarded gun nuts? It isn't black and white. Owning guns doesn't make one a gun nut. Not liking guns doesn't make you a commie pussy. Owning guns and not being able to restrain your firearm-oriented behavior makes you a gun nut and an asshole.

Honestly, I think many of us can. My wife and I just went to a Gun and Knife show in Dayton. Plenty of folks there to make fun of. Very polite people, as a rule, but definitely some damned oddballs and idiots floating around.

That being said, how does carrying a concealed weapon to an Arts and Crafts fair make one an asshole or a gun nut? If you normally carry concealed and no one sees it, how does that impact anyone at the Fair?

Secondly, what good reason is there for prohibiting firearms at an area where it's perfectly legal at all other times to carry?


Jesus Christ on a stick you moron, because the land has been given over to a private group to hold an event, and THEY DON'T WANT ASSHOLES LIKE YOU AROUND!

If it's legal to let private groups use the land, set up use rules, and charge admission, then they can also limit
behavior that they find objectionable, like smoking or drinking, or carrying guns.
 
2010-08-09 07:47:06 PM  

Big Al: you are more afraid, even with your gun a nut like that is always looking over their shoulder, asking for trouble to come to them.


Who are you to tell me my mindset? His mindset? As a holder of a CCW, even if I don't 'carry all the time', I believe that I'm more qualified to guess the state of mind of other CCWers than you are.

You make a lot of assumptions. Like I said earlier, I actually used my weapon once. It was only on a car struck deer, but I was glad I had it that day.

I suppose I could keep a rifle in the back, but what if somebody breaks into my truck?

/Darn it, my earlier response never made it
 
2010-08-09 07:52:02 PM  

ronaprhys: Satanic_Hamster: It serves the specific purpose have having no guns on the property. Because the event runners don't want them. Because they control the property for the duration of the event. Because it's their right.

Now, could the city, say, put a clause in their rental agreements that people renting city property not do this? Sure. But until they do, it's the legal right of the even runners do prohibit carrying guns.

Actually, it may not be their right. If you read the article you'll note that the city is looking into it and it's not a decided issue.

While I agree with your interpretation on private land, I disagree on public land. Yes - this is still public land. It does not become private. Want doesn't come into play here at all. They can charge admission as they can't (theoretically) support the Fair without that admission charge. That makes it a need. There's no need to prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms.

If I were to elect to wear a tee shirt that were deemed offensive to artists (but was in no way obscene) and is legal at all other times, they have no right to ask me to leave. Freedom of speech. I'm also permitted to say whatever I'd like (within normal bounds of law). I'm not permitted to be disruptive, though. For you to make an argument you have to prove that someone carrying concealed is disruptive.


Your ideas of their wants vs. needs is what doesn't matter here, dipshiat.
 
2010-08-09 07:52:22 PM  

CruiserTwelve: treesloth: Probably because he doesn't particularly care about showing that clowns, people in gorilla suits,or painted purple can be nice. "Why didn't he choose to make these other points" doesn't invalidate the one we speculate he did try to make.

Okay, for the sake of argument I'll assume your theory to be fact. Now explain why he felt it necessary to convince someone that a person wearing military fatigues in a non-military setting and openly carrying a firearm can be a nice person. Why would he feel it necessary to demonstrate that?

I know why. It's because most people wearing such attire in a business setting are considered a little strange. There's good reason for that.


Nobody got shot. So, I guess that a person in military attire and carrying a handgun really isn't a threat after all - at least not to anything other than the egos of the "chosen only" cops who think they are the only ones who should wear uniforms and carry a gun.

/ it was a political setting, not a business setting.
// I bet the guy was making a political statement, hence entirely appropriate.
 
2010-08-09 08:01:55 PM  

CruiserTwelve: ...explain why he felt it necessary to convince someone that a person wearing military fatigues in a non-military setting and openly carrying a firearm can be a nice person. Why would he feel it necessary to demonstrate that?


