The reason these people want to carry guns in public places like Starbucks is to shut up anyone...

[phantom power]

(Schultz) is missing the point, don't you think? The reason these people want to carry guns in public places like Starbucks is to shut up anyone who might think it's ok to have a political opinion with which they disagree --- and that includes the customers and the employees who don't want them to be in Starbucks carrying guns. I'm certainly not going to argue with people who are so committed they feel the need to ostentatiously wear a gun in public. It signals quite clearly that they are zealots on the subject and it's not safe to argue with armed zealots. And that's exactly what they mean to convey whether they admit it or not.

When I see people carrying guns, I leave the vicinity and that includes Starbucks. With all the accidental shootings in this country, it's not safe to be around these yahoos when they are carrying in any case. And those who are wearing their guns to make a political point are clearly trying to intimidate people. Who knows what they'll do? Starbucks is right to be alarmed.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2013/09/gun-nuts-jacked-on-espresso-danger-for.html

[The Magistrate]

1. True, Sir: The Motive Is Intimidation

[kardonb]

31. intimidation

and a severe case of low self-esteem ; therefore they need a gun , psychologically , to make themselves feel more important . Sad sad people .

[Maedhros]

82. For these people, guns are indeed a fetish.

Not a fetish in the sexual-kink kind of way, but in the spiritual sense:

fet·ish/ˈfɛtɪʃ, ˈfitɪʃ/ noun

1. an object regarded with awe as being the embodiment or habitation of a potent spirit or as having magical potency.
2. any object, idea, etc., eliciting unquestioning reverence, respect, or devotion: to make a fetish of high grades. 3. Psychology . any object or nongenital part of the body that causes a habitual erotic response or fixation.

[Hekate]

94. ^^^Yes^^^ That kind of fetish.

[juajen]

100. Excuse me, ya'll, but I think it is the same "fetish".

[pangaia]

156. Oh, I think there most definitely is often

a sexual component there.

[kestrel91316]

46. You hit the nail squarely on the head, sir.

[Hekate]

79. Intimidation it is, and my guess is they love every minute of it. Zimmerman is one of "those" ...

... and still packing heat wherever he goes.

[defacto7]

109. Bingo!

That sums it up, end of discussion.

[Walk away]

2. This is so obviously....

TRUE! Except for those few gun slingers who just like to shoot themselves in the foot in public spaces.

[juajen]

104. See, foot and gun, same fetishes.

[Robb]

3. Indeed.

[LittleGirl]

36. I missed that (back then).

thanks for posting it again. I live in AZ about a mile from where those people were shot (I didn't live here then) and when I discovered how close it was, it made me pause. I avoid that shopping center because it gives me the willies.

[awoke_in_2003]

198. Ah, that's where "delicate flower" came from...

Thanks, I missed it somehow

[kentuck]

4. VIP - Very Important Post

Whether they intend to do so or not - and I think they do - they intimidate people in public places. There is no place for that in America.

[Thinkingabout]

5. The best reason people carry guns in places as Starbucks is showing their non-sensible ownership of

weapons. If I felt there was a need to carry a weapon into a Starbucks then I would use my better judgment and would not go to the Starbucks.

[JoePhilly]

6. Spot on. Intimidation.

[arcane1]

7. Yep, the gun-as-argument-winner mentality. I've seen it with my own eyes.

A common practice for insecure losers

[tosh]

8. K&R!

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. Yup

[Demo_Chris]

10. I doubt it. I suspect for most it is a form of political speech...

I suspect most would WELCOME the chance to discuss the issue with you. Think of them as you would an evangelical crusader waving Biblical tracts

[Skidmore]

21. That doesn't do much to endear them to me either.

[Demo_Chris]

22. Nor me. In either case. nt

[Ohio Joe]

37. Someone going to get coffee wearing a loaded gun is... "polical speech"...

Yeah... Right...

[Bonx]

38. Yep. I know some of them. -nt

[BlueJac]

48. It is

no more political speech than money donated by corporations to politicians. Complete nonsense.

[kentuck]

56. They ain't fooling nobody.

They are saying: "Look at me M***F***ers! I got a gun! You don't like it, you can kiss my ass! You had better be afraid. I will wrap myself in the snake flag."

That is the message they are sending. It has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment.

[Squinch]

58. I disagree. The biblical tracts cannot kill you, intentionaly or accidentally. I don't think

they would welcome any chance to discuss the issue. They are saying, "you can discuss it all you want, but I'm the one that has the gun, so watch out."

[Shemp Howard]

119. Bingo. Chris got it right.

Most of the legal open-carry gun toters are not carrying guns to intimidate anyone.

Think about what the Original Post is saying. People openly carry guns mainly to intimidate people from complaining about their openly-carried guns. That stretches the imagination a bit too much for me.

I estimate that only one out of ten carries a gun primarily to intimidate anyone else. Notice I say "estimate" and not just "guess". I work with a lot of these folks. I have a pretty good handle on how they think.

Another two out ten carry because they legitimately feel the need for self protection. And that's actually a bit silly. Because if a madman bursts into a store he's probably going to shoot the customer with the rifle first.

So now we're left with the remaining seven out of ten. Chris is correct. They carry to make a show-off political statement. They carry just because they can.

And for what it's worth, I'm strongly against open-carry.

[kentuck]

155. Only ten percent?

Only one out of ten carries to intimidate? Is that supposed to be encouraging for law-abiding citizens? The very fact that they want to intimidate people shows that they are not stable and should not be carrying a gun at all. If what you say is true, then people should be more fearful than they are already. The Bible speaks of worshiping the Golden Calf but this is ridiculous.

[Shemp Howard]

173. Please don't jump to conclusions.

As I posted previously, I believe that roughly 10% of open-carriers open-carry mainly for intimidation reasons.

I mean "intimidate" as in look-at-me, see-how-bad-I-am. It does NOT follow that all of those 10% will act out their tough guy fantasies. In fact, very few do. The Zimmerman case aside, it's actually quite rare.

Now kentuck, you said "If what you say is true, then people should be more fearful than they are already."

There is some truth in that. An open-carrier is, to me, something like the fellow in the bar who orders a second beer before driving home. Both are within the law to be doing what they're doing. And the chances of either them doing any harm is quite low.

But they both cause me some concern.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

128. Beware, they might point a loaded bible at your head. <:rolleyes:> nt

[hunter]

11. Intimidate 'em back. Learned that from my mom.

Get the fuck out of here or I'll nail your balls to the wall.

What are they going to do, shoot you?

[Demo_Chris]

24. You propose threatening violence? Not sure I want you on my team. nt

[hunter]

27. They're "threatening violence." They mean to be intimidating.

Intimidate 'em back.

