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 407
    More: Stupid, Royal Oak, carrying a firearm, Oakland County, city commission, firearms, city halls, festivals, arts  
•       •       •

3878 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Aug 2010 at 4:31 PM (4 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



407 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 407 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report