Gun rights group visits Idaho zoo to make point

[depakid]

A handful of gun rights advocates visited the zoo in Boise Saturday to make a point about the legality of openly carrying guns, this morning's Idaho Statesman reports.

When you go to the zoo, you expect to see monkeys, ducks in a pond. You don't usually expect to see visitors with handguns.

But you would have, had you visited Zoo Boise Saturday morning.

About 10 members of the local chapter of OpenCarry.org, a national group that advocates for citizens' rights to openly carry handguns, met there.

After a little confusion at the front desk about whether it's legal to bring an unconcealed handgun into the zoo - it is - the group bought tickets and sauntered through the front gates like all the other visitors.

That they were no different from all the other visitors was the point the group members were trying to make.

"Coming to the zoo was something we could do together, like any family would," said Carol Schultz of Nampa. She is never without her handgun and holds her holster in place with a heart-studded belt.

http://blog.oregonlive.com/nwheadlines/2008/07/post_11.html

[Pavulon]

1. Did they shoot anyone?

guess not. The guys who stack bodies are not going to the zoo..

[Deja Q]

5. You got it wrong. They thought the zoo was a carnival; shot all the bunnies and duckies; won a cupie

(I think they gave away THOSE dolls at the purity ball...)

[XOKCowboy]

78. Haven't you got the DU memo...

Around here it's not if they use the guns, it's just if they have them.

I know dozens of people that have concealed carry permits, have a gun on them at all times and have never shot anyone.

I personally have never felt the need to carry a handgun, concealed or otherwise but I don't begrudge other people doing legally what they consider to be their right. As you say.. These people aren't the ones stacking bodies. A handgun ban won't do anything to stop the body stackers either.

[Edweird]

107. A rational post.

:toast:

[beam me up scottie]

2. They keep the wrong species locked up.

:eyes:

[Pavulon]

7. Stuff that requires human intervention to work..

http://images.crateandbarrel.com/is/image/CrateandBarrel/IkonSteakKnifeLLS8?$lg$

[TheFriendlyAnarchist]

68. Boooooooooooooooong.

:smoke:

[Pavulon]

70. That weed don't smoke its self..

just sayin.

[Webster Green]

152. Holy shit! Get youself some image editing software..

OMG! A seriously lengthy horizontal scroll bar! :rofl:

[izquierdista]

3. Call me later

When the BareBreastsInPublic.org decides to go to the zoo. Bare arms in public doesn't do anything for me.

[depakid]

6. You'd have enjoyed the Oregon Country Fair

;)

[Hippo_Tron]

65. Yea, I'm totally down with that organization

:evilgrin:

[aspergris]

216. Perfectly legal

in many jurisdictions, to include NY state. Varies of course state by state

[KG]

4. ah. the wonderful gun-bullies.

[Name removed]

100. Deleted message

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

[tburnsten]

174. What is a gun bully?

That group wasn't doing anything illegal or threatening, I am not sure what you mean by "gun bullies".

[SteveM]

202. WOW! They must be effective bullies. You felt 'em over the I-net! (nt)

[Name removed]

8. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Oeditpus Rex]

9. Hey, packin' heat at the zoo is a good idea

[Deja Q]

11. Better to pack heat than packin' the female sheep exhibit

:hide:

[Edweird]

10. So law abiding gun owners exercise their rights... and nothing happened.

No surprise there.
It's also no surprise that the gun grabbers/haters still attack, even when the facts don't support their position.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wurzel]

13. Guns are an implied threat.

Why should anyone feel threatened when visiting the local zoo with his kids by a bunch of idiots like that? There no excuse for that kind of behavior. In fact it gives law abiding gun owners a bad name. It confirms the worst stereotypes

[Pavulon]

14. I disagree

a holstered weapon is no threat to anyone.

[Owl]

106. So what's the point of carrying a stupid gun around at the zoo? They worried a weasel might try

and take 'em out?

Sorry, I'm all for reasonable gun rights. Being dinks at at the zoo doesn't support any reasonable cause.

[Pavulon]

110. First it is idaho

i guess they are bored. Secondly just because I would not do something, and you may not do it does not mean it should be illegal.

