Fairfax Police Alarmed by Citizens Exercising Rights.

[FatSlob]

http://www.nbc4.com/news/3532321/detail.html

I've open carried plenty of times in Ohio. In fact, the Ohio Supreme Court decision in Klein vs. Leis declared open carry to be a "fundamental right" under the Ohio Constitution.

[MrBenchley]

1. Gee, ordinary people aren't comforted by neurotics with guns...

who'd a thunk it?

Hope they keep it up....it never hurts to get more publicity for how outright loony the triggerhappy few amongst us are....

And of course, this is a red letter day for stick-up artists...no need now to put the gun in your pocket when you walk into that store...

[DavidMS]

22. They aren't necessarly normal people

for all I know they may have hysteria.

A person aware of the law wouldn't do anything (they know its legal) and someone unaware may either ignore it (knowing the southern half of VA is much behind the rest of the nation) or call the poliece.

In one case they need a quick guide to recent legislative activity, in the other the person needs a psychrist.

Oh, and BTW, a 'stickup artist' which I perfer to call a violent criminal will probably cary concealed w/o permit violating VA law.

[iverglas]

30. aha

"ordinary people aren't comforted by neurotics with guns"
"They aren't necessarly normal people"

And we have another winner!



(The scarecrow might have been more appropriate, but it's already been awarded.)

Is "ordinary" the same as "normal"? I think not.

"for all I know they may have hysteria."

Yes, yes, we know. We get the point. Advocacy of firearms control is a symptom/result of hysteria. Firearms control legislation is a manifestation of mass hysteria.

A person aware of the law wouldn't do anything (they know its legal) ...

And yet ... the fact that something is legal to do just doesn't mean that the person doing it is not a legitimate subject of concern, does it now?

It's perfectly legal to wear ski masks in winter ... and yet, and yet ... if I saw six guys sitting around a fast food restaurant in ski masks, I might just wonder ... and I might just want the situation brought to the attention of someone who could figure out what it was.

There is absolutely no basis for the assertion that a person who knows it is legal to sit around a fast-food restaurant doing something legal would not wonder whether somebody doing it was up to no good.

... and someone unaware may either ignore it (knowing the southern half of VA is much behind the rest of the nation) or call the poliece.

Shall I assume that you are saying that the only reason that someone would call the police is if s/he didn't know that the activity was legal? I think I can (and must) deduce this, since you have said that someone who knew it was legal would *not* call the police (i.e. regardless of any reason there might otherwise be to call the police).

In one case they need a quick guide to recent legislative activity, in the other the person needs a psychrist.

You're getting incoherent here. Which is "one case" and which is "the other"? In which case does the person need a "psychrist"? (I shall refrain from guessing at the definition of that one.)

You are asserting that the only explanation for a person calling the police when s/he sees a bunch of people carrying firearms in a fast-food restaurant, even though s/he knows it is legal to do so, is that s/he is mentally ill?

What a bizarre statement.

Now on the other hand, I can see lots of grounds for questioning the mental health of people who sit around fast-food restaurants with firearms conspicuously strapped to their persons. And that might be one excellent reason why someone thought it wise to call the police.

I called 911 one day when I saw an older gent striding purposefully down the sidewalk in front of my house dressed in his bathrobe and slippers (as he was absolutely within his legal rights to do, eh?). Thought he might be an Alzheimer patient gone walkabout. My neighbour watched to see where he went as I was talking to 911. After I hung up, I went out on the porch, and there he came back again -- big cup of coffee from the 7-11 on the corner in his hand. So I called 911 back, and the operator and I had a chuckle.

The fact that it is legal to do something, and that someone has a right to do it, never means that it is necessarily wise or safe to do it in any particular circumstances. That's really a simple concept. And if I think that someone who has a right to do something is doing it in a manner that is so unwise that it may be unsafe for me or anyone else or even him/herself, I'm going to call the police, and you just might be the person thanking me one day.

And if I had children with me in the situation, you can bet I'd be even more likely to do that. After all, I shouldn't leave a three-year-old alone in a car, even when there's no danger and no alternative other than to let something else very bad happen to someone else. So surely everybody would expect me to take the simple step of asking the police to investigate a situation when I have no way of knowing whether it presents a danger to the children with me or not and when doing so causes no one else a jot or tittle of harm.

[DavidMS]

54. My point was we must take the population into account...

Advocacy of firearms control is a symptom/result of hysteria. Firearms control legislation is a manifestation of mass hysteria.

I never said that. I was trying to say that people react diffrently to enviromental stimuli. Some people panic when they see largre insects or mice, others when their fear of heights comes into play. Gun control legislation is not necessarly the result of hysteria, however hysteria tends to shut down discource and produce bad laws. In some cases (see England) a mass hysteria produced bad firearms laws. In others (like the NFA 1934) there was no mass hysteria, just an acknolegement that gangsters should not buy Thompson Sub Machineguns Over the Counter and taxation/regerstration was the best way to do it.

It's perfectly legal to wear ski masks in winter ... and yet, and yet ... if I saw six guys sitting around a fast food restaurant in ski masks, I might just wonder ... and I might just want the situation brought to the attention of someone who could figure out what it was.

This is where jugement comes into play. I would assume that someone who looks under the age of 18 is openly carying a firearm is a cause for concern. Also looking at what the person or people are doing.

In one case they need a quick guide to recent legislative activity, in the other the person needs a psychrist.

If someone calls the police regarding someone open carying and not acting suspiciously (i.e. wearing a ski mask while open carying in a bank branch) a third party who calls the police is either unaware of the law regarding someone who is not acting suspiciously or may be suffering from hysteria and needs a psychiatrist.

The fact that it is legal to do something, and that someone has a right to do it, never means that it is necessarily wise or safe to do it in any particular circumstances. That's really a simple concept. And if I think that someone who has a right to do something is doing it in a manner that is so unwise that it may be unsafe for me or anyone else or even him/herself, I'm going to call the police, and you just might be the person thanking me one day.

And if I had children with me in the situation, you can bet I'd be even more likely to do that. After all, I shouldn't leave a three-year-old alone in a car, even when there's no danger and no alternative other than to let something else very bad happen to someone else. So surely everybody would expect me to take the simple step of asking the police to investigate a situation when I have no way of knowing whether it presents a danger to the children with me or not and when doing so causes no one else a jot or tittle of harm.

I agree that all laws need to be applied via human jugement. Just because someone is smoking a joint doesn't necessarly mean they need to be arested and charged, the prosecution may not be in the public intrest. And just because someone is legaly open carying does not mean that a police officer may not speak with them briefly about it.

[JayS]

55. I'll add that Jane/Joe Average should be able to look at a...

...person and determine a fairly accurate threat level. If all someone looks at it in this analysis is a holstered firearm and then goes "code red" I'd say they have issues. Then again, firearms are too common a sight here to really notice.

[MrBenchley]

56. Gee, Jane/Joe Average called the cops...

because they seemed like dangerous loonies...and somebody here tried to pretend it was some kind of dirty trick by "anti gun activists."

[iverglas]

57. ah, "issues"

If all someone looks at it in this analysis is a holstered firearm and then goes "code red" I'd say they have issues.

Well, I'll tell you flat out what my issue is.

If I saw a person in a fast-food restaurant with a firearm strapped to his/her body, I would think:

I am in close proximity to someone who is very obviously either so paranoid or so unconcerned about the interests of anyone but him/herself that I have no way of foreseeing what s/he will do while in the restaurant where I (and a bunch of other people, including a bunch of children) are eating lunch.

When I see someone acting in a way that I regard as paranoid, I am concerned for the safety of myself and others in the vicinity.

When I see someone acting in a way that demonstrates his/her complete disregard for the interests of other people, I am concerned for the safety of myself and others in the vicinity.

I would regard someone in the fast-food restaurant with a firearm strapped to his/her body in much the same way as I would regard someone carrying on a conversation with the serviette dispenser, or holding a large growling dog on a leash.

The person talking to the tableware may be as unlikely to start attacking children as I am. The person with the dog may have complete control over that dog. I have absolutely no way of knowing.