Merely by carrying a gun for no good reason they've already demonstrated that violence and intimidation are the only thing they understand.

Fuck 'em.

[Hoyt]

28. Actually, they might shoot you. Most support Stand Your Ground laws for this very reason.

We have let the gun intimidators get the upper hand, but maybe that is changing as people get a good look at these fools.

[hunter]

34. They'll probably miss.

There really does need to be social pushback.

Gun fetishists are dangerous freaks.

[Half-Century Man]

49. Use non-violent intimidation

Ask them if their penis is really so small they actually need to carry a gun around.

[friendly_iconoclast]

71. And Markley's Law appears:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Markley%27s%20Law

A variant of Godwin's Law: As an online discussion of gun owners' rights grows longer, the probability of an ad hominem attack involving penis size approaches 1.

[Half-Century Man]

164. Just shooting for a laugh.

Serious subject, needed a laugh to adjust for stress.

[Thor_MN]

65. Maybe. I choose not to roll that particular set of dice.

[GreenStormCloud]

184. You didn't think that through did you?

You: Get the fuck out of here or I'll nail your balls to the wall.

Gun Guy, politely: No.

Now what do you do? If you carry out your threat of violence he can shoot in self-defense. (Dependent upon how much difference there is in physical force between you.) Or you have to shut up and sit down.

[hunter]

186. A charge of mayhem would be worth the risk.

I'm not black in some racist backwater.

We're old wild west around here, not TV cowboy gun fetishist.

"Open carry" is illegal here and concealed carry is highly discouraged.

[dickthegrouch]

12. I say TAKE THEM AWAY!!!!

I have zero tolerance for gun nuts.

Make them afraid that someone is coming for their guns unless they and their entire tribe BEHAVE.
Self regulation works in so many other circumstances

[Lizzie Poppet]

17. Their "entire tribe?"

You do realize that the overwhelming majority of that "entire tribe" actually does self regulate very well, right?

[dickthegrouch]

18. Until they don't /nt

[Lizzie Poppet]

41. Yes, and...?

Again, that's something that happens with an extremely small portion of that "tribe." Tell me, do you apply the same "collective responsibility" standards to other groupings?

[kestrel91316]

51. Other groups don't have toys whose sole purpose is to kill.

[Lizzie Poppet]

66. Golly, if that's the "sole purpose," then they must be really, really bad at it.

Over 300 million firearms in provate possession in the US...30k gun-related fatalities per annum, 2/3 of which are suicides. A few hundred thousand game animals killed by hunters, I'd estimate...

Looks like that "sole purpose" is not commonly fulfilled, dunnit?

[Vilis Veritas]

111. The sole purpose of an object...

does not preclude one from using said object for other purposes.

[ManiacJoe]

174. Actually it does, by virtue of the word "sole".

Perhaps you meant "primary purpose".

[Squinch]

60. The entire tribe includes those that do not self regulate. So no, the tribe is not regulating itself

We can tell that because of all the spree killers out there who are known to be violent and/or unstable and/or criminal, and who are still able to get guns. Easily.

We can also tell that because of all the "responsible gun owners" who are loudly and tirelessly fighting the measures that would reduce the ability of said violent, unstable, criminal spree killers to get guns. Which actually, by definition, makes them irresponsible gun owners.

Your argument is a tired NRA talking point.

[Lizzie Poppet]

68. A minuscule minority invalidates the idea of self-regulation?

Nonsense. The fact remains that the vast majority of gun owners do indeed self-regulate...but literally astronomical proportion to those who do not. By any reasonable standard, that behavior can be generally applied to the "tribe."

Your example of gun owners opposing various regulations isn't relevant to the self-regulation argument. Tose measures (many of which I support, btw...) aren't self-regulation.

Oh, and you can shove that "NRA talking point" bullshit where the sun don't shine. I make my own talking points have no use for the NRA, thanks very much. That's an Ignore-worthy accusation...but that was your mulligan.

[Squinch]

72. You may not like the NRA, but you are spreading their talking points, and telling me

to shove things where the sun doesn't shine doesn't change that. You may think you make your own talking points, but they are suspiciously in sync with those of the NRA

You are right to be embarrassed by the NRA, but it would be more convincing if you did not use their arguments.

Gun owners need to get behind the kinds of legislation that would prevent guns from getting into the hands of these lunatics. Anything else is irresponsible gun ownership.

Now tell me all you like what to shove where. Doesn't change a thing.

[Lizzie Poppet]

74. Rather than attempting to poison the well, why not refute the assertions?

Once again, I'm using my own arguments, not anyone else's, and I'm not a member of the NRA, don't visit their website, read their publications, etc. By calling these arguments "suspiciously" similar to the NRA's, you not only leave them un-addressed, you double down on your false accusation. Classy...

Anyway, your complete lack of substantive response to the actual points raised duly noted. Have a nice life...

[Squinch]

77. Glad to be ignored by you and your incessant spouting of NRA talking points.

[Lizzie Poppet]

81. Couldn't resist one less vacuous slander, could you.

Well, you get you with, sparky: welcome to Ignore. I don't particularly enjoy wasting my time on people who engage in inane ad hominem and seemingly have no capacity to actually address a point in a reasoned manner.

You may now return to your regularly scheduled bigotry and slander...

[Squinch]

84. Imagine my disappointment.

[Turbineguy]

86. Which is good

if you don't give a fuck who gets shot as long as it isn't you.

[Lizzie Poppet]

89. It's good regardless.

How could the vast majority of gun owners NOT committing gun crimes be anything other than good?

[Turbineguy]

148. Thank you for making my point.

If there are all these lovely people running around who own guns, why is it so important to make guns freely available to criminals and deranged people?

I realize that walking around obviously armed is a brilliant way to show that you are aware that you live in a proper civilized society?

[MindPilot]

13. If I were to light up a smoke with my coffee...

I would be most certainly asked to leave.

But my cigarette smoke while certainly an irritant to many and may very well be having an infinitesimally small statistically negative effect on my fellow patrons lifespan, it certainly does not constitute the very real capability to literally kill everyone in the store in a few seconds. Hell, if I worked hard enough at it, I could even start a fire with my cigarette, but it STILL would not pose the level of threat presented by someone with a firearm.

Now if that smoke were a joint...

Disclaimer: I don't smoke cigarettes, and I don't like Starbucks' coffee.

[badtoworse]

14. I don't believe in open carry, concealed carry is preferable for a variety of reasons

I'm a big RKBA supporter, but I believe the people that conspicuously open carry for attention are probably assholes.

[hunter]

23. I don't "believe" in concealed carry either.

I've never been in a situation where me having a gun would have improved things, and quite a few where it would have only escalated the fight.