As long as they did not bother other people (bother meaning a real problem, not someone twisting their nuts up over a guy with a weapon) no problem.

[Owl]

120. I've no problem with the legality of it. Being dinks at at the zoo doesn't support any cause.

[tburnsten]

177. Question

You support the legality of open carry, yet you feel that actually open carrying is "being a dink". Why?

[Duke Newcombe]

148. Ask those guys in San Francisco, or the public around them.

"Punk teenagers...the other white meat"--Tiger

Duke

[jtb33]

159. I don't know, whay don't you ask...

Some people at a mall in Tennessee?

...or some people at a "gun free zone" called "Virginia Tech"?

...or perhaps some people who were at the Utah Trolley Square mall?

[tburnsten]

175. Looks like they went to the zoo

doesn't say anything about them being "dinks" at the zoo or anywhere else.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

190. Are you sure the gun is stupid?

It might actually have a high IQ.

[Squatch]

16. No, they are not.

Guns are chunks of metal, plastic, and wood. Really, people who assign nefarious intent to inanimate objects have "issues".

[wurzel]

18. Wearing a handguns says. "I have the power to kill you!"

It is intended to intimidate. Why else would anyone flaunt a gun in public?

[Pavulon]

19. So does applying makeup and driving...

I honk at those people. A holstered weapon is harmless.
I personally would not wear an unconcealed weapon. Just would not care for the attention.

However seeing them would not bother me in the right context.

[wurzel]

20. These people are exhibitionist idiots.

The "right context" is not a public zoo.

[Squatch]

22. The "right context" is ANY public area in the United States

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[Pavulon]

25. Good thing you dont set odds in vegas..

why would you say there is a good possibility of anyone being shot?

I have been confined with armed people for 13 months, been to many firing ranges, and never felt safer.

These guys may be protesting but are no threat.

The threat is the person who is carrying illegally concealed in high crime areas. Not Idaho.

[Edweird]

76. Please substantiate your assertion that people had a good chance of being gunned down

by holstered weapons carried legally by law abiding citizens exercising their rights.

[Judi Lynn]

44. Exactly. They are throwbacks to a primitive, twisted, perverse past. n/t

[tburnsten]

179. Doesn't read like that to me.

Looks like they are perfectly ordinary people who carry concealed, but would rather have open carry recognized by the general public as normal, because OC is far more comfortable. Doesn't seem "twisted" "perverse" or "primitive". Comfort is universal.

[SteveM]

203. This is the second action like this that I know of. What perversity resulted?...

The action in Virginia was a BBQ in the park. No one seemed to notice. I think the intent is to show that those legally entitled to carry arms are like other citizens. You say "primitive, twisted, perverse past." How is this so?

[Callisto32]

163. By that reasoning, all of the gay pride marches are just full of

exhibitionist idiots. You miss the point entirely. They are doing something which is designed to attract attention to further awareness of the matter. Whether you like the message or not, is of no importance, this is easily defended under both the First AND Second amendments.

[exothermic]

26. A message clearly conveyed by every cop in America.

I'm sure you'd feel 100% secure if they were the only armed people in the country.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

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

[exothermic]

33. And would that be because you are unaware of the fact that there are almost zero

fatal shootings by licensed "civilians" carrying guns and there are a LOT by cops?
(Incidents of the latter type are widely discussed and properly criticized here on DU...often...as is the attendant racism frequently involved.)

[beac]

47. I think this is a case of bending statistics to support your argument.

Because the average cop has far more potential to draw their weapon on any given day than the average gun-owning civilian.

Interestingly, the statistics from the CDC do not appear to support your argument, even if 90% of the deaths depicted below were caused by "unlicensed" shooters.






(source: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/04/21/weekinreview/20070422_MARSH_GRAPHIC.html)



Bottom line, 81 deaths and 176 woundings PER DAY means we have a gun problem in this country.

[Pavulon]

77. Lazy mans argument, luckily it is falling off

smart people and political types have figured out that bullshit bans and such fix nothing.

we have a violence problem. The swiss have access to military weapons and manage not to kill each other.

the majority of death here is caused by suicide. Fix, mental health care for those who need it.