But I wouldn't necessarily want to see what happened if some other patron started mocking the tableware-talker, or got in an argument with the dog's owner. I don't have control over what the people in question might do, let alone anybody else in the restaurant might do, and I have no way of predicting it or avoiding the consequences of anything bad they might do.

Likewise, I wouldn't really want to see what might happen if someone tried to relieve a firearms-toter of his/her firearm. And it strikes me that toting one around like that is kind of an invitation for someone to do just that. (People with firearms strapped on their persons don't always travel in packs, right?)

And frankly, I probably wouldn't want to see what might happen if someone decided to hold up the cashier and one of the firearms-toters decided to do something about it.

And I completely fail to see how any of the things that I might be apprehensive about are any less likely to happen than the scenario in which someone *else* with a firearm walks into the restaurant and starts shooting randomly, which is apparently the scenario in which I would be grateful that there were other people in the joint toting firearms. (The thing being, of course, that that scenario would be even less likely to happen if there were decent firearms controls in place.)

So you'll see how I might conclude that the people in need of seeing a psychiatrist in this situation are not the ones looking at people with firearms strapped to their person.

I'd be much more likely to conclude that the people with the firearms strapped to their persons have a problem, whether it be of the paranoid or sociopathic variety. Because I really just can't think of who else (yeah, yeah, other than the cop, who is paid by me to protect me from paranoids and sociopaths, and whom I have no reason to suspect of being either one) would be likely to be sitting in a fast-food restaurant with a firearm strapped to their person.

[MrBenchley]

58. By the way, here's one mystery solved...

These pistol-packing nutcases are not any sort of sinister dirty trick by the New England Journal of Medicine or some other "anti-gun group"....but plain old run of the mill right wing dimwittedness at work...

"But getting people's attention, even if it makes them uncomfortable, is a virtuous and important part of defending the right to bear arms, argues Del. Richard H. Black (R-Loudoun), an outspoken gun rights advocate and one of Virginia's most conservative politicians. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A53084-2004Jul15.html

[iverglas]

60. ah yes

(the stupid WP won't let me register, and it's all different from when I registered before ...)

"But getting people's attention, even if it makes them uncomfortable, is a virtuous and important part of defending the right to bear arms" ...

It's amazing what insane things people can say, isn't it? Things that, when actually looked at, make not the slightest bit of sense.

I have a right to poop. Is getting people's attention by doing it in Starbucks, even if it makes them uncomfortable, an important part of defending that right??

People have a right to read Hustler magazine. Is getting my attention by doing it in Starbucks, even if it makes me ... well, nauseated to have to think about people like that actually sharing my airspace and unable to swallow my coffee, an important part of defending that right?

Or is it just pig ignorance?

Hey, I know what I'd say if the Washington Post asked.

[MrBenchley]

62. One vote here for "pig ignorance"

However, it does appear that the resulting mess has made the Old Dominion a laughing stock in the "liberal" press...(snicker)



""Virginia is for Lovers" the old tourist ads for the state used to read. The Old Dominion, The Mother of Presidents and the Mother of States are all well-known monikers for the 36th largest state in the nation.
There is soon to be a new appellation for this old and historic place, "Guns are Us."
Dangerous venues such as local restaurants and coffee shops are now the scene of gun enthusiasts quietly sipping their low fat latte with a fully loaded pistol. "

http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/pentagram/9_29/commentary/30198-1.html

[DoNotRefill]

87. DAMN Virginia's Republican governor for signing that law!!!!

Oh, wait a minute...never mind...

[DoNotRefill]

86. try...

http://www.bugmenot.com

avoid those nasty registration requirements....

[JayS]

59. I did not mean to infer that "issues" meant that one should...

...see a psychiatrist, just that the person has issues with firearms, which may be major or minor.

I also added the "disclaimer" that I am in an area where seeing firearms is too common to be noticed unless the person is a visible threat.

[iverglas]

61. well then, what the hell

the person has issues with firearms, which may be major or minor

... DOES that mean? Any chance you could be more obscure, if you tried?

What on earth is an "issue with firearms"? Do we really need to talk like we've been watching too much Oprah? Words are generally thought to be meant to elucidate, not to obfuscate.

Tell me. What are you actually saying you would estimate the reasons for the actions in question to be? What are these "issues with firearms" thingies that you are evidently saying are the only reasonable explanation for someone requesting attention to individuals sitting around fast-food restaurants with firearms strapped to their bodies?

[JayS]

63. I would say that some people's feelings range from being...

...uncomfortable around firearms to being irrationally afraid of them no matter in whose hands they are.

I would say that the gun toting group in question, no matter what they were trying to do, were jerks. I would not freak over it but I might do a "311 Call" (our version of a non-emergency 911 call) just to let the police check the group out and to annoy them like they are annoying everyone else.

One a related note, I can walk up and down Congress Avenue (a main downtown street) with a shotgun and it would be perfectly legal but I would not do it because it would make others uncomfortable. There are some that would freak over it, most likely Leslie (a thong wearing, cross dressing homeless person that ran for mayor and got 7% of the vote) would, but there is not much they could do about it. Rudeness is not illegal and that is what the group in question was.

[iverglas]

64. yes, and

I would say that some people's feelings range from being...
...uncomfortable around firearms to being irrationally afraid
of them no matter in whose hands they are.

Some people's feelings undoubtedly do that. But of course, not everybody's feelings fall into the range you have chosen to define, at all.

Other people's may be more as I described: what the hell is this person doing sitting in Starbucks with a firearm strapped to his/her person, and do I have any assurance that s/he is not psychotic or sociopathic?

Nothing to do with the firearms at all, you see. Everything to do with people who walk around with firearms strapped to their bodies, which many of us take as a prima facie indication that they are either psychotic or sociopathic to start with, and the fact that if they happen to be psychotic or sociopathic they've got what they need for doing something very unpleasant right within reach.

I would say that the gun toting group in question, no matter
what they were trying to do, were jerks.

Not much else one could conclude.

One a related note, I can walk up and down Congress Avenue
(a main downtown street) with a shotgun and it would be
perfectly legal but I would not do it because it would make
others uncomfortable. ... Rudeness is not illegal and that is
what the group in question was.

And that's really just begging the question. If it were not illegal to poop in the park (or drive drunk, or drive at 200 km/h, ...), then it would just be rude to do it. But it strikes me that the question is actually: should it be legal to poop in the park?

[JayS]

66. I am sure that there are a lot of people that feel the way you...

...do also and if I was in your area I would not open-carry even if it were legal to do so...unless there was an immediate, compelling need for me to open-carry. Here it would just not be that big a deal. Walking around with a shotgun would still attract attention just because a shotgun is...big.

On a side note, one group tried to push for open-carry over concealed-carry because open-carry would help the police by letting them know if someone was armed. This was nixed because the police should always assume someone is armed and weapons should not be exposed because some may be uncomfortable around them.

And it is legal to poop in public parks...in the Porta Potties. :)

It is illegal to poop out in the open because of the public decency standard and you cannot drive drunk or at excessive speeds because of the public safety issue. The State of Texas does not see firearms themselves as a public safety issue except when the firearms are in the wrong hands or at an inappropriate place.

[iverglas]

68. more question-begging!

It is illegal to poop out in the open because of the public decency standard ...

Yes ... and that standard should be applied to interfere in my exercise of my rights because ...?

... and you cannot drive drunk or at excessive speeds because of the public safety issue.

And we all know that loads of people drive drunk and speed all the time, and the public never knows, let alone suffers. There is nothing any more inherently "unsafe" about drunk driving or speeding than there is about walking around with firearms, or doing a whole lot of other things. Those laws are just prior restraints on my liberty, if you ask me.

The whole idea of prohibiting people from doing something because something bad *might* happen if they do it; heavens to betsy, where would it end??

The State of Texas does not see firearms themselves as a public safety issue except when the firearms are in the wrong hands or at an inappropriate place.

And the State of Texas would be an authoritative authority in this respect because ...? What if the State of Texas *did* see it as a public safety issue?