Might as well carry a lucky coin.

My first line of defense is always wearing a pair of shoes I can run in...

I don't want your concealed gun in my place either. If I notice it I will ask you to leave.

[badtoworse]

26. One of the major reasons I prefer concealed is that you don't notice it.

Asking a person who is carrying to leave is certainly your prerogative. I don't carry, so it's a moot point in my case.

[hunter]

29. I've been a teacher. I notice stuff.

[rl6214]

139. Being a teacher doesn't give you X-ray vision.

Concealed means concealed for a reason.

[sarisataka]

78. Good choice for you

I have stage 4 arthritis in both knees- can't run

[hunter]

114. I can still run, it just hurts like hell.

Arthritis sucks.

I live in a violent city but most of it is gangsters shooting at one another. Our old house had bullet holes in it and I used to take our kids to play on the floor of the bedroom when I heard gunshots. The police once shot a guy very near our house while my kids and I were playing in the backyard. I saw some of that over the fence before I rushed our kids inside. We live in a slightly safer neighborhood now, but I could still do a walking tour showing where people have been shot. Years ago a guy got shot in front of our church.

Heck, one of our neighbors shot her boyfriend in a domestic dispute. (I think it was his gun.) The police and fire department responded and when I went to see what the fuss was about I saw them all hiding behind the fire truck and they waved at me to go back inside. She finally let the boyfriend out, naked, to get his bloody leg tended to, but it was a long time before she came out. Those neighbors don't live there anymore. I like to think it was the end of their relationship...

Despite the violence I still don't see any reason to carry a gun and I don't want any guns in my house because guns are usually what burglars are looking for when they break in. If you are known to have guns it only increases the odds your house will be burglarized.

The local grocery store I shop at has a "NO FIREARMS" sign on the front door. I wouldn't want to test the manager or our local police.

I've got a couple of bloodier, more personal experiences with guns, which are only more reason not to like them.

[sarisataka]

135. Hope your neighborhood turns around

we no longer see the SWAT team on a monthly basis, the worst have moved out of here. We still have a few bad apples though.

This summer has been bad, several shootings and large gang fights about a half mile from us. Police patrols are high now. Watched two horse mounted cops pull over a car yesterday- that was a bit surreal.

Experience molds us and I have seen negative effects of guns but also positive. My choice is different but I agree with your analysis, I keep my gun ownership quiet. Security is a big issue. Much of mine involves out of sight, can't steal what you can't find. They are locked, just in case.

Arthritis does suck. I find Aleve is pretty good. Stay active and stay safe

[HappyMe]

63. I don't like either.

That said, I would rather see exactly who is carrying a gun.

[AgingAmerican]

15. It's about intimidation

period

[Lizzie Poppet]

16. That's one reason I generally disapprove of open carry (at least in non-rural areas).

Even if it is in no way the carrier's intent, the stifling effect on many people of an armed person in places where such a sight is uncommon is inarguable. I'm quite comfortable around guns and in most cases around people with guns, but a overtly armed person in locations where it's almost never seen is jarring.

In many genuinely rural areas, it doesn't really draw a second glance. A question of norms, I guess...

[Shemp Howard]

182. I agree.

"...the stifling effect on many people of an armed person in places where such a sight is uncommon is inarguable."

Very true. I've never understood why many states allow anyone to open-carry, but require a permit for concealed carry. If anything, it should be just the opposite.

A firearm is just like lurid pornography. If you want to carry it, and it's legal, okay. But please keep it out of my sight.

[Larkspur]

19. Yep, their guns are penis-extenders

and like some apes, they need to showcase them to hide their inferiority complex.

[badtoworse]

33. What took you so long?

This tired meme usually appears sooner in the thread.

[Larkspur]

40. The metaphor will be retired when gun nuts go extinct or get some commonsense.

[Lizzie Poppet]

42. Or when the people using it grow the fuck up.

But hey, it's a lot easier to simply vilify and indulge in amateur psychoanalysis than it is to actually bring something useful to the table...

[Orrex]

43. The term "nut-sack" is a common name for a gun's high-volume ammo pouch

This is a term embraced and used by the wielder of the gun himself or (less commonly in my experience) herself. Are you going to tell them to grow the fuck up?


If it's ok for the wielder to use genital imagery, it's ok for use by those who advocate for sensible gun regulation as well.

[Lizzie Poppet]

47. Common?

I've been an avid shooter for most of my life, spend time at the range weekly, and I've never heard that term until I read your post. That's possibly because guys would hesitate to use the term around a female...but I can assure you most of the guys I know from shooting are not inclined to hold back (and I don't expect them to).

More to the point, the two usages of "genital imagery" you cite are not remotely equivalent. The usual (idiotic) "penis extender" remarks are slurs...they're intended to insult and belittle.

[Orrex]

52. Common. Ask your gun-buddies who served in Iraq.

Also, you're splitting hairs, because you're approving one genital image while rejecting another solely because you disagree with the subtext. The "nut-sack" is not a small item, so its use is intended to be purely descriptive (ammo nut-sack dangling beneath a gunbarrel penis) but also to latch onto the whole "big balls" meme.


Gun imagery is sexualized, both by gun advocates and by those who endorse sensible regulation. I understand that you object to certain choices of sexualized imagery, but your objection doesn't trump reality.

[Lizzie Poppet]

70. No, I'm not remotely "splitting hairs."

That's a vast categorical difference, actually...as far from "splitting hairs" as it's possible to get. One is a raunchy, somewhat infantile metaphoric reference. The other is a deliberate attempt to belittle and insult. Do you seriously not see the (utterly obvious) difference?

[Orrex]

92. I see the diference, and it's not as big a difference as you pretend.

If anything, "nut-sack" is worse, because it means that the gunner is ejaculating all over the people that he or see is shooting. If you don't see that as a deliberate attempt to belittle and insult, then I don't know what to tell you.

I accept that you don't personally sexualize guns, no matter how stiff and smooth and well-oiled their barrels might be.

The gun-as-penis imagery is common and firmly entrenched in gun advertisements, as well as in film and television. It may be symptomatic of male-dominated cultural overtones, and we can have that discussion if you wish. In the mean time, guns--especially big, powerful guns, are seen as compensating devices as the same way as high-performance cars or big, loud trucks might be. If you dispute the fact of this imagery, then I invite you to explain the phenomenon of "bumper nuts," which dangle proudly from the frame of many a massive and totally non-penis-related truck thundering down the highway.


Yeah, the sexual imagery is totally one-sided.