Wife works in medicine, it is very difficult to get proper mental care, even with insurance. People she referrs often do not go because they can not pay.

Second drug violence. COD for AA males between 16 - 32 MURDER 1 - 9 behind bars.

Time for a real fix for education and direct changes in drug laws.

Ignoring these crimes is unfair, we must address this violence.

Finally random crime. This will never be stopped. Mental screening and background checks will not stop a person from stabbing 7 people..

Take out the top problems and you have a real solution.

[beac]

96. "Mental screening and background checks will not stop a person from stabbing 7 people." Seriously??

Now THAT'S what I call a "lazy man's argument."

Surely, I don't to point out to you that a person can't stand in a doorway and stab seven people without even entering the room?

I agree with you that mental health care in our country is a disgrace and the "War on Drugs" has caused MANY more problems than it could ever hope to solve. Poverty, education, the economy-- they all have a role to play too.

Nevertheless, I don't think we become a better society by becoming a more armed society.

Look, I have no problem with responsible gun ownership. My dad has been a hunter all his life.

But handguns are for killing people and if there are SO many people "defending" themselves with their concealed guns every day, WHY do we never hear about it? With all the money the NRA has, don't you think they'd be shouting these stories from the rooftops? What we do hear all too often is stories about people who, in fear of some anticipated home invasion by an unknown bogeyman, keep their loaded .45 in a bedside table where their 4-year-old finds it and shoots his sibling in the head.

Likewise, people who think that it's a good idea to carry a handgun everywhere they go-- including the ZOO-- do not meet my standard of "responsible."



Oh yeah, and the Swiss get properly trained as part of "a well-regulated militia," so there goes THAT part of your argument too.

[Pavulon]

98. Really??

good thing you don't make that decision. The VAST numbers of crimes are NOT random. They are suicide and drug murders.
Random violence is just that.

I could list dozens of those defense stories, I have my own. No one was hurt, police were not called.

A guy in japan killed 5 or 7 with a knife. I was an NG member can I keep an M4 at home. I was part of a militia, I guess, i should keep that weapon at the house?

NFA regulated weapons are never used in crimes.

It is illegal to leave a weapon where a child can access it.
It is illegal to murder people.

At fyi if a person was interested in causing a mass casualty event the most effective weapon to do that in a public place is a shotgun for an untrained person or a hunting rifle for a trained person.

[beac]

104. "The VAST numbers of crimes are NOT random." So WHY do you need to carry a gun??

Isn't that the big argument for carrying a weapon at all times "to protect" oneself from some RANDOM event?

[Pavulon]

109. Random being mass casualty event..

that is not what I worry about. Some asshole flipping out over a car accident or similar behavior is more a concern. This does not require firing a gun to prevent a major problem.

I carry (infrequently) to prevent a problem. The only conflict I had was with a person crawling in my window years ago. I could have shot him dead but put a light in his face and he just backed up. Slow motion, almost cartoon like.

He may not have known he was very close to a big problem. The weapon provided control over the event.

I carry a gun for the same reason I buy safe cars and pay for life insurance. My carrying has never harmed anything or anyone.

[beac]

129. Again, you sound REASONABLY responsible.

Alas, much of our gun-toting citizenry is NOT and I don't like the idea that it is so easy for a dumbass to get his hands on a gun, nevermind someone not in their right mind.


As for your intruder, you say the gun provided control-- I say it was the flashlight.


I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. Agreed?

[Pavulon]

133. Agree

it may have been the dog. Either way had the person decided to react violently that flashlight would have been pretty worthless.

These guys are wonks. I personally would not wear a sidearm in public.

I do agree there are rational people with different positions here.

[beac]

136. As do I.

Peace.

:)

[pipoman]

161. Really?

"Alas, much of our gun-toting citizenry is NOT..."

Now would that be "gun-toting" criminals (who are likely illegally in possession of their gun) or are you talking about CCW holders?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

194. Where's the proof?

Licensed concealed carry permit holders have statistically demonstrated themselves to be among the most law abiding citizens in the country. The quakers may be more law abiding but not by much. There are millions of concealed carry permit holders very few of those permits are ever revoked for criminal activity of any kind.