I'm afraid that although you've been truly very nice about it all, I still have to award this weeks petitio principii and argumentum ex cathedra prizes to you! Congratulations, and best wishes in your future endeavours and all that! (No, no, I'm not actually calling the game; the puck's still in play and it's back in your end if you want it.)




http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/pics/

[JayS]

79. You do have the right to poop, but just in designated areas. I...

...guess it is similar to a free-speech zone in that there must be a compelling need to restrict where you can exercise your rights. If you poop in the wrong zone you get a ticket. The act would count as another form of obscenity that is allowed, but just in certain areas.

Drunk driving and speeding are illegal because the probability is too high that something tragic will happen; with firearms, the probability is low, in most cases. I know the argument is usually "privilege vs. right" but if you could get loaded and drive 105 on any road and it would be one million to one that something would happen then it most likely would be legal. Until recent times, you could get drunk and operate a boat with little penalty if caught and if you had an accident and killed someone, the penalty was not all that severe; now it is manslaughter. (One friend of mine came across a boat wreck involving injuries and death that occurred shortly after 11:30 PM on the day before the law changed)

The State of Texas gets it authority from the Texas Constitution except where overridden by federal law. (and if we actually follow what the feds say. :)) To date, there have not been any requests to change the Constitution . If a politician thought that firearms had become a public safety issue and a change to the Constitution was required I am sure that someone would show him/her a map of Texas with all shootings (injury & death : justified, unjustified, police action) and point out that almost all of these shootings are in little tiny areas that all shared the same characteristics...and would be expected to deal with these characteristics and not firearms.

[DoNotRefill]

104. On the whole poop issue....

in Virginia, it IS largely legal to poop in public (some municipalities require you to "police your poop up", so that others don't step in it). I think it probably is legal to poop in public in most places outside of virginia, too. What's ILLEGAL is EXPOSING yourself to poop in public.

So, if you're wearing a skirt that allows you to poop without exposing yourself, that should be OK, as long as you have a plastic baggie to put it into.

Or, you can do what I do, and relieve yourself without taking off your clothes. Before you freak, let me explain. Sometimes, when not at work, I've been known to wear overalls. When the need has overtaken me to urinate in public, and a porta-potty wasn't available, I've been known to take a "gut-buster" drink cup, put it down my overalls, and urinate into it without disturbing my outer garments and exposing myself. Then I remove it, and find a place to dispose of it. No muss, no fuss, and it's legal, as long as you don't try to pass it off as mountain dew and give it to strangers. :evilgrin:

[DoNotRefill]

89. there's your problem...

"which many of us take as a prima facie indication that they are either psychotic or sociopathic to start with,"

that's gonna be a hard sell in Virginia...

[iverglas]

97. in Virginia ...

Isn't being a resident of Virginia, in itself, a prima facie indication that one is either psychotic or sociopathic?

Wait, maybe that's West Virginia. Certainly, and this I can say from personal experience, Texas.

[JayS]

100. We ain't all crazy down here; we just act that way. :)

What part of Texas did you visit?

[iverglas]

105. Dallas. Twice.

Wot a hellhole. Actually, Plano / Richardson. One wedding, one funeral. Same volume of beer and pickup trucks in the parking lot each time. Yech.

And yes, I did go to Austin too, and I did read the "right" newspapers, and know that not everybody was like the ones into whose company I'd been forced, although the Austin town lake campground was as full of pig ignorant drunkards as the parking lots of Plano, and yeah, we have some up here too. And I don't blame the ones whose company I was forced into entirely for being such pig ignorant drunkards ... but I still don't want ever to be in their company again. Man, even the undrunkard who had gone to university and fancied himself very superior, who was showing me around the place, very obviously bit his tongue and saved himself and stuttered out "Black Town", when we got to the part of town that he'd been about to call something that visiting Canadians usually find just a tad offensive.

That was in 1987 and 1988, two weeks each time. I vaguely recall Democrat-Republic electoral tensions focusing on who was promising to execute the most people. I've steered clear ever since!

[JayS]

107. I'm not a big fan of Dallas either. The "new" section of Austin...

...above 183 we call South Dallas because it has the look and feel of Dallas and not Austin. If I remember right, the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex has the honor of being the most violent place in Texas. It is also a big transit hub for drug shipments coming in from south of the border.

I think you mean the campground on Lake Austin, above Town Lake and I do know the sort you must have run into; breeding should be a privilege, not a right...

And I know the part of town you are referring to as Black Town. It is pretty much referred to now as just East Austin but it remains the same type of place. Sometimes you will still hear IH 35 referred to as Interracial 35 because it is a dividing line between two vastly different parts of Austin. West of IH 35 the races mix well but they are all part of the same "class" though.

On the Democrats vs. Republicans fight on executions...the Republicans are still winning.

[iverglas]

109. oops, town mixups

The "__ town" in question was in Plano. A dorky little place like that, and still divided into places where "we" and "they" live. I mean, Toronto has its Chinatowns and what have you, but they're a result of recent migratory movements and choices made based on economics and cultural association. In fact, I live in Chinatown where I'm at, which was still pretty much Little Italy when I moved in 20 years ago, and when I lived in Toronto I lived in Little Italy, which is now just one of Toronto's many trend-o-rama-villes, and worked at the juncture of one of the Chinatowns and one of the general cruddy strips on the verge of becoming trend city, a spot that had previously been mainly the garment district and therefore Jewish, and at that point was the workplace of half the Portuguese immigrant women in the city, who've probably mostly lost their jobs by now as a result of the second free trade agreement, if not the first. (In an election debate before a crowd of similar women who were asking a Mulroney Conservative cabinet minister about those jobs, he mumbled about how they weren't good jobs anyway, and I got the big round of applause for saying "but Mr. Minister -- they're the only jobs they've got!" Nothing like playing to a good room.)

The idea being, mobility and choice and diversity are the rule here when it comes to "___towns". The racial divisions in the US -- the physical, geographic divisions, and all the unwritten rules that go with them, like the one you describe in Austin -- are always an amazement.

France has not succeeded as Canada has at all this, and has its immigrant-heavy faubourgs, literally "suburbs" but, when decoded, the equivalent of "ghetto". The UK struck me as in between. The concièrge at our London hotel solemnly warned us to be very careful when visiting the part of the East End I'd asked him for directions to - the street where my grandfather was born. After we'd made the trip, and the current owners of the house had invited us in for tea and orange juice ... the current owners being Sri Lankan ... I realized that our concièrge was the equivalent of my Plano acquaintance. A racist. As I informed him none too quietly when we returned, after tricking him into admitting what he'd really been on about. Cripes, the block where I live, besides being probably less anglo/white than my grandfather's former street (with the white anglos in question being mainly the problematic neighbours here), is a hotbed of crime by comparison.

Maybe the poor concièrge just suffered from the common delusion that Canadians are unused to diversity and disorder and need to be prepared gently for it, who knows. /sarcasm. I must say I've never had anyone murdered on my front lawn, as happened to me when I was visiting a friend in Chicago ...

The sort I ran into at Lake Austin (I think I must have managed not to notice there were two lakes -- ah, "above" Town Lake as in "upriver"?) would be the ones found on the bubba side of the bubbas vs. yuppies tug of war, I believe. ;)

[JayS]

110. Ah, Plano. Famous for the rash of suicides there in the 80s.

The Chamber of Commerce does not mention this though. :)

We do have more mobility and choice and diversity now that, in general, is based on a type of cultural/educational class. You can be broke and still fit in but you are most likely broke because you are a student. You can fit in without a college education but you will generally still be well-educated. If you want to live in the REALLY nice parts of town, you need money, lots of it.

Some come here and see the diversity of people in the places I go and think all of Austin is that way...but one short trip over the "barrier" and they change their views.

I can go to an ATM machine, in the dark, and withdraw cash and go walking around with it in my hand and still have a near zero chance of getting mugged. I can go just a little ways and enter the "buffer zone" of the "barrier" and the police would arrest me for being grossly insane. If you took all criminal acts that occurred in Austin and graphed them on a map it would mostly be in "the east" with the worst crimes in small zones. I used to listen to the police on my scanner and would not think I was hearing Austin because I did not even know our police *had* tear gas.

There was actually a lawsuit in Florida I believe where the rental car agency did not tell some tourists where to definitely not go and they were murdered. I think the car rental agency settled.