[oldhippie]

80. Oh, really?

I've been a shooter for almost 50 years, including 40 with the military. I worked with hundreds of Iraq vets. I hang out with cops and shooters. I have never heard that term until you just used it. WTF is a high volume "ammo pouch?" Is it supposed to be like a leather marbles pouch? Really? Common?

[Orrex]

95. Really.

Hey, I didn't make up the term. Ask your many buddies. I've had about half a dozen Iraq & Afghanistan vets use the term independently of one another, so either I've picked the only six guys in the military who use the term, or you simply haven't heard it.

I'm sorry that you're upset by the term "ammo pouch." Perhaps "200 round soft pack magazine" will soothe your angry nerves? Maybe 200 rounds doesn't qualify as "high volume" to a serious gun advocate, but it sounds like a lot of bullets to me.

[oldhippie]

101. That term "200 round soft pack magazine" ...

... refers to the magazine that holds belts of ammo for the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW). A machine gun. I don't believe I have seen many of those in civilian hands, and never in a Starbuck's.

[Orrex]

105. Perhaps you can point me to the post where I stated that I'd seen it in a Starbuck's

So, you're asserting that "nut sack" is not a genital-related term because it's a term used by military personnel and not by Starbuck's customers.

Got it.

[Gormy Cuss]

134. Only for you would I google "nut sack" and "ammo"

And there seem to be more than six weapons-selling people on teh internet using that terminology.

[Tien1985]

137. Duzy!

In an otherwise serious conversation, this cracked me up.

[Gormy Cuss]

138. I'm hoping it cracked up the NSA monitors too.

[oldhippie]

165. Well, no I can't ....

.. because you never stated that you'd seen it in a Starbuck's. I never thought that you did. So where did that come from? I mentioned Starbuck's because, well, it's kinda the subject of this thread.

So, you're asserting that "nut sack" is not a genital-related term because it's a term used by military personnel and not by Starbuck's customers.

And, no, I'm not asserting that either. I don't usually talk about genital-related anything, that being a gun-grabber kind of thing. So I'm not sure where you got that, either. ( Are you hearing voices? )

OK, we're probably going to disagree on this. I will say, though, I love your signature lines sometimes.

[Orrex]

177. Thanks for the kind words, but...

I'm not allowed to use those tricky signature lines anymore...

[CreekDog]

160. Orrex never said this ridiculous thing you've accused him of saying, which makes you not credible

secondly, the idea that Orrex would talk in such specific terms about precise gun terminology and technology is not his style, so your strawman is even less believable to long timers here.

the tactic you and others *advocating* for guns as you do, is to lie about what another poster has said because you don't think you can advance the argument against them without lying about what they said to make their arguments into straw men that they never made in the first place.

it gets done here all the time, it's almost an art form.

the sad thing is, your best efforts, they don't go into doing or arguing anything in favor of children or innocents killed by guns in these cases.

the best efforts and best arguments are always aimed at increasing the number and availability of guns, to almost anyone in society.

because that is the value you and your compatriots believe in, that's your highest value.

when the shootings happen, yours and others post indicate that it's not the death that troubles you, your posts indicate it's the mere discussion of gun control that bothers you.

[oldhippie]

162. WTF are you talking about?

I never accused Orrex of saying anything. Please quote this ridiculous thing I accused him of saying. And not just something that you wrongly inferred.

Your rant about people making things up and putting words in someone else's mouth could have been written by me. It's one of my pet peeves about this place. I even got a post hidden recently for calling someone out about it.

To repeat, I never accused Orrex of saying ANYTHING. I merely noted that I had never heard his term before and when I looked it up it referred to the ammo pouch for the M249 SAW and that I had never seen one in a Starbuck's (which, incidentally, was the subject of the thread.)

Anyway, righteous rant, and I may use your arguments in the future, but it wasn't me.

[beevul]

90. i've been involved in the gun debate, and shooting sports for decades...

I've been involved in the gun debate, and shooting sports for decades, and I have never heard that term used in that way.

[Orrex]

96. I believe you.

However, I certainly didn't make up the term.

[rl6214]

140. Common? In what circles? Certainly none I am familiar with.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

144. .

[Bernardo de La Paz]

131. But not before you get sexism out of your system. A large number of women own & carry guns.

To forestall another fallacy: a large number does not mean a large percentage.

[Squinch]

61. The shoe often fits.

[Orrex]

97. There you go with your infantile gun = shoe imagery

What took you so long?!?

[Squinch]

99. Crap. I was going for the infantile gun = foot measuring thing with the slidy thing imagery.

I need to be more specific.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

146. .

[G_j]

20. absolutely nt

[KG]

25. because freedom!

[Auggie]

30. And the best thing you can do is take your business elsewhere ...

after explaining to management and corporate just why.

[classof56]

179. That's just what I'd do. I'd also distribute this:

The Prayer of St. Francis of Assisi

Lord, make me an instrument of your peace,
Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
where there is injury, pardon;
where there is doubt, faith;
where there is despair, hope;
where there is darkness, light;
where there is sadness, joy;
Grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console;
to be understood as to understand;
to be loved as to love.
For it is in giving that we receive;
it is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.

******
And hope they didn't see that as an invitation to blow me to Kingdom Come.

There's no winning with these folks. Sigh...

Tired Old Cynic

[MisterP]

32. AND they get off on being Badasses Everyone's Afraid Of (TM)

they're not a security guard with a sidearm taking a break, they're advertising themselves as Too Bad To Mess With (copyright Bushmaster, Inc.)

[Lee-Lee]

35. No, I know some with the mentality- the agenda is to show it as much as possible to mainstream it

The idea is to get people more used to seeing guns and mainstream it. It is a foolish plan, you win more converts by taking a few people at a time to the range.

It is not unlike the strategy LGBT advocates have used- put it in the mainstream instead of hiding to get more acceptance. The idiots open carrying AR's in Starbucks are the equivalent of the guys in speedos or chaps simulating sex acts in public at gay pride events- taking things a few steps to far past reasonable, and giving people opposed to them bad extreme examples to point at and stereotype (in both cases).

[Omnith]

39. Zealots = dangerous

[BlueJac]

44. No doubt about it...

way to go Starbucks!

[JohnnyRingo]

45. I disagree to a point...

I have a friend who stupidly confided in me that he carries his while he's mowing his lawn, so in his case at least, he's not trying to intimidate anyone.

I think it may be more of a power trip for many, or even a fetish that is satisfied by the heft of cold steel on one's hip, and the false sense of security that a fully loaded .380 auto at the ready brings.

I'm a gun owner myself, but I don't have the mental problems that require I take it with me everywhere I go, including the local Starbucks where the biggest danger is an extended conversation with an annoying hipster shod in a pair of red Crocs and black socks.