Again, it doesn't matter. It's his right to pick his issues and support them. And, again, please keep in mind that I'm only speculating and hypothesizing about his reasons. Even so, you have illustrated one reason very well. You called this man "deluded and paranoid" and "irrational", even though those conclusions certainly do not follow from the evidence at hand. Do you think you're the only one who thinks that way? Is it unbelievable, then, that such a person might wish to counter such misconceptions? It might be a simple case of PR for his particular cause. I've generally found your posts to be reasonable and well thought-out, and having a valuable viewpoint that most people wouldn't think to consider, and even you jumped to some pretty harsh conclusions about this man.

Now, please keep in mind that the core of my rambling is simply that there isn't cause to say this guy's gone off the deep end. I also can't claim that he's pure in his intention, and just like with anyone else, he could be a nutjob. For all I know, he goes home, puts on bunny slippers and lipstick, lights some candles and has carnal relations with his Roomba (nttawwt). But the information at hand supports no such conclusion.
 
2010-08-09 08:09:59 PM  

NExD: obviously you hippie libs don't understand. It is not about why would you need a gun at a craft fair. It is about liberty. Something the officials you hippie libs elected are constantly infringing upon.


Yep. The liberty to rent land and use it as you see fit, without a bunch of dickless, whiny gun nuts ruining it for everyone.

And screw off with your "hippie lib" bullshiat, you loser piece of shiat.
 
2010-08-09 08:12:57 PM  

ronaprhys: chairborne: personally I think that the craft fair, as a private for-profit endeavor probably has the right to ban firearms if this makes them *feel* safer. I can guarantee it doesn't *make* them safer unless they also have a security cordon and metal detectors, but some people will go a long way for the illusion of safety.

If the fair was on private property, I'd absolutely agree. Since it's not, though, I'm not sure they should be allowed (regardless of actual legality). It's a very temporary permit to use the property. The actual property rights they'd obtain would be very, very limited (no damage, no changes, etc) so they're already restricted in what they can do. Without proving an overwhelming need to restrict a right I don't see how they've any ability to do so.


Your ignorance doesn't change anything. You really, really seem to have problems understanding that.
 
2010-08-09 08:20:05 PM  

Canned Tamales: Your ignorance doesn't change anything. You really, really seem to have problems understanding that.


You are a particularly angry troll. Maybe if you actually provided a link or any supporting evidence for your viewpoint you could move from troll to actual contributor.
 
2010-08-09 09:06:31 PM  

Dr. Nick Riviera: Guairdean: My knowledge of criminals comes from a far more definitive source than movies and TV. It comes from contact with the real thing.

Uh huh. In the grand internet tradition, next you're going to tell me how that ankle holster was the only thing that saved you from those violent criminal masterminds in Middle-of-Nowhere, Texas.

As for reading NRA pamphlets, I've read articles on both sides of the argument. That's one reason I've been a life member of the NRA since (quite probably) before you were born. I've taught two daughters and two grandsons how to safely handle firearms, how to use them properly, and the consequences of using them. You've been taught to fear a tool, I was taught to learn it's proper use and to respect it.

And I never said I was afraid of guns. I am simply wary of paranoid gun "collectors" who see danger in every shadow and seem to think that their manhood is only measured in what they have the power to destroy. Compared to other obsessive-compulsives, they have a much higher tendency of killing a lot of people who don't deserve it.


Fixed that (just for you), sport.
 
2010-08-09 09:12:59 PM  

GranPuro: at least not to anything other than the egos of the "chosen only" cops who think they are the only ones who should wear uniforms and carry a gun.


I know lots of cops and I don't know any that think this way. Yes, cops get nervous when other people have guns, but that should be understandable. If I see a guy carrying a gun and he's not in uniform, I become suspicious of his motives. Although in all probability the guy is perfectly harmless, there's always a chance he's the next Mark David Chapman. Cops are trained to be suspicious. That's a good thing for a cop to be.