The lakes are really all one river, the Colorado. (There are two Colorado rivers in the US) Town Lake is in the middle of town and is formed by the Longhorn Dam and Tom Miller Dam, which has not fallen over like its three predecessors. Lake Austin runs from Tom Miller to Mansfield Dam and is COLD as it is fed from the bottom of Lake Travis, which is our largest lake. This is the lake that has Hippie Hollow, where all the nekkid people hang out and made national news recently when the party boat turned over when everyone went to gawk at all the nekkid folks.

You must have been here when they still did the Tug-O-War across Town Lake between the North and the South. Those were the days. :)

[DoNotRefill]

101. I thank you....my wife thanks you....my daughter thanks you....

we're all happy to live in Virginia...

I guess I better worry...an 8 day old psychotic wandering around the house!!! Sleeping on my chest!!! And I didn't KNOW!!!! EEEEEKKKKKK!!!! :o

[iverglas]

106. your daughter

has quite enough to thank me for already, I'd say. I've been most generous.

As dog-mother, I'm already planning appropriate gifts. Here's what I'm getting my nieces when I go down to see them, having got it for my nephew some years back. I'll be happy to send one you can set aside until it's needed.



http://www.robertmunsch.com/books.cfm?bookid=48

It's about a family where the parents think that 'good families' don't have farts.

... One day I told the story in a big teacher's convention in Toronto. It was an example of 'stories that kids like that are hard to make into books'. After I was done a man came up in a very spiffy three-piece suit and he said "Huuummm. That story you told. The one about the fart. Is it true that you can't get it published?"

I said "Yes, absolutely true."

The three piece suit person said, "Maybe we should go out for lunch. My name is John Pierce and I am the editor of Doubleday Canada and it seems to me that that would make a very good story."

So I did go out to lunch with him and Doubleday Canada decided to do the book, but he said, "We can't just call it FART!" Bookstores will not like it.

... After it came out, I went to the <bookstore> and one of the owners said, "All the kids are coming in and yelling 'HAVE YOU GOT THE FART BOOK?"
"Maybe you should have called it FART after all.

You can download the MP3 of the author reading it at that site, actually. Best read in the presence of easily offended adults, for the kids to get the most pleasure from it, I found.

And after all, farting is a fundamental right. An important principle, to be got across early.

[DoNotRefill]

85. be careful....

"And if I think that someone who has a right to do something is doing it in a manner that is so unwise that it may be unsafe for me or anyone else or even him/herself, I'm going to call the police, and you just might be the person thanking me one day."

around here, that may well result in a criminal prosecution for malicious abuse of process...

Many moons ago, we had a neighbor who would routinely call 911 on us because we owned guns. The cops, of course, had to respond. I eventually had charges filed against him, and he spent 30 days in the pokey. His calls to the police stopped. Apparently, he didn't like the food in the regional jail...

[iverglas]

98. yes, well

And if I think that someone who has a right to do something is doing it in a manner that is so unwise that it may be unsafe for me or anyone else or even him/herself, I'm going to call the police, and you just might be the person thanking me one day.

Many moons ago, we had a neighbor who would routinely call 911 on us because we owned guns.

I don't really think I've ever suggested that I would call 911 because someone owned (more accurately, possessed) guns. I think what I was saying, if we apply it to this specific scenario, was that if someone possessed guns in a manner that was so unwise that it might be unsafe for me or anyone else or even him/herself, I'd be calling the police.

I assume that you keep your guns locked up when not in use and aren't in the habit of waving them at the neighbours or firing them in the air or leaving them on the lawn overnight, you see.

If you were in such habits, you might indeed not thank me for being a nosy parker, but I think the police and some other neighbours would. ;)

[DoNotRefill]

102. nope, we carry them

legally. He saw us routinely going in and out to the car with guns, and went to jail for calling 911 over and over again because of it.

Of course, since he was broke, we didn't sue him, as we could have.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

3. Gee, and they all could have fit....

Tee hee hee....

[el_gato]

4. very good FS, very good indeed

I laughing my ass off!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:toast::thumbsup:

[FatSlob]

5. OH MY, "I" seems to have replied again.

Let me guess, he said virtually nothing but did include a <snicker> or something similar.

How'd I do?

[DarkPhenyx]

6. Wow...making fun of his post without reading it.

Sounds just like the people claiming F9/11 is crap even though they refuse to see it. Very interesting.

[MrBenchley]

7. And the downside for me is non-existent...

[DarkPhenyx]

9. The reality is the cops should be concerned.

Unfortunately there are vertain segments of the population who will never admit it's a vaild concern. Just as there are certain whackjobs who want to ban all guns period. Nut cases on both sides of the equation, on this or any other topic, never listen objectively.

[MrBenchley]

16. As should ordinary citizens

The entire case for toting a gun around all the time is entirely made up of fantasy (or academic fraud)...and soemhow those fantasies never include the words "innocent bystander."

Although events in the real world do, all too often.

[DarkPhenyx]

17. Not really.

It is no more fantasy than the belief that banning all guns will solve the violent crime problem.

[MrBenchley]

18. Of course it's fantasy....

Just as it's fantasy that anyone who advocates gun control wants to ban guns...but such is the sort of horseshit that seems to exemplify the RKBA crowd...

Meanwhile, what a field day for the stick-up artist...he can case the joint with his gun right in his hand, and if anything is at all amiss, he becomes just a "law abiding gun owner."

[DarkPhenyx]

24. Ever wonder why people think you are an extremist?

NO, he can't case a joint with his gun right in his hand. That would be the point where you cross from being concerned citizen to extremist loony. I beleive the law here in NC, where we have concealed carry laws, and I have a permit, is called "Menacing". Might be wrong though. It covers unlawful displays of a gun. I can't carry mine unconcealed. This individual you speak of would not be able to carry his gun outside it's holster. Now unless I am completely wrong, and Ohio let's you wander the streets with a shotgun or rifle, I hafve a feeling you aren't going have many "stick up men" casing a joint with his gun out. THose who would are much better at their job and would be using an openly displayed weapon. It would be concealed somehow, reguardless of the law allowing him to carry openly.

Use a little logic in your arguements, and some sanity in your tone, and you will come off a lot better.

[MrBenchley]

25. No, I don't much care

why the sort of people who refer to me a "extremist" (for supporting what about 70% of my fellow citizens support) do so....nor do I much care what they have to say. Especially considering the sort of things they post day in and day out and where they dredge them up.

"NO, he can't case a joint with his gun right in his hand."
Of course he can. What can the cops do...thanks to this imbecilic state of affairs? If these imbeciles can sit around the restaurant with guns in plain view, what's to stop anybody else?

"Use a little logic in your arguements"
Ah yes, that fabulous RKBA "logic" or whatever it is, in which armed neurotics wandering around with guns alarming the sane is "freedom" and Mary Rosh's lies are "science."

[DarkPhenyx]

36. You should.

Extremism is a bad thing.

OK, as usual you are going to ignore attempts to debate and discuss the issue. You have no other tactic than to say "you are wrong" and you don't want to show any new evidence. You completely refuse to acknowledge any point aht might remotely cause you to have to change your statements. Sad. Truly sad. You didn't even pay attention to waht I posted.

You are never going to win the discussion going this way. That's really all i can say to you at this point.

[iverglas]

38. have you considered

that nobody's trying to "win" any discussion?

I long ago stopped trying to persuade people to my position on anything when it was obvious that the simple fact that my position ran counter to their own interests in some way was a complete barrier to any persuasive effort.

I will simply never persuade you to hand over your chocolate bar to me if you want to eat it yourself AND if your enjoyment of your chocolate bar is more important to you than whatever reason I might have for wanting it, up to and including the fact that I will otherwise starve to death.

That's why some people use force to take other people's chocolate bars, obviously. Persuasion wouldn't work. And that's why we use force to punish people who take other people's chocolate bars by force, i.e. use the threat of force to persuade other people not to do it, since no other form of persuasion works for some of them.

It's foolish for anyone to think that s/he is going to persuade such people, and counterproductive to spend one's time trying. On the other hand, it's very clever and useful for the people who have no intention of listening to persuasion to engage their adversaries in such attempts and keep them busy, and keep the hope alive in their minds that persuasion is possible, so they don't start thinking about other ways of achieving their ends.