[skamaria]

50. Q.E.D.

[Paladin]

53. Open carry is nothing more than public intimidation.

Those individuals who lack the emotional and judgmental capacity to be satisfied with lawful, training-enhanced, concealed carry of firearms, who feel it necessary to make as much of the public aware of their armed status as possible, should be considered dangerous individuals intent on getting into violent altercations. The burden is on such individuals to prove otherwise, because they are exhibiting the very characteristics which should prohibit them from having guns in the first place.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

54. I can picture some idiot sitting there all day listening for gun talk just to shut it down.

[OldRedneck]

55. Call 911 . . .

Call 911 and breathlessly report "Man with a gun!!!" then hang up and don't answer when they call you back.

The place will soon be crawling with cops. They'll check him out and let him go (usually) but at least he'll be hassled.

If merchants discover that every time someone walks into their shop with a gun, the place will be crawling with cops, they'll put a stop to it . . . no business owner, manager, or franchisee wants his shop to be the place where the cops show up every day.

[rl6214]

142. So you recommend breaking the law?

Rriiiiight.

And you think by not answering when they call back they won't find you?

Give it a try and let us know how it works out for you.

[The Straight Story]

57. Bigotry and shameful

If you are traveling and leave your gun in the car and someone steals it people complain.

If you remove it from the car and carry it, people call you names.

When I was a security officer I carried a gun and kept it with me (you can't leave those things on site, especially when that site is an abandoned apt complex). Stop for gas, coffee, etc, I would wear it just like I would when working (whether in uniform or not, and I liked to change before I left to regular clothes).

Yes - there are SOME who will wear them out just to show off, intimidate others, etc - but the landslide of bigotry and fear pushing around here is shameful, especially considering that the people we all have issues with represent less than a percent of gun owners.

I thought all the shooters were carrying concealed anyway? Why the hell would a criminal open carry around? Never mind, things don't have to make since, they just have to feel a certain way.

I understand, that is why if I see a muslim praying or getting on a plane I get freaked out and worried...oh wait, we have a name for those sorts of reactions.

[LAGC]

178. Some people are just plain afraid of the unfamiliar.

Anything that takes them out of their "comfort zone" is cause for mass-hysteria.

If its not guns today, it will be something else tomorrow.

Welcome to the Club of the Perpetually Offended.

[Iliyah]

59. To me it proves

that they are sincerely insecure which is very dangerous.

[DonCoquixote]

62. Exactly

The right wing knows that their power is to either intimidate, or be outright violent. They cannot win on facts. They will take every inch to make sure they will always show up armed to events, especially now since the voting rights act was gutted,and stand your ground laws make it legal to shoot brown people.

[Rex]

64. Some say it is intimidation, I say it is insecurity.

nt.

[Iggo]

67. When someone is so insecure that they have to show me their gun...

...it makes me sad.

And that makes them mad.

And that makes me laugh.

[merrily]

69. The only defense to a bad cup of coffee with a gun is a good cup of coffee with a gun.

[napkinz]

73. the right-wing sees it as "CHECKS & BALANCES"

[TinkerTot55]

75. There is also a secondary reason for confrontational carrying of firearms in public....

....at least in Open Carry states: it's a way to make money off police forces and cities.
We have a group here in WI that loves to drop into restaurants around the state ( usually chain family restaurants ) and sit with their firearms openly displayed. When concerned or alarmed patrons call the police, who do show up to investigate, the gun carriers claim their "Second Amendment rights have been violated" and they sue everyone and his brother. And they have publicly bragged about making thousands of dollars in various cities with settled lawsuits.

In short: it's also a scam to make $$$$$.

( I will try to find the article from the Wisconsin State Journal about the group, and an incident near the East Towne Mall ( a restaurant near there ) but I'm not very tech-blessed, so dunno if I can post it. )

[TRoN33]

76. Guaranteed...

That somewhere in the land of gun-nuts far, far away, the potential and inevitable incident are bound to happens in Starbucks' cafe when 'offender' shot 'someone' for purely political reasons, then get shot by 'good-guy with a gun', and that 'good-guy with a gun' get shot by 'offender's' 'friend', then that 'friend' get shot by 'good-guy with a gun's' 'daughter', then in the end, 'daughter' get shot by 'barista'. All of it happens in less than a minute with many innocents wounded and result of five unfortunate deaths.

[Turbineguy]

83. And it's working

While I'm in Florida I avoid going out after dark. Maybe the only way is to make it an economic issue.

[Octafish]

87. Coercion

They're too stupid for rhetoric or most anything else.

[MuseRider]

88. I don't go into town much so I

don't see a lot of it but if it is not happening now in Kansas it will be with our new law that states, if you do not have an armed guard posted outside the door of your establishment or a metal detector then anyone is allowed to carry inside.

My only recourse if I see a gun being displayed is to tell the company that I will not be back in their establishment until they make it safe for people to feel comfortable by stopping this either by voting or protesting or doing what needs to be done, the guard or the metal detector. There are far too many crazy people around here for me to ever feel comfortable with someone who would have the nerve to display like that. Until not long ago there was a guy in our little area who kept his wife inside the house all the time and would go out into the road in the nighttime and just shoot his hunting rifle. Not comfortable, too many crazies.

[etherealtruth]

91. Intimidation

"When I see people carrying guns, I leave the vicinity and that includes Starbucks. With all the accidental shootings in this country, it's not safe to be around these yahoos when they are carrying in any case. And those who are wearing their guns to make a political point are clearly trying to intimidate people. Who knows what they'll do? Starbucks is right to be alarmed."------yes

[Squinch]

93. Anyone else noticing in these threads how the gunners have adopted the word

"bigotry" to describe the actions of those who are calling for gun control?

Quite illustrative of feelings of persecution, as if they are a wronged minority.

I don't know whether to find it hilarious or be enraged by it.

ETA: Did a little checking, and as expected, it originates with the NRA: http://rackjite.com/daily-show-aasif-mandvi-wanda-brown-law-stops-discrimination-against-gun-owners/

[sarisataka]

102. It seems accurate

big·ot·ry [big-uh-tree] Show IPA
noun, plural big·ot·ries.
1.
stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
2.
the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

There are those who favor gun control that seem "stubborn and completely intolerant" of an "opinion that differs". It has often been applied to "gunners" and also in some cases is likely true.

edit add> seems analogous to "fetish" in post 82 http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023690146#post82

[Squinch]

103. Ah, yes. The gun creed.

[sarisataka]

108. This is the only gun creed I know

This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
My rifle is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life.
My rifle, without me, is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless. I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than my enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. I will...
My rifle and I know that what counts in this war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, nor the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count. We will hit...
My rifle is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strength, its parts, its accessories, its sights and its barrel. I will keep my rifle clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready. We will become part of each other. We will...
Before God, I swear this creed. My rifle and I are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the saviors of my life.
So be it, until victory is America's and there is no enemy, but peace!