David

[aspergris]

231. or a car

"At fyi if a person was interested in causing a mass casualty event the most effective weapon to do that in a public place is a shotgun for an untrained person or a hunting rifle for a trained person."

heck, you could take dozens out in many public areas with a car.

[Major Hogwash]

232. Or a car bomb!

And then it would be just like Iraq!!


LoL

[aspergris]

233. I was gonna say

In Pike Place market, a car could take out dozens

But a flying salmon bomb would be more poetic

[sl8]

99. Why do we never hear about it?

Good question.

The studies I've seen regarding defensive gun use estimate anywhere between 108,000 and 2.5 million incidents per year, in the U.S. By comparison, there are about 10,000 gun homicides per year.

I suspect that newsworthiness (?) would account for most of the discrepancy regarding which incidents we hear about. Am averted mugging may not even be reported to the police, let alone be reported on by the press. Murder is almost always worth an article or two.

Accidents resulting in the death of a child, while relatively rare, are sure to garner a lot of attention from the press, understandably so.

[beac]

121. All that money and Fox News and they can't get one or two little stories on the air?

Not buying it.

And there's this data:

Even after many of the firearm victimization reports were excluded, the data show that more survey respondents report having been threatened or intimidated with a gun than having used a gun for self-protection.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1071427

[Pavulon]

128. Not selling it, local news

happens quite often. Lift a finger hit the google you will find sources.

Guess the guy climbing through my window took that survey.

[sl8]

138. Not very interested in NRA or Fox News stories.

The NRA does publish a lot of stories about defensive gun use, but I don't see how they're particularly significant. If you really think that they might sway your opinion, I'd imagine that you could find them on their web site.

The abstract that you referenced sounds interesting. I'll try to find the study online. Do you know if it's available?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

113. I hear about it quite often.

I regularly read about private citizens using handguns for self-defense. I almost never hear of stories about 4 year olds accidently shooting themselves in the head. That is far more rare than the incidents of people who use firearms for self defense.

David

[beac]

135. Oh really?

Then allow me to provide you with this link:

http://www.kidsandguns.org/study/inthenews.asp?category=In+the+News



Do you have anything to back up these "self-defense" stories you read about so regularly??

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

137. You cite 2 cases and call that common.

Visit the "gungeon" sometime quite regular links to defensive use of handguns.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

144. Then again there are 27 cases with news links for the month of July on this site.

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

[WWFZD]

170. Here's one from the local rag

dated today. This anecdotal evidence is worth no more or less than any other, either pro or anti.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/07/21/chapel.ART_ART_07-21-08_B3_M4AQ8R4.html?sid=101

"LeMaster's girlfriend told police that Terrance Jackson held a gun, later identified as a BB gun, to her head. LeMaster pulled out a real gun and shot him in the living room."...
"The incident was at least the third in the past two years in which a Franklinton resident has fatally shot an intruder."

[SteveM]

204. According to Nat'l Safety Council, deaths of children by guns is far less...

common than deaths by electrocution, falls, drowning, etc. Further, the death rate by gun has been (and continues to be) in a strong and steady decline, unlike those other causes.

Seems to indicate that the gun-owning public is doing a better job of securing weapons than those households which haven't cleaned up their act regarding electrocution, drowning and falls.

Visit www.outdoorlife.com and see the May, 2007 issue's "Gun Talk."

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

215. I notice your lack of response to the above statements.

I hear crickets chirping

[tburnsten]

180. CC permit holders are nowhere near 10% of shooters

people with concealed carry licenses are responsible for nowhere near 10% of the deaths in your chart.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

192. The bottom line is we have a crime problem and a mental health problem in this country.

[aspergris]

230. That's not the bottom line at all

The problem is a crime problem. In the case of suicides, it's a suicide problem (although we have a relatively low suicide rate compared to many countries).

In the case of lawful shootings (police or civilians), that's not a problem at all (I don't know why they lump accidents in with lawful shootings. What possible relationship?)

[aspergris]

220. There are NOT a lot by cops

Of course when people assume they are racist or bad shoots because they read one short newspaper article, then the lack of reasoning is understandable.

I'm more than happy to argue stats with you, but the "racist" angle is particularly ridiculous.