/ it was a political setting, not a business setting.

NOW you're making a good point, and I agree. If he was making a political statement, then it makes sense. I'm not sure I agree with his method, nor am I sure I understand his statement, but I can at least see a reason for choosing this setting for it.
 
2010-08-09 09:16:58 PM  

treesloth: Now, please keep in mind that the core of my rambling is simply that there isn't cause to say this guy's gone off the deep end. I also can't claim that he's pure in his intention, and just like with anyone else, he could be a nutjob. For all I know, he goes home, puts on bunny slippers and lipstick, lights some candles and has carnal relations with his Roomba (nttawwt). But the information at hand supports no such conclusion.


My thinking is this: If I were going before a body that had control over an issue, and I was going to try to convince them that my position on the issue was the right one, I'd wear a business suit and try to look as professional and "normal" as I could. I wouldn't wear military attire and expect to be taken seriously. But that's just me.
 
2010-08-09 11:14:33 PM  

CruiserTwelve: GranPuro: at least not to anything other than the egos of the "chosen only" cops who think they are the only ones who should wear uniforms and carry a gun.

I know lots of cops and I don't know any that think this way. Yes, cops get nervous when other people have guns, but that should be understandable. If I see a guy carrying a gun and he's not in uniform, I become suspicious of his motives. Although in all probability the guy is perfectly harmless, there's always a chance he's the next Mark David Chapman. Cops are trained to be suspicious. That's a good thing for a cop to be.

/ it was a political setting, not a business setting.

NOW you're making a good point, and I agree. If he was making a political statement, then it makes sense. I'm not sure I agree with his method, nor am I sure I understand his statement, but I can at least see a reason for choosing this setting for it.


I know a few that are this way, but I would have to admit that they are not in the majority.

It would seem to me that you would consider the open carry guys less of a threat. At least you know they are armed and can keep an eye on them. What worries me is the Concealed Carry issue. All through history, hiding one's weapon was considered within the realm of the criminal or the assassin. If you are on a security detail (like at that council meeting), the guy with the pistol on the hip is the last guy that will be your problem. He knows all eyes are on him, and a move toward his weapon would be his last move. It is the guy reaching into his suit jacket that worries me. No way of knowing what he was reaching for until his hand comes back out, and that could put me well behind the curve.

I don't believe that there is an increased risk in open carry. There is no evidence to support an increased risk, and quite a bit of evidence that it deters crime. Most criminals do not want to get shot. They would just as soon get what they are after and get the heck out of there. As someone stated earlier in this thread, if someone makes up his mind to kill you, you stand a good chance of being dead. Most people are not trained to be in "condition yellow" all the time. Those of us that do practice staying in this condition are usually considered paranoid by those who are untrained and unaware (what we call sheeple).

The only advantage that I can see to civilian concealed carry is that 1) it does not upset the idiots and hoplophobes since they do not have to see the evil gun and wet themselves, and 2) it gives you the element of surprise. Chances are, if the person messing with me knew that I was armed, he would have either left me alone or straight up killed me. The fact that I am still alive in the encounter gives me an advantage. It also brings up some moral and tactical issues, but that is another subject.
 
2010-08-10 12:16:02 AM  

CruiserTwelve: My thinking is this: If I were going before a body that had control over an issue, and I was going to try to convince them that my position on the issue was the right one, I'd wear a business suit and try to look as professional and "normal" as I could. I wouldn't wear military attire and expect to be taken seriously. But that's just me.


That's understandable. It seems that perhaps you've downgraded "irrational" and "deluded and paranoid" to "disagreeable".
 
2010-08-10 09:53:59 AM  

Canned Tamales: Sticks and stones may break your bones, but words can never hurt you.


O RLY?

www.inquisitr.com

/just because you can doesn't mean you should...which also aptly describes most of your posts
 
2010-08-11 09:17:51 PM  
John Buck 41:

...said the paranoid gun nut.
 
Displayed 407 of 407 comments


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report