You know ... how hostage negotiators listen sympathetically to hostage-takers' demands, and how good people get co-opted into bad things in the hope of getting persuasive leverage?

What *is* useful, on the other hand, is to expose such an adversary for what s/he is, in the full view of people who *are* genuinely open to persuasive discourse. Those are the people on whom it is worth expending effort, and from whom attention is being diverted by the adversary pretending to be open to it. Discourse with *those* people is a far more likely way of achieving the ends in question.

In situations where those people are not actively engaging in the discourse, one can only hope that they are listening. And that when they see the adversaries exposed for what they are -- people who place their own self-interest above anything and everything else -- they might realize that the interests in question are not their interests, or the public's interests. And they might realize that what is being advocated, in someone's self-interest, is really quite contrary to what they believe is in their own or the public's interest.

In brief: why waste time and energy "discussing" something with someone who is, in fact, not discussing anything with you?

[DarkPhenyx]

39. I've considered it.

However since I have actually won converts, even on issues where the otehr person didn't start out discussing it, I concluded that it is far better to attempt discussion than to start off as a raving lunatic. You can always progress to that if it's necessary.

As for your last point, why waste your energy ranting at a brick wall?

[MrBenchley]

41. Discussion implies a "good faith" effort

that is palpably not present on the part of many of our "pro gun democrats."

[JayS]

47. I agree with you. There are more lurkers here than there are...

...posters and they are the real audience much of the time. One can never really know how many people he/she influences, but that is okay. And smart politicians do monitor many online discussion sites to get input on major issues, so all is not lost. :)

On a side note, there are also posters that argue the opposite of what they believe in but do this so poorly that they push people towards their true belief. This works great on call-in shows also. :)

[MrBenchley]

40. No reason to...

It's only down here in the gungeon that not beating one's meat over assault weapons or skulking to church with a popgun in your pants is considered "extremism." Like I said, my position is pretty much what every liberal organization takes...you know, all those folks who ended up on the NRA's enemies list.

"as usual you are going to ignore attempts to debate and discuss the issue"
What is the issue? Why our "pro gun democrats" seem to be constantly sticking up for folks like the Second Amendment Caucus and David Koresh while attacking every Democrat in sight?

"You completely refuse to acknowledge any point aht might remotely cause you to have to change your statements."
Like what? I yet to hear any point that wasn't utterly bogus from the RKBA side.
Is there an individual right in the Second Amendment?
No, the courts have shown that's not true over and over again.

Does concealed carry reduce crime?
No, that's an outright fraud from a right wing crackpot commissioned by the gun lobby.

Does the assault weapon ban cover only cosmetics and "do nothing"?
No, the gun lobby showed what an outright lie that was when they scuttled their disgraceful "immunity from liability" bill?

Is "gun rights" a liberal issue?
No, there's no sign of that anywhere. Every gun nut forum is clogged with far right wing horseshit with hardly a word that's moderate (much less liberal), and we get nothing but excuses from our "pro gun democrats" as to why they can't go post anything pro-Democrat. Pretty much everything the "pro gun democrats" post is from some right wing cesspool, and attacks on Kerry and other Democrats down here from our "enthusiasts" are an almost daily occurence.
The "gay gun group" tried to disrupt a gay rights march, endorses anti-gay Republicans, and puts pro-gay Democrats (but not anti-gay right wing extremists) on an enemies list. The "Liberals With Guns" group turns out to be one guy who lies about his address and steals a legitimate group's phone number.
And it's worth noting that our "pro gun democrats" are completely unconcerned with the open racism and bigotry exhibited by the "gun rights" public figures or on gun nut forums. Mostly what gets their panties in a knot is that anybody is so uncouth as to point that racism and bigotry out in public--and there have been countless threads from our "pro gun democrats" either defending that bigotry or trying frantically to spin it away. (And needless to say, on those gun nut forums, the bigotry goes unchallenged and other members join in the "fun".)

In this thread the issue is a handful of loonies wandering around in public with guns...and what a menace they are to themselves and others. If there's an argument to be made for this neurotic exhibition (other than "I WA-A-ANT TO! WAAAAHHH!") that a loophole in badly written laws allow, feel free to try to make it. But I frankly think they're a public menace (as the business owners and cops in the story do) and have explained why clearly.

[DarkPhenyx]

43. Like I said...(n/t)

[MrBenchley]

44. Gee, guess "discussing the issues"

wasn't really such a concern after all...

[DarkPhenyx]

45. oh, it is.

would be nice to have someone who was willing to discuss it. From either side of the equation.

[MrBenchley]

48. Well, I put forth my view of the issues...

[DarkPhenyx]

49. and completely failed to address mine...

...which came first on the docket.

[MrBenchley]

50. Which was basically

why I ought to pretend these bogus issues carried some actual weight...or was it why certain people kept claiming I was an extremist?

Meanwhile, you'll notice that what at the top of the thread was a glorious celebration of "gun rights" is now being portrayed at the bottom as a "dirty trick" by those "anti-gun" forces the trigger-happy see lurking in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Kansas City Chiefs, the Temptations, and pretty much everywhere else...

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=15

[FatSlob]

51. Ohio Supreme Court: Open Carry = Fundamental Right

Klein vs. Leis was the case.

Even so, it does attract the Police, just to check.

[iverglas]

52. walking around the streets in my underwear = fundamental right

I really don't need no stinkin court to tell me that.

Promise me, though, that if you catch me at it, you'll make sure that the police are attracted, just to check?

I will most surely have gone bonkers, and you might reasonably fear that I could present a threat to the people in my vicinity.

Of course, I might just be out exercising my fundamental right to walk around in my underwear, because ... because ... um, I'll think of something.

[MrBenchley]

53. Perhaps

you're just carrying out a "dirty trick" by the anti-underwear lobby to discredit red blooded, law abiding, responsible underwear nuts fetishists enthusiasts....

Say, do you suppose Jay thinks FatSlob here is an agent of the dreaded anti-gun conspiracy?

[FatSlob]

67. In Ohio, one of the reasons we got concealed carry,

is because thousands of people started carrying openly to put pressure on the Governor to sign the bill.


Allow me to correct myself. It was originally to put pressure on the legislature. Then they passed it, and it was to pressure the governor, Bob Taft...the worst Governor EVER.

[iverglas]

69. lemme see, I must have a prize for this one somewhere ...

"In Ohio, one of the reasons we got concealed carry,
is because thousands of people started carrying openly
to put pressure on the Governor to sign the bill."

Yes ... and thousands of people put quite a lot of pressure on various Governors not to racially integrate the public schools, as I recall.

Damn, I went and awarded the argumentum ad populum prize to JayS just now. (I'd called it the argumentum ex cathedra prize -- appeal to authority rather than appeal to popularity -- but since we were talking about the State of Texas and since the govt of the state of Texas is of course of, by and for the people, popularity and authority are plainly the same thing in that case.)

Well, I'm going to revoke it, and give it to you instead. Or I could just award two. Kind of like the Canadian Olympic figure skaters getting that gold medal along with the Russians. Except I wasn't corrupt. But no, he got another prize, and your demonstration of the fallacy is really much better, so it's all yours.



Of course, I still don't have a clue how whatever your point was related to me walking around in my underwear ...

But aha -- yes, I do see that your point is that "concealed carry", in your case, was kinda the lesser of two evils.

But then that begs the question of why "open carry" should have been legal in the first place, don't it?

Now, it just happens that there's another prize available for that question-begging / circular-logic stuff, so I'll let you have it. But then I guess I'd better revoke the revocation of JayS's argumentum ad populum prize, and let him keep it too, just so nobody gets his nose out of joint.

Here ya go!

[FatSlob]

73. I don't feel like reading your missive.

Shorten it up a bit, I don't want to waste all my time on it.

[MrBenchley]

77. It's especially amusing to hear "thousands" supported

this screwloose idea...since the news stories all describe the same 70 or so specimens....

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

80. So in just minutes thousands melted away to well over 100....

and what an event it was, too....