[aspergris]

219. i've carried openly on my hip for years

as a cop. and I FULLY support the RIGHT of the public to do the same. I don't want to be the only armed people in society. And I know from statistics AND personal experience, that CCW'ers are overwhelmingly law abiding and not a danger to me.

[tburnsten]

223. And we probably practice more

than a good number of your colleagues. This weekend I participated in the Maine National Guard State Marksmanship Matches, brought home first in the Excellence in Competition Pistol Match in the Novice class, second novice aggregate pistol, and third overall aggregate novice, plus the Chief of the National Guard Bureau 1st Novice Pistol medal, which I think is awarded based on the EIC match.

I haven't fired an M16 in over a year before that, and I've never fired a Beretta before this weekend. I didn't shoot fantastically, but the novice class of pistol shooters tends to favor those who do well at instinctive shooting and have good form, and my time with my subcompact .40 Glock I think really helped me jump onto a new platform with a minimum of hassle. If you can handle fullpower loads like the HST 165 grain from a 27 any fullsize 9x19 is candy.

I think my level of practice is less than most carriers, based mostly on the fact that I don't reload yet and everyone else seems to, and I can't afford to shoot anywhere near as much as I want to.

You are right, a citizen who takes the time and trouble to go through a concealed carry course and prove competency and then pay the fees and get fingerprinted, photgraphed, and extensively investigated is almost a solid 100% not a danger to law enforcement officers or anyone else not committing a violent felony against them or someone they are near. There are a few exceptions but they are almost always caught.

[aspergris]

227. to some extent yes

I'm a instructor, so I practice a lot and am a decent shot. The average cop - not so much.

This is largely also dependant on the area. Cops who tend to work in areas where concealed carry is more popular and guns are more a part of the culture, tend to come from that culture, and be better shots. Contrarily, cops who come from areas where gun ownership is rare tend to be pretty poor. Iow, they reflect the population at large.

I would be dollars to doughnuts :) that cops from chicago or NY for instance are not as good shots as cops from more rural areas and.or where guns are common.

Every dept. is going to have their "gun guys" who are REALLY into combat shooting competition, etc. but contrary to many's conception - most cops fire at the range once or twice a year, and that's it.

That's incredibly sad and ridiculous, but there it is

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[Dimensio0]

92. I am curious.

Why is it that many individuals who support restrictions upon firearms ownership and the carrying of firearms introduce the subject of male genitalia in discussions regarding firearms? I have never understood this apparent psychological obsession with male genitals possesed by firearms control advocates.

[Callisto32]

164. A gun is not a penis stand-in..

"if it were, no man would ever have bought a revolver with a 2" barrel."

[aikoaiko]

43. I'll answer you honestly if you're interested.

For many years, anti-gun activists have painted gun owners as "gun nuts". Just look at the hateful posts in this thread.

Gun rights activits do these "demonstrations" to show that they, the average guy, are gun owners and not a threat.

[Judi Lynn]

45. We're not interested if they're gun owners. It's not show and tell time. n/t

[aikoaiko]

48. That's the thing about practicing civil rights -- you have to do even when others would have you not

or else they'll try to take away that right.

[exothermic]

62. Well, it sure as hell isn't watch and learn time.

:grr:

[tburnsten]

181. Caught it too eh? N/T

[tburnsten]

182. Key phrase- "we're not interested"

you sure aren't. You know everything you need to about people who have guns already don't you?

[tburnsten]

178. It isn't intended to intimidate

unless the person wearing it is doing so in a threatening manner, like swaggering about rudely, behaving in a confrontational way, refusing to make room for others to pass by, being an actual dick, not just an "implied" dick. If someone is being perfectly civil and polite, not using the pistol as a way to emphasize points in conversation with people, then why would you call it "flaunting"?

[depakid]

187. Of course it is!

At least be honest about it....

[tburnsten]

189. It's not, and I am being honest

There is nothing inherently intimidating about wearing a pistol, it is the behavior of an individual that is intimidating or not. Anyone can be intimidating, regardless of armaments. It is odd that you asked me to be honest, because I can hardly think of a more honest way to carry a weapon than openly.