[Lee-Lee]

106. Well the mindset of many anti-gun types here is much like bigots

They stereotype all gun owners.

They cherry pick every example of gun owners who do the wrong thing be then push the narrative that all gun owners behave that way.

They dismiss every example of a gun owner doing something good or stoping a crime as an abberation, or just pretend it doesn't exist because it doesn't fit thier narrative.

They declare gun owners so violent that they don't want to be in their company an don't feel safe around them.

Substitute "gun owner" for "black male" and you have exactly the same thought pattern and mindset as racists.

[Squinch]

107. Poor persecuted dears. No wonder you need guns.

[Hoyt]

154. I admit it, I'm bigoted against those who pollute society with their gunz.

[Nanjing to Seoul]

170. Waaah. . .the people who want sensible gun control are big bad bullies. Let me alert their posts

and sic MIRT on them because I'm a gundamentalist and I don't like people that.

As for your logical leap of "gun owner" to "black male," are you implying that the primary purpose of a "black male" is to kill? Because the primary purpose of any gun is to kill.

[DanTex]

112. It goes along with the whole "heterosexual white Christian males are the real victims" thing.

"Anti-gun bigotry" is one of the go-to NRA talking points. For example, here's Charlton Heston talking at an NRA event:

Rank-and-file Americans wake up every morning, increasingly bewildered and confused at why their views make them lesser citizens. After enough breakfast-table TV promos hyping tattooed sex-slaves on the next Rikki Lake show, enough gun-glutted movies and tabloid talk shows, enough revisionist history books and prime-time ridicule of religion, enough of the TV anchor who cocks her pretty head, clucks her tongue and sighs about guns causing crime and finally the message gets through: Heaven help the God-fearing, law-abiding, Caucasian, middle class, Protestant, or�even worse�Evangelical Christian, Midwest, or Southern, or�even worse�rural, apparently straight, or�even worse�admittedly heterosexual, gun-owning or�even worse�NRA-card-carrying, average working stiff, or�even worse�male working stiff, because not only don't you count, you're a downright obstacle to social progress. Your tax dollars may be just as delightfully green as you hand them over, but your voice requires a lower decibel level, your opinion is less enlightened, your media access is insignificant, and frankly mister, you need to wake up, wise up and learn a little something about your new America...in fact, why don't you just sit down and shut up?

http://www.vpc.org/nrainfo/speech.html

[Squinch]

116. And don't miss the post that just equated the treatment of gun owners

to the treatment of black men.

Ah, yes. Gun owners have a long history of being discriminated against in the workplace, in the housing markets, in educational opportunities, in voting rights, just like black men.

Oh, wait. That's completely ridiculous, none of that has happened. Plus it's vile and disgustingly dismissive of the fight for civil rights in this country.

[Lee-Lee]

120. I see you missed my point

I wasn't equating gun owners with black males,

I was showing how the logic, rhetoric and mindset of many anti-gun types here is the same as many racists, just applied against a different group.

My post was equating anti-gunners and racists, because of the similarities in their behaviors. You just didn't comprehend it and saw what you wanted to.

[Squinch]

121. YOu said: "Substitute "gun owner" for "black male" and you have exactly the same thought pattern

and mindset as racists."

Right. It's just the same thing.

[Lee-Lee]

122. I see you still can't comprehend it

I never equated the struggles of black men to anything.

I showed how anti-gun types engage in the same behavior and thought process that racists do.

It is also the same behavior as homophobes, anti-immigrant crowd, etc.

Pick the extreme examples from any group, stereotype their behavior as being typical for that entire group, ignore any other examples counter to that narrative, push that agenda as hard as possible.

[Squinch]

123. Right. Because the plight of the gun owner is the same as

that of an immigrant, and their struggle is the same as that of gay people, too.

To be discriminated against, you have to actually have been discriminated against.

[Lee-Lee]

124. Forget it, you clearly can't comprehend.

[Squinch]

126. Yes, you and that sticky wicket NRA talking point about the discrimination against gun owners

have stymied another one.

He's a clever one, that Wayne.

[Robb]

161. They prefer to be called "Firearm Americans." Respect their struggle!

See panel 5:

[Squinch]

200. They'll either overcome, or shoot you in a fit of pique.

[glowing]

98. And come on.... With all the mass shootings, who wouldn't be alarmed?!

[Boom Sound 416]

110. Of someone wears a shirt or sports a tattoo

With a quasi/overtly controversial fill-in-the-blank issue. Are they automatically a zealot?

[DanTex]

113. Shirts don't give a person the ability to instantly kill anyone in a 50 foot radius.

Minor detail...

[Boom Sound 416]

115. So are ccw folks zealots as well?

[DanTex]

118. Open carriers are worse: not only do the want to be able to kill anyone in an instant,

they want everyone else to know that they can kill them in an instant.

[azureblue]

117. we have a few gun carriers around here

walking around wearing a sidearm in a hip holster, and thinking they are oh so invulnerable. Absolutely stupid, especially when they in close quarters with other people, like standing in line or walking around in a store. I saw one one the supermarket, so, just to see how aware he was of his surroundings, I walked up behind him and took a large can from the shelf he was standing next to. All he did was glance over his shoulder after I had the can in my hand...... I could have very easily used that can to hit him in the head and take his gun, or shoved him to the floor and then hit him with the can. There are dozens of ways to take guns away from people. Mace works, too - you can't shoot what you can't see. But they believe their precious gun keeps them from all harm, so these so called responsible gun owners never stop to think how easily their gun they carry in public can be taken away from them and used on them.

[thefool_wa]

127. Could Have?

Then why didn't you try if you are so adept. You have no idea how aware of his surroundings that guy was, and you have no way of knowing if you would have gotten it out of his holster.

People here need to get over it, the world is dangerous, stop telling people they can't do something they have EVERY RIGHT TO DO.

[thefool_wa]

136. no you are

You have no idea how a confrontation of that nature would have gone. Stating that you could "take a gun" from someone who is most likely trained in its use and, I would bet, has it LOCKED in the holster is the stupidest thing I have heard in weeks, and I am on here ALOT.

[hunter]

168. Cops have been shot by their own guns.

It happens.

Criminals have been shot by their own guns too.

It seems a likely fate for George Zimmerman, by his own hand or by messing with the wrong person.

And he'd never have had that kind of trouble if he'd left the damned gun at home.

[Sentath]

133. So, more like wandering firearm dispensers?

Than defenders of the masses?