"In reality, I'd say that most residents of Northside, myself among them, were appalled that Ferrier would invite people with guns to walk through a family neighborhood less than a week after a little boy was shot and killed by a friend just up the road in Mount Airy."

http://www.ofcc.net/printarticle1428.html

"How sad that Vernon Ferrier decided to fuel paranoia and put our community in danger with his "gun walk.'' No matter what message he is trying to send, inviting his estimated "dozens'' of gun-toting friends to converge on a family neighborhood is appalling.
And it's especially tragic in light of what happened last week just up the road, where a 7-year-old was shot and killed by his 8-year-old friend. "

http://www.highbeam.com/library/doc0.asp?docid=1G1:108398040&refid=ink_kan_kw_news&skeyword=french+lesson+plans&teaser=...possible+that+the+French+(+and+the+Germans...have+read+the+plans+of+the+Project...unilaterally?+And+now+you+want...revolt+against+French+colonialism...suffered+by+the+French+.+It+took+us...traumatized+veterans+and+one+to+two...learn+that+lesson+.+Now+President...

and lo, and behold, when we actually check the news, the thousands that faded to "well over 100" faded to the same dreary 70 or so in the other stories....

"Anti-gun protester Jacob Hand of Walnut Hills, who taunted marchers with his "Super Soaker" water gun and carried a sign that stated, "Parking violators will be shot," complained that Ferrier got angry with him for taking a public parking spot in front of Ferrier's house.
"I'd rather not have people like him packing heat," said Hand. "Guns don't make me feel safer. They make me uncomfortable. These people are violating my right to feel comfortable."
Nick Nienaber, who lives across the street from Ferrier, carried a sign that stated, "No more guns, no matter who's concealing them."
"I'm here to make clear that I don't feel people should be allowed to carry concealed guns," he said. "Those who want to do it just want to feel tough. My big fear is that people are going to start pulling these guns and shooting each other." "

http://www.cincypost.com/2003/09/29/guns092903.html

[TX-RAT]

81. up the road in Mount Airy?

I've been there, it's beautiful. Even went to Pilot Mountain.
Never did find Andy or Barney.

[MrBenchley]

84. At least Andy made Barney keep his one bullet in his pocket

I suspect a lot of our "enthusiasts" would benefit from the same...

[iverglas]

82. fundamental rights!!!

I'd have capitalized it in my header as you did in your post, but I find capitalized headers rude, don't you?

Perhaps you should have read my post a little
more closely. Why is open carry legal? Because
it is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT.

Now, you just *know* what I've got to say to that. (What I've got to say to that, as in both (a) what I happen to have on hand to say to that, and (b) what I absolutely must say to that.)

.
.
.
.
.

SEZ YOU!!

And I'll bet you can guess what comes next ...



!!

And you can say

"Then the Supreme court found the law to be constitutional,
because there is a "fundamental right" to carry openly.
(Klein v. Leis)"

all you like, and then imagine how much I care! Because courts just are not authorities on what is a fundamental right. NOBODY is an authority on what is a fundamental right. Nobody except the human race. "Fundamental rights" is a concept, not something that one discovers by looking through a microscope, or identifies by pulling out a yardstick ... or even looking at some old piece of paper. Really, nowhere else in the world would anybody call some bizarre provision of their antiquated little local constitution, a provision that the giant bulk of the rest of modern humanity would cringe from, a "fundamental right".

And the notion that it is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT to carry a firearm around wherever one goes is just LAUGHABLE. (Ha ha, I laugh. But not nearly so wetly as I did at my joke about the ignore button.) And how anyone could possibly think that s/he has a fundamental right to carry a firearm around wherever s/he goes but *I* don't have a fundamental right to POOP IN THE PARK is just beyond me. And trust me, citing the Constitution of the State of Ohio on that one is not going to be persuasive.


And oh dear, I feel another award coming on.

"Perhaps you should take your retarded little award and rethink it."



But hey, that little outburst made me laugh too. Ah, summer Friday afternoons when I'm busy not answering the phone about all the really boring work that didn't get done ...

[Name removed]

115. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

76. Thousands, eh?

As I recall, there were only about 70 or so at THIS farce....

"It may give you the creeps, but it's ''Vermilion Open Carry Shopping Day,'' as proclaimed by supporters of a law allowing Ohioans to carry concealed weapons.
Dan White of Lorain, organizer of this sad and ill-advised stunt, tells potential participants on his Web site, ''Handguns only please. Longarms risk knocking over merchandise and crowding customers. It will be your choice whether to carry your firearm loaded.''

http://www.morningjournal.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=1699&dept_id=46368&newsid=10686686&PAG=461&rfi=9

And oddly, enough, about the same 70 turned up for this silliness...

http://www.morningjournal.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10333694&BRD=1699&PAG=461&dept_id=46371&rfi=6

[Retired AF Dem]

112. If you have the body to walk around in public in your

underwear I don't think anybody would call the cops. If you resemble Jaba the hut that might be a different story.

[iverglas]

113. my my my

If you have the body to walk around in public in your
underwear I don't think anybody would call the cops.
If you resemble Jaba the hut that might be a different story.

And that would be because ... men have an inalienable right not to have to look at women who don't meet their specifications?

All I can say is, watch out for those abuse-of-process lawsuits of DNR's.

I suppose I should assume that this was meant to be funny. It wasn't.

[Retired AF Dem]

114. You also have the right

not to have to look at men who resemble Jaba the hut. :) Unless of course that is what turns you on.

[iverglas]

26. aha, it's time

It is no more fantasy than the belief
that banning all guns will solve the
violent crime problem.

Time for iverglas's weekly awards. Here ya go:



(That's the straw fella speaking, of course, not I.)

[FatSlob]

10. Nothing of the sort.

"I" is utterly predictable. Mr. Moore is not. I also never made fun of "I" or his post. I merely attempted to guess their content. If isn't my fault that using the words that "I" usually uses would seem to poke fun at "I".

[DarkPhenyx]

12. Some would say that Moore is just as predictable.

It always depends on your ponit of view. No, it isn't you fault that he may be. It is, however, your fault for not taking the time to educate yourself before opening your mouth. We have far too much of that happening in this country in my opinion.

[FatSlob]

14. What am I uneducated about?

Oh, I see, you are referencing the posts that I am divining. I get your point.

[library_max]

19. So what was the point of post #5, if not to make fun of MrBenchley?

(This ought to be good . . . )

[FatSlob]

23. My point was to show my fantastic skills of divination.

Was I right? It was an illustration of sorts of how easy it can be to know what somebody will post, and how predictable his insults are. The gentleman in question has a good head on his shoulders, I'd like to see him use it for debate, instead of mindless insults.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

8. Ever notice that the US is called the "home of the brave"...

yet so many Americans seem to be terrified of their fellow citizens.

I bet if anything actually happened these gun toting wusses would piss their pants and faint.

[FatSlob]

11. Depends on the individual, I suppose.

I've been through some advanced training, but even I can't predict my reaction. Unless it has happened, then one never knows exactly what he'll do. I hope my training takes over.

[TX-RAT]

15. Seems to me

That open carry, when you don't have to, would be taking away some of the advantages you have, when carrying concealed.

[JayS]

29. Yeah, open carry to me sounds too much like putting all your...

...cards on the table when you don't have to.

[iverglas]

31. so ...

"Yeah, open carry to me sounds too much like putting all your...
...cards on the table when you don't have to."

So what's YOUR guess for why they were doing it?

Selling yer basic pornography is perfectly legal too. Do you expect it to go on in your neighbourhood fast food restaurant? Would you question the decency or sanity of a fast food restaurant owner who did it?

I'm not talking about calling the police. I'm talking about questioning the decency or sanity (mostly the decency) of people who "exercise their rights" in ways that disturb other people exercising their own rights, for no good or apparent reason.

[FeebMaster]

65. Gee, maybe because it doesn't require a permit

and carrying concealed does.

[iverglas]

72. damn, you want a prize too??

JayS: Yeah, open carry to me sounds too much like putting all your...
...cards on the table when you don't have to."

Me: So what's YOUR guess for why they were doing it?

You: Gee, maybe because it doesn't require a permit
and carrying concealed does.