To top it off it is highly unlikely that a peaceful polite individual openly wearing a pistol is a felon or other prohibited person, meaning that they have not been known to be addicted to drugs, potentially harmful to themselves or others, a domestic abuser, or someone dishonorably discharged from the military, since open carry has a tendency to occasionally result in brief conversations with uninformed or curious officers.

If someone's pistol placed securely in a quality holster on a good belt is threatening to you by itself, I respectfully suggest you pay more attention to their actions and behavior than the gear worn on their bodies. You can learn much more about them and their threat level that way.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

191. Most cops aren't trying to intimidate anyone.

[depakid]

197. Really?

I've known a number of cops- both here and in Australia, and I'm sure they'd beg to differ on that.

That's not really relevant though, given the context. It's pretty clear that these fools are trying to get in peoples' faces (whether to intimidate or to show off). At the very best- it's inappropriate behavior that encourages others to cart around weapons which WILL WITHOUT QUESTION end up causing more tragedies down the line.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

214. So you were wrong when you said of course it is.

Of the several hundred cops I know only a handful would say they carry a handgun to intimidate. A shotgun is much more intimidating than a handgun.

David

[aspergris]

218. Again, with the rhetoric

Why would anybody flaunt their right to free speech in public?

Why would two gay people hold hands in public? They are just trying to (insert bigoted comment here).

Same (lack of) logic that you are using.

[Owl]

101. No reason to carry a holstered handgun other than to provoke an impression on another.

[Pavulon]

102. I see no reason to carry a non concealed weapon

for the simple reason that if it were needed I prefer to be the first to know it is there..

However these people are not breaking laws.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

114. So what impression are cops trying to provoke?

[Real_Talk]

149. like those pesky gays

Why do those gays and lesbians make such a show of their sexuality? All the parading and kissing and hand holding I see on the streets, it's like they want us to think of them as normal people with rights or something.

No reason to be open about your sexuality except to provoke other people, oh what about the kids!?

[krispos42]

111. They can be

Personally, while I understand why they did this, I think open carry of a handgun is not a good idea. You're basically hanging a $500-$1200 dollar piece of hardware on your belt and giving the people you want to protect yourself from a chance to figure out how to take you unawares.

It would be different if a large part of the population did it, but it's not and hasn't been for decades.

[beevul]

154. To YOU they're an implied threat.

You speak only for yourself, and have no right to force that view on others.

The day someone tries to "force" you to own or carry a gun as a civilian citizen...Well...I guess the shoe would truly be on the other foot then...If after years of trying to ban and restrict firearms (note: I am not saying you have) how would YOU like it if you were forced to own one eh?

To a great many people, the wearing of a firearm in a holster is no more an implied threat than having a large muscular pair of arms attatched to your shoulders. What you DO with those arms is what makes an "implied threat" to many many people.


"There no excuse for that kind of behavior."


And thats the problem right there. You characterize the wearing of a firearm in a holster as "behavior". So would wearing a belt be a behavior too? Or a belt buckle? Or a hat? A pair of sunglasses?

Is it "behavior" when a cop wears his duty weapon in a holster?


The simple wearing of a gun on ones hip is just not "behavior" as you use the word.

Of course, you can't - or wont - see that.


"It confirms the worst stereotypes"

Yeah, a bunch of gun owners peacable walking through with firearms worn openly and NEVER removed from the holster at that zoo...somehow confirms the worst stereotypes. :eyes: :sarcasm:

How exactly does lawful peaceful "behavior" (note the proper use of the word in the proper context, for your own future usage) on the part of gun owners confirm "the worst stereotypes"?

[Callisto32]

162. Spoken like a true person who has never been to a firing line.

Also, I presume you are okay with being threatened by each and every on-duty police officer you have ever been near?

Sorry, those two statements were low, but the point is to show just how inane the comment that guns are a threat is.

[tburnsten]

176. What is implied by a visible but holstered weapon?

Please don't ignore this post, I am curious about why you consider a holstered firearm attached to a person following all the rules and having a good day out at the zoo an implied threat.

[aspergris]

217. No, they aren't an implied threat

Only a gun grabber would say that.

Guns are a tool. I see people driving cars all the time. Cars kill WAY more people than guns.