[rl6214]

143. Aren't you cool.

[thefool_wa]

125. Disgusting

the only reason someone is carrying a gun in Starbucks is because in this horribly violent world they feel they need to protect themselves.

This kind of generalizing bullshit is HURTING OUR NATION! People who want to lawfully (and RIGHTFULLY) bear their arms in public are not the people who are the problem.

HOWEVER, those who categorize everyone who carries a weapon as being a hot headed, violent person who doesn't want an argument ARE hurting everyone.

This is deplorable, as are all of you who support it. You should PRAY someone is there with a weapon to help you when the next psycho comes in to a business kill everyone in the place.

Legal guns are carried in this country predominately by VETERANS, that is people who have put their life on the line to protect the freedoms all of us enjoy, INCLUDING AND MOST IMPORTANTLY THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. I can't believe any of you would tell someone who had more guts than you that they can't enjoy their GUARANTEED RIGHT.

The world is a dangerous place, always will be, and saying that everyone who desires to protect themselves is a political bully is the worst kind of generalization you can make.

[IveWornAHundredPants]

145. That's the worst kind of generalization you can make?

Ludicrous.

[thefool_wa]

147. How so?

I know TONS of law abiding gun owners who intend no harm to anyone who doesn't intend harm on them and this generalizes those people in the same category as violent extremists.

Characterizing everyone who wants nothing more than to exercise their right as some kind of political extremest IS THE MOST DISGUSTING GENERALIZATION YOU CAN MAKE.

If all you have is one word to refute that, you should probably just not post.

[IveWornAHundredPants]

149. All I needed was the one word.

Did the trick nicely. Maybe I should have used more CAPS.

[thefool_wa]

150. PERHAPS!

you still would be wrong and have no argument.

[truebluegreen]

151. "Horribly violent world."

"The world is a dangerous place."

Um, not really. Although you might never know that watching violence porn on the teevee news, especially Fux. But your concern is noted.


p.s. it takes guts to carry a gun? I'd say it would take more guts not to if the world were as dangerous as you claim.

[thefool_wa]

166. I don't recall ever saying it takes guts to carry a gun.

But it is a right in this country, and should be protected.

[truebluegreen]

191. Then what did this mean?

"I can't believe any of you would tell someone who had more guts than you that they can't enjoy their GUARANTEED RIGHT. "

[thefool_wa]

193. They served, you didn't.

an assumption that I am sure you will refute, but regardless of your assertions, I will believe this.

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

157. Bullshit.

If 99.9% of us can get through the day and perform routine tasks and run errands unarmed, then the world just isn't that dangerous. My god, you're such a sniveling coward, get help.

BTW, It's been 68 years since a VETERAN(S) has "put their life on the line to protect the freedoms all of us enjoy, INCLUDING AND MOST IMPORTANTLY THE RIGHT TO BE A SCARED LITTLE PUSSY".

[thefool_wa]

169. Wow

Why is it any time a person has an opinion that doesn't meet the agreed upon norm here people resort to name calling. Its grossly immature and makes me dismiss your argument entirely as invalid.

The world IS dangerous, my neighbor's cousin was beaten to death downtown in my town last weekend, a small rural town in the middle of nowhere. BEATEN TO DEATH! NO GUN REQUIRED! If you don't think the world isn't a dangerous place, you are kidding yourself.

And ANYONE who signs up for the armed services and goes out to do the job they volunteered to do deserves the rights they are defending. YOU do not have the right to question their service. You DO have the right to disagree with the politics involved in the wars they are fighting, but you do not have the right to take away ANY of the RIGHTS they signed up to fight to defend. This is especially true of the veterans who choose to fight for us.

Not everyone who carries a gun fits your happy little description of what a gun owner should be. IN fact, I know NO ONE who fits the descriptions espoused by the pundit the OP quoted or any posters here.

I figure everyone on here has dismissed me as some right-wing-nut-job, but you couldn't be further from the truth. I just believe we have rights for a reason, and those rights come with a degree of both danger and responsibility. 99.9% of gun owners live up to that responsibility, and 99.9% of the violence you see in guns is perpetrated by illegal guns anyways. You don't like that someone carries openly, TOUGH SHIT, its their right.

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

172. Rambling gibberish that sounds like anecdotal evidence.

Look, I'm sorry if that really happened to your "neighbor's cousin" (LOL), but society shouldn't allow a bunch of paranoid, thumb-sucking dweebs, and inadequate white men to dictate public safety policy. I've been in neighborhoods that would cause most gun nuts to crap themselves, and I've never felt I needed a gun.

Also, hiding behind government employees to advance your radical agenda is just lame. It's an all volunteer military. They joined for a steady paycheck, not necessarily to defend the compulsive (and often repulsive) behavior of limp dick losers who have to resort to public displays of stupidity in order to get attention.

BTW, people think you're a right winger because in your handful of posts in this thread you've managed to hit on many popular RW talking points.

[thefool_wa]

202. Laughing at someones death

makes you a terrible person and makes any argument you have in support of gun control invalid.

http://www.komonews.com/news/crime/Shelton-beating-victim-dies-suspect-arrested-221659531.html

Than's for being subhuman.

[Agnosticsherbet]

129. The word your looking for is terrorism. Intimidation also works. n/t

[CANDO]

130. I don't know why these businesses just don't ban firearms from their premises.

They are fully within the law to do so. I can't think of a single employer who I've ever worked for that allowed the possession of a firearm on company property, including in an employee's personal vehicle if it was on company property. The RKBA is not absolute. You can say no, not on my property!

[hunter]

171. Many businesses in my city do.

They put signs on their doors and they will call the cops who will not be friendly.

[DonCoquixote]

185. Becuase

The NRA will try to sue,and also bring out ads that will make every GOP type boycott them.

[CANDO]

194. They can SUE themselves into oblivion.

I guess to further my point...I guarantee you that Starbucks and every other consumer establishment in this country already bans employees from possessing a firearm on company property. It then makes no sense to allow some stranger off the street to carry a firearm into their establishment. If the NRA could possibly sue a private business to allow strangers to carry firearms onto their premises, then they could/should also sue them to allow their employees to do so. Just sort of rhetorically doing the logic, and one of those options shouldn't/couldn't go without the other, no?

[aikoaiko]

141. The purpose of the planned assemblies is normalization of carrying firearms

Not intimidation of the anti-gun crowd.

Unfortunately, firearms scare some people, sometimes hysterically, and the resulting backlash is not good for the open carry movement.