I don't know quite what to call this one, despite how common it is.

Why did someone do something? Because they weren't allowed to do something else.

Ah yes.

Why did I jump off the bridge?

Uh ... because I wasn't allowed to jump off the Empire State Building.

Mm hmm.

I think you're gonna have to settle for this one.

[FeebMaster]

75. No prize necessary.

Carrying concealed requires a permit, so if you wish to carry a gun and don't wish to get a permit, or can't afford one, you're only option is to carry unconcealed.

If people have problems seeing all of these unconcealed weapons, perhaps they should work toward removing the permit requirements for concealed carry.

[mosin]

70. Restaurant open carry

So what's YOUR guess for why they were doing it?

It doesn't require a guess. The group of six was dining in a restaurant with a liquor license. VA law requires any firearms to be carried openly in any establishment with a liquor license. For that reason, it is quite common in VA restaurants.

[iverglas]

83. you're trying to get me to take away FeebMaster's prize

Aren't you?

VA law requires any firearms to be carried openly
in any establishment with a liquor license.
(Emphasis added to assist the reader.)

Mm hmm.

See there where you said "ANY" firearms??

Does VA law REQUIRE PEOPLE TO CARRY FIREARMS IN ESTABLISHMENTS WITH LIQUOR LICENCES??

That is, should you have said "VA law requires firearms to be carried openly in any establishment with a liquor license"??

And if it doesn't, HOW DOES CITING THE FACT THAT THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO CARRY CONCEALED WEAPONS explain WHY they were carrying visible weapons????????

Do you really think that the fact that I am not allowed to jump off the Empire State Building explains WHY I JUMPED OFF A BRIDGE???

Okay. You get to split it.

[TX-RAT]

35. Throws the element of surprise right out the door.

[MrBenchley]

13. We've had "enthusiasts" who

claim they needed to pack a gun to skulk to church, or to the local pancake house...

[library_max]

20. And yet they can't seem to see

why ordinary people would take the presence of a gun on the hip of a private citizen to be an open threat.

Or else they really do get it, and that threat is the whole point.

[MrBenchley]

21. Exactly so...

[DoNotRefill]

90. I've got a friend....

who got attacked by a bouncer at a local pancake house. He hadn't done anything wrong, but some other people at another table started some stuff, he was included with the troublemakers because of his tattoos, and the bouncer smacked him upside the head with a glass syrup container as he was trying to get away from the fight. He won a $15,000 settlement to cover his medical expenses. Oh, and the bouncer got fired.

At some pancake houses, packing a pistol ain't the worst idea out there...

[TX-RAT]

92. bouncer at a local pancake house?

Must be one bad ass pancake house.
Seriously though, what would the outcome have been if a gun had been present?

[DoNotRefill]

94. yup....it's a 24 hour place in a Navy town....

and can get pretty wild on saturday nights after the bars close...

Personally, if I saw a big, beefy guy coming towards me trying to bash my brains in with a heavy object and I couldn't get away, I'd shoot him. State law would consider it justified. A broken skull (which is what happened to my friend) is nothing to sneer at, and most definitely qualifies as "greivous bodily harm", which is what the State self-defense statute requires.

[TX-RAT]

96. greivous bodily harm= self defence

Just glad nobody died. And your friend would have spent a lot of money defending himself.

[DoNotRefill]

99. nah...

i doubt the CA would have prosecuted...the bouncer in question had a history of extreme unwarranted violence....

[iverglas]

27. that would be the preferred reaction ...

"I bet if anything actually happened
these gun toting wusses would piss
their pants and faint."

... in most cases. It would certainly beat them actually firing the things.

[Columbia]

32. I'm not terrified of you

Are you terrified of me?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

71. Not at all...

Then again I don't live in a nation where it is legal to walk around with a handgun strapped to your hip, where it is in ready access for when someone cuts you off in line, or steps on your toe...

[DoNotRefill]

91. hmmmm...

CCW has been legal here for over 10 years....and I've yet to hear of the first case where a CCW holder shot somebody for cutting them off in line, or stepping on their toes....

how long will I have to wait before your doom and gloom predictions come true?

[library_max]

116. No road rage in your neck of the woods?

Because there have been lots of road rage incidents involving guns.

[Columbia]

111. Ah yes

The whole streets will run red argument eh?

http://www.jpfo.org/ragingagainstselfdefense.htm

[mosin]

74. "gun toting wusses"

I have fire extinguishers, smoke alarms, and carbon monoxide detectors in my home. Does that mean I am terrified of fires?

I carry a concealed handgun every day, but that doesn't mean I'm terrified of my fellow citizens.

Regardless of whether one is terrified or not, nothing can change the fact that violent crime exists. So I want to be as prepared as humanly possible. To that end, I have taken several courses through the Tactical Defense Institute in southern Ohio, one of the premier defensive firearms schools in the country. I also compete in defensive-oriented shooting competitions. I practice on a regular basis.

I expect that if "something actually happened" and I had no choice, I could use my concealed handgun appropriately and effectively.

[DoNotRefill]

95. So, I take it you're NOT the kind of person....

who sees somebody packing, and freaks for their own safety? Or, are you just using the anonymous internet to say things you wouldn't say to people to their faces?

[iverglas]

108. hmm

So, I take it you're NOT the kind of person....
who sees somebody packing, and freaks for their own safety?

Given that the person you're addressing appears to reside in New Zealand, I might suggest that if s/he did see someone "packing", s/he would be well advised to freak for her his/her own safety. Whoever was doing it would most definitely not be a law-abiding gun owner.

http://www.packing.org/news/article.jsp/944

These Governments are not like ours. These Socialistic Governments of Australia, Canada, Great Britain, and New Zealand feel they are impowered to protect their subjects from themselves. Garbage in = Garbage Out. What more can one expect?

Seemed like an authoritative source ...

Another: http://www.vpc.org/studies/goldtwo.htm

New Zealand has all but prohibited civilian possession of handguns since the 1930s. As a result, crime with handguns is rare, and only about one percent of police officers carry firearms on duty. In 1980, New Zealand Pistol Association official Bruce McMillan stated:

At the moment there are no plans for combat shooting. One of our problems is that we are very shy of public image. We feel perhaps that running around with guns in holsters, having loaded guns in a running or moving situation in relation to targets or firing points, is a bit more than our public image can cope with right now. Things could change. People tell us that we are worrying about a public image that is already bad, so that we may as well live up to it.

Today, 19 years after declaring "no plans for combat shooting," New Zealand's 3,000 handgun owners and 80 pistol clubs have persuaded authorities to allow regular combat shooting at humanoid targets using assault weapons, riot shotguns, and handguns. The same pattern has been followed in Australia, Canada, Europe, South America, and South Africa.

To pro-gun advocates, framing combat shooting as a wholesome sport is an effective method of normalizing assault weapons and powerful handguns, both in the law and in public opinion. Doing so supports the gun lobby's constant campaign to sell more guns to civilians.

Strayed a little from the topic, but gosh, what an interesting analysis of a topic that seemed a little relevant to the general conversation hereabouts.

[JayS]

28. I still am wondering if these "pro-gun" demonstrators were not...

...just "paper" members of a pro-gun organization and are actually against gun rights.

[iverglas]

33. ah yes

Bizarre speculations involving attributing improper motives to one's adversaries, with nothing whatsoever offered as a basis.

Demagoguery at its finest.

What such people -- firearms control advocates masquerading as RKBAers and doing obnoxious things -- would be doing would be demagoguery, of course. Resorting to attempts to inspire strong emotional reactions, in this case fear, to undermine their adversaries' reasoned and eminently reasonable positions.

And I'm sure there are many who would easily recognize the alleged activity as demagoguery, precisely because it coincides with their own prejudices. Firearms control advocates are, of course, dishonest, so who would be surprised to find them engaging in such dishonest tactics?

John Kerry believes that it should not be illegal to kill little unborn babies, so who would be surprised to find him voting against protecting pregnant women?

A good demagogue always plays to the audience's prejudices. They're far less likely to recognize his/her own demagoguery if it means having to question their own nasty and dishonest beliefs.


Of course, I'm sure this here was just a joke.