People responsibly driving cars are no more an "implied threat" than somebody carrying a gun

[Trajan]

17. You still have not told us where your guns are ....

Why are you not complying with out tacit demands ?

Cmon .... Give it up: How are we EVER gonna grab your gun iffin you dont tell us where they are ?

Come clean .... Where are they ?

[Arctic Dave]

15. I am a gun owner and always will be.

However, everytime I see one of these post I can't think of anything other then these people are a group of dipshits with a OK corral fetish and dream of the big shoot out one day. These dumbasses do nothing for true gun rights and are probably counteractive to them.

[Owl]

103. Same here. I've plenty of firearms, though never felt compelled to carry them around in every day

life.

Seems dorky to me.

[Arctic Dave]

115. The only time I openly carry a weapon

is when I am at the range or hunting. Not only is this dorky, it seems like really bad manners much like wearing your dirty boots in someones house.

[fascisthunter]

21. wtf

pushing their gun culture on everybody seems to be their priority in life. Very weird...

[beevul]

155. Pushing their gun culture on everybody?

Really?

Has someone tried to push you to own or carry a firearm? No? Oh, you mean like...you have to see it and be exposed to it, on the part of others...Now I get it. Thats the same thing as the anti-gay people said for years. What is it that one of our old dear departed gungeon friends was always saying? Oh yeah. Nice playmates ya got there.

Your statement "pushing their gun culture on everybody seems to be their priority in life Very weird..." is an exact and perfect parallel to "pushing their gay culture on everybody seems to be their priority in life Very weird..." what the anti-gay crowd would say on the topic is kissing in public of same sex couples. Hell, they would probably call then "exhibitionists" too.


Same shit, different subject, and you should know better than that.

Shame on you, and the fact that you don't.

These people just want to be understood and accepted rather than feared, just as same sex couples do.

Now impress me by coming up with some hairbrained distinction without a difference.

Make it a really juicy one.

[Occam Bandage]

24. Dumb but perfectly legal.

:shrug:

[Jack_DeLeon]

27. I guess most people here didnt like the Black Panthers in the day either...

they used to openly carry arms till they did it in the Capital of California then Reagan and other white politicians outlawed it.

[katandmoon]

28. Sick, stupid, obsessed, overcompensating fuckers.

[Squatch]

32. You post three times in this thread alluding to male genitalia.

And you call gun owners "obsessed". Too damned funny. :rofl:

[exothermic]

36. She's just consumed with curiosity about what one looks like.

:eyes:

[Wcross]

108. I noticed my penis had shrunk a bit last week so I had to buy this to compensate.

I feel better now. I am hoping my pecker shrinks further because I sure would like to buy another classic firearm some day.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

116. How long did you have to wait on that?

Very nice, I am envious. Not of your penis size of course.

David

[Wcross]

126. About twenty minutes.

In stock at a gunstore (aka substitute penis store).

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

127. Very nice congrats.

I'm still waiting to buy an 11.5" barrel for my AR-15. 4.5" flash suppressor to stay on the right side of the law of course.

David

[exothermic]

34. Penis envy is one thing but you're downright weird about it.

:eyes:

[Pavulon]

35. Pose no threat to you..

worry about the person who would make a victim out of you. If you must worry. You have a much better chance of a vehicle accident, heart disease, or tiger attack than being shot, depending on where you live.

[beac]

50. That being the case, WHY would someone need to carry a gun for protection?

Just sayin'

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

117. Because someone is threatening them.

Just sayin'

David

[beac]

122. Who exactly was threatening the mom with the pistol at the zoo??

:crazy:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

125. I answered your question, you didn't say the mom at the zoo.

Perhaps though the mom was being stalked by an ex who had repeatedly violated restraining orders and had threatened to kill her.

David

[beac]

131. So, your answer is that all open-carriers are under some kind of

imminent threat?

Sorry, not buying it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

134. Again you didn't say open carriers.

A small portion of civilian legal gun carriers are under some kind of imminent threat. You didn't ask why most people carried guns you asked why anyone would need to and I gave you a valid reason why.