[rdharma]

152. "Menacing" is the best way to describe it .................... nt

[Paladin]

190. As if that goal is some sort of improvement.

Can you or any of your gun activist cohorts grasp the fact that lots and lots of us---I'd venture to say an overwhelming majority of the country---do not want a state of affairs where carrying firearms, particularly the open display of them, is looked upon as "normal"? If you're going for that sort of normalcy, do you have armbands designed and ready to distribute, as well?

No need for a response---given that you're expressing such concern for the welfare of the open carry movement, it's pretty obvious how you feel. Like the frothing racists who turn up on Facebook these days, you people aren't even trying to conceal your darkest fantasies, any longer. Not even on a Democratic talk site.

[aikoaiko]

192. Of course there is no need to respond to you, but I will for the pleasure.

Of course I get that most people don't like these attempts to normalize open carry. I wish they didn't do it, but it is their right to act lawfully in public. The planned assemblies are an obvious 1st amendment solution in support of the 2nd amendment -- flawed though it may be.

And stop with the comparison to the "frothing racists" with "darkest fantasies" bullshit. We've been down this name calling road before it and it ends up ugly. Your side is not so pretty with trying to push laws in the name of tragedies that would have done nothing to prevent the tragedies. There are ugly words for people who do things like that.

[Paladin]

195. Whatever fears the public has over open carry, those fears are well-justified.

And pro-gun ideologues like you have done exactly jack-fucking-shit to allay those fears. Whatever harsh-worded terminology is directed your way, it is, yet again, well-justified. And if you really have problems with open carry, if you're smart enough to realize the damage that those armed buffoons are doing to your movement, how about spending more time at your local gun range, personally expressing those reservations, and less time here, trashing Democrats? Or does the thought of confronting openly-armed individuals with sure-to-be-contrary political viewpoints give you pause, for some reason?

We've got one thing in common, though---this response was pleasurable.

[aikoaiko]

196. I do talk to my fellow gun owners on forums and in person and many oppose open carry stunts.

I'm not afraid to talk to gun owners. Why would I be?

And I'm not trashing Democrats here, but I will argue against meaningless gun legislation by the culture warriors.

[Paladin]

197. Extra points granted for the "open carry stunts" terminology. (nt)

[HockeyMom]

153. Florida doesn't have open carry

In some ways, I would actually prefer that so I could see who is carrying and LEAVE their presence. Do I have that right? Concealed is almost like cheating, and devious. Other people don't know who you are, and therefore, cannot avoid you. Think we want to be around you? Guess again.

My husband has a CCW. I have flat out told him that I will not go anywhere with him if he is carrying. As his wife, I CAN FRISK him myself. Cannot do that with strangers in supermarkets, gas stations, etc, who I also don't want to be around with their guns.

SHOW yourself so I can protect MY rights to not be near you. As a "gun grabber" I would rather have Open Carry.

[Cheviteau]

158. It would take someone...

...with a gun to make me drink the crappy coffee they serve at Starbucks.

[sulphurdunn]

159. One may or may not

have a legal right to carry firearms in some public places, but no one has any constitutional right to carry a firearm on someone else's private property without prior consent. Anyone claiming otherwise is a knuckle walking thug.

[rwsanders]

163. I'd say that includes the ones with badges.

[stevenleser]

167. You are exactly right. Fortunately, here in NYC, we don't have to deal with this garbage.

You never see folks carrying guns around here. And that is beautiful.

[LAGC]

180. ORLY?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/15/new-york-nypd-shooting/2815851/

[stevenleser]

189. Your link is to something that can happen anywhere. Once again, what we don't have is idiots

parading their weapons around to intimidate people.

Or as my friend the Rude Pundit likes to say, gun fellators.

[RT Atlanta]

175. Cannot reason with the gun fellaters (ht to rude pundit for that term)

I know I am not contributing much to the conversation, but I think the public gun-toaters are phallicly challenged and have a deficiency they are trying to over-correct.

I found a manager and pointed an idiot out to the manager when I saw him toting a pistol on his hip at Target a few months ago... this after the old man walked within feet of my children and me a few times just strolling along easy as can be - and I ran that complaint up the ladder with the corporate office too. My family and I spend too much $ at Target & places like it to not feel comfortable. Guns and the idiots who tote them in public make me nervous.

This comment will probably be removed sooner rather than later but it's my unvarnished opinion.

[blkmusclmachine]

176. Glad I never bought anything Star Bucks.

[wundermaus]

181. People are idoits to carry a gun out in the open for everyone to see...

Who do you think the "bad" guys are going to shot first? They are going to target the idiot with a gun.
So, in my humble opinion, and by the way, not being a gun owner, I suggest the law abiding people who want to carry a gun should get a concealed weapon license. Carry the damn thing, and if god forbid, some awful people start to threaten or shot innocent people, then by all means, empty the damn magazine into them and reload. I don't have a problem with honest, rational, responsible people owning guns, I have a problem with idiots owning them and strutting around in public with them. Especially those who would initiate harming or threatening other and those who feel it necessary to display their guns like plumage on a peacock. If you really need to display a gun to be in public, do yourself and everyone around you a big favor by checking yourself in and getting examined.

/rant

[bobclark86]

183. From the ones I've met...

It's a cross between Walter Mitty fantasies, being overly scared (often of black people, but not always), or they are doing it for work (night deposits of cash, work in a dangerous field, etc.).

The last reason I understand. I understand wanting to have a gun for late night deposits, running your own jewelry store, being an off-duty cop, etc.

The first two I think are just kind of... well, idiots.

Then again, New York doesn't allow open carry (so I don't know anybody who does that), which I think is just dumb and could be for intimidation. Concealed carry, done right, should be, well, concealed.

[gtar100]

187. Same here. When I see someone other than a policeman with a gun, I clear out.

I don't trust anyone who feels the need to carry a gun in public. First and foremost, if anything does go wrong, they are the biggest danger of all. I wouldn't walk under ladders and I sure as hell won't hang out in a room with someone carrying a gun.

[Douglas Carpenter]

188. I think some of it is just dumbassness -A kind of belligerent "because I can and you can't stop me"

Last edited Thu Sep 19, 2013, 04:46 AM - Edit history (1)

Now granted back in Western PA during the 60's and during hunting season - you would see some hunters casually and non-self-consciously carrying their guns into the diner or store or whatever on the way to or from a hunt. This had no political message or act of intimidation connected to it whatsoever - They were just hunters. But now we see all kinds of belligerent and juvenile, "you can't stop me behavior." when it comes to guns.

[ileus]

199. I would never OC in public because I don't want to be intimidated

by those opposed to OC.

As for me I'll stick to CC, much safer.

[Kolesar]

201. Usually, somebody carrying a gun up to the counter means that a robbery is in progress

Somehow the gun fanatics don't understand how that upsets us.