[JayS]

34. I am speculating based on what *I* would do if *I* wanted to...

...call attention to *my* cause. It is nothing more than an old political tactic to get the press coverage needed to advance a cause.

And in response to your other post, I can't see why anyone would go through the trouble to be this public on open carry unless there was some sort of agenda involved.

[iverglas]

37. uh huh

"I am speculating based on what *I* would do if *I* wanted to call attention to *my* cause. It is nothing more than an old political tactic to get the press coverage needed to advance a cause."

It's still demagoguery.

Now, if it's done in such a way that no one could mistake the intent -- if no one were *really* trying to pretend that s/he was someone s/he was not and thereby influence public opinion in the direction s/he wanted -- fine, it's a publicity stunt. And if it actually causes distress to people who have done nothing to deserve it, it's still generally regarded by decent people as unjustified.

I didn't notice anyone inviting the media to the firearms fest in this instance, though. If the individuals engaging in it had actually been firearms control advocates, genuinely trying to fool someone into thinking they were the exact opposite, they would have been pretty vile demagogues. What your speculation amounted to was an allegation that if that's who they were, then that's what they were, since they obviously were not involved in a publicity stunt: they didn't let anyone in on the "truth" of the situation by coming out.

"I can't see why anyone would go through the trouble to be this public on open carry unless there was some sort of agenda involved"

Uh, yeah, eh?

The thing is that we are all responsible for the foreseeable effects of our actions, not just our agenda in engaging in them.

Anyone who thinks that it isn't foreseeable that people will be distressed by what the people in question here did -- that people who are doing no harm to anyone and who are merrily exercising their own rights, especially people with kids, and the kids, will be distressed for no fucking reason -- is just being disingenuous.

So the "agenda" necessarily included causing distress to people who have done nothing to deserve it, since that was an undeniably foreseeable effect of what the people with the agenda did.

And I'm actually damned if I can figure out what else might have been on that agenda of theirs, since that really seems to have been the only effect of what they did.

Nice guys, eh?

Sure glad they aren't my pals.

[JayS]

42. To me it seems that you are looking at both sides of the...

...gun control debate in this country as involving fairly decent people, and I am sure that most are, but the ones that stand to gain or lose financially can be a little...heavy handed.

In a sense, the press were invited to this event, but in an indirect way. Since the story is now getting widespread coverage, the desired effect was achieved, if this is indeed what was sought. If these "gun toters" were in fact demonstrators, I would seriously doubt that they would ever "come out" as the story would go to A-27 or so instead of A-1 in the papers.

[MrBenchley]

46. Funny, isn't it...

What started out as a splendid "celebration of freedom" has now deteriorated to a supposed "dirty trick" by opponents of the glorious cause....

[DoNotRefill]

93. heh...

"Firearms control advocates are, of course, dishonest, so who would be surprised to find them engaging in such dishonest tactics?"

We had one gun control advocate locally go around to the gun shows, trying to surreptitiously load firearms. Apparently, he hoped somebody would get shot. Another one would go into gun shows, and start smashing stuff, a la Jesus chasing the moneylenders from the temple. He got in trouble, too.

So, yeah, there are some nutcase anti-gunners out there, just as I'm sure there are some nutcase pro-gunners out there.

[iverglas]

103. yes, I was going to mention

... by way of analogy (sigh), the anti-anti-choice crusader who bombed an abortion clinic in the hope of rousing public opinion against anti-choice crusaders (and is regularly and oh so disingenuously cited by said anti-choice crusaders as an example of "pro-choice violence").

And your statement is exactly what I'd say about him, mutatis mutandis:

there are some nutcase anti-gunners out there

The defining characteristic, I'd submit, is "nutcase". And which side of any particular issue a particular nutcase is actually going to come down on is usually anybody's guess, and pretty much unrelated to any merits that side might actually have in any event.

Conversely, however, it may be possible to predict with more accuracy what proportion of the people on either side of a particular issue is likely to be composed of nutcases ...

:P

[Jack_DeLeon]

88. Too bad these people dont have a website...

So you could look up thier whois info and find out of they are bogus or not. :P

[skippythwndrdog]

117. Society seems to think open carry is a good thing in Virginia!

Should legal Virginia gun owners be allowed to walk around wearing guns?
Choice Votes Percentage of 7814 Votes
Yes, if they're the legal gun owners. 7024 90%
No, we don't need more guns on the street. 790 10%
NBC4 thanks you for taking part in our informal survey.

The survey results won't allow a link directly yo the numbers, but if you go to the original story as posted in the origination post and vote the survey, you'll find the numbers.

9 to 1 in favor of legal open carry is about as strong as a mandate can get.

[MrBenchley]

118. Wow, so gun nuts freeped an online poll!

There's a big surprise...

[OpSomBlood]

119. This coming from the same person who thinks 70% are pro-AWB.

I guess you only think polls are valid when they agree with your personal viewpoint.

[MrBenchley]

120. Yeah, op, I know the difference between a real poll

and an online poll that's been freeped....

[OpSomBlood]

121. And the difference is how the results align with your personal beliefs.

If a poll results in a pro-gun sentiment, it must have been Freeped...because there's no way a majority of people could actually be in favor of less restrictive gun laws.

[iverglas]

123. do you have a single clue?

Please, tell us that we haven't been talking, all these weeks, to someone who doesn't know the difference between an on-line "poll" and a real-life opinion survey conducted by a credible entity according to recognized survey methodology.

Please. I'd hate to think that you weren't just pretending to be this ignorant.

[OpSomBlood]

126. I'm all for recongnized survey methodology.

Which is why I consider polls and surveys about the Assault Weapons Ban which fail to accurately describe the ban itself to be invalid.

A majority of Americans support the Patriot Act, too. They think it is keeping them safe from terrorism, but don't actually know what's in it.

It's called the "Patriot" act, it's an anti-terror measure...it must be good. I'm not a terrorist, what should I have to worry about?

[MrBenchley]

129. Doesn't strike op that there's anything wrong

with an online poll that his fellow "enthusiast" cannot post a link to...

[OpSomBlood]

130. I'm eager to see a link myself.

As soon as we get one, we can debate the validity of the poll.

[MrBenchley]

133. Guess that answers Iverglas' question in spades

[OpSomBlood]

135. I don't read iverglas' posts.

I simply don't have the spare time. So forgive my ignorance.

[iverglas]

136. uh ... you replied to the post

Mouth agape.

[OpSomBlood]

137. Indeed, I make exceptions when your posts are <2000 words.

Which is rare.

[MrBenchley]

138. Tee hee hee....

Answered your question again, too....

Yes, we are.

[skippythwndrdog]

140. Re-read post 117 n/t

[skippythwndrdog]

139. Read the origination post, then read my post

You've come up with yet another disingenuous bit of misdirection to avoid the issue.

I stated quite clearly in my original post about the link and how to get to the results of the poll.

A simple question: If the Internet is such an amorphous glut of freepers spending their time skewing information; why do you spend so much time connected to and posting on that same Internet? It must be a greivous burden.

[MrBenchley]

124. Who DO you think you're kidding, op?

A freeped online poll without even a link....guess our "pro gun democrats" have given up even trying to be credible any more...

[OpSomBlood]

127. I'm not saying the poll isn't Freeped.

I'm saying that the only polls you accuse of being tampered with are the ones whose results run counter to your personal beliefs.

[MrBenchley]

128. In other words it's a freeped poll

[OpSomBlood]

131. Wow, thanks for the in-depth and mature analysis.

At least you're predictable.

[MrBenchley]

132. "In depth" would be wasted on that crap...

and "mature" would go over the heads of our "pro gun democrats"

[OpSomBlood]

134. You know I am, but what are you?

[iverglas]

122. better ask slackmaster

I'd want a validity test before paying any attention, of course.

Exactly what did all those "voters" know about ... anything?

[MrBenchley]

125. Tee hee hee

Yeah, slack's an ace to draw to....

"slackmaster
38. It's the Big Lie strategy"
"slackmaster
58. Nice try but it's still based on a major LIE"
"slackmaster
65. If I may be so bold as to speak for the entire "RKBA crowd"
We aren't saying they are lying."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=20875&mesg_id=20875