David

[beac]

140. I feel like I'm in an especially bad episode of the "Brady Bunch," but

if you go back to the premise that I was replying to in the first place-- that one has "a much better chance of a vehicle accident, heart disease, or tiger attack than being shot...", you will see that I was questioning WHY if statistically we are under more threat from these things than handguns, we don't see more people up in arms about making all cars out of foam, putting defibrillators on every street corners and the right to bear tranquilizer darts instead of a side arm.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

172. Hmmm

I suspect many uninformed or misinformed people have a lot of misconceptions and fears about firearms. I have seen a huge increase in the numbers of defibrillators in public after the AHA started their public awareness campaign about sudden cardiac arrest, demand has resulted in much safer cars over the last 15 years. A lot of people seem to get their panties in a wad about firearms, I would guess there are multiple reasons for that.

David

[Real_Talk]

150. prior restraint

So you think I should wait till I know I am in trouble to get the weapon or start to carry it? So, do you wait to change your car tires till you start losing control in the rain? Do you see the dentist only when you have a tooth falling out?

I can not tell the future, So I like the option to carry wherever I go. I know plenty of people who have scared away criminals with a handy handgun and not one of those people knew that there was an imminent threat when they walked out the door that day. Life works that way.

I would not open carry unless forced to, but that is their cause, so good for them.

[beevul]

156. Need?

Why do you "Need" to carry a spare tire in your trunk? Planning to get a flat?

Why do you "Need" a fire alarm?

Why do you "Need" a life vest when your out in a boat?

Why do you "Need" a fire extinguisher?


The question you should be asking, is why does someone CHOOSE to carry a firearm. And every individual will have her or his own answer to that.

[anonymous171]

46. So, what if a woman wants to do this?

[Edweird]

72. Yeah, that's how I feel about gun grabbers/haters too.

Especially the ones fixated on the penis size of gun owners.
My gun owning CCW possessing wife always breaks into laughter at those posts.

[mudesi]

31. Anybody who agrees with this should not be on DU

These people ought to be thrown in jail.

[Pavulon]

37. Broad ignorant statement and pretty myopic.

First they broke no laws.
Secondly they are making a political statement, maybe one you do not agree with personally.
Third the Party has no agenda to ban handgun ownership.

Innocent people don't get thrown in jail.

What does DU have to do with banning handguns?

[exothermic]

38. I never can tell Lynyrd Skynyrd and Ted Nugent apart.

:silly:

[aikoaiko]

39. I support their right to keep and bear arms and I'm just as much a member of DU as you.

Throw them in jail? But they broke no law. How can you possibly justify your statement.

[exothermic]

40. Idiocy needs no justification...no matter where it originates.

:shrug:

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

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

[Squatch]

51. Really?

"We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms"

That's from the Democratic Party's platform. Now, allow me to ask you a question: if you don't agree with that, then why are *YOU* here?

[mudesi]

52. The Democratic party is not liberal or progressive

They still have a long way to go before they can truly claim to be an opposition party.

Now tell me if you think it should be legal to bring a gun to the zoo.

[exothermic]

57. Then by your own admission YOU are the one who doesn't belong in

Democratic Underground.

[Dimensio0]

93. You are shifting the burden of proof.

The onus is upon those advocating legal restrictions upon behaviour to provide justification for such prohibitions.

[MicaelS]

153. If your definition...

Of being "liberal" or "progressive" means being anti-gun, then fuck both definitions. That's why I'm a Populist.

[tburnsten]

193. Why single out the zoo?

I will tell you loudly and proudly that anyone who deals with the beauracracy and newfound liability that comes with a concealed carry permit should be able to carry anywhere there is not a very real, very hard security zone, like a courtroom, secure zone of an airport, sensitive goverment buildings, etc. I see no need to keep trying to whittle away at carry rights by saying "why would you need to carry a gun at" and then naming the exact place in question, for instance the zoo. Or the bank. Or the grocery store. All of those places are equally public venues, and there is no need to create major safety issues by making carriers remove and manipulate their weapons multiple times every day. I manipulate mine as little as possible, since a weapon left alone is in absolutely zero danger of being dropped or snagged on something.

[aikoaiko]

53. You, who would throw people in jail when they broke no law, are in no position to decide what is ...

...liberal or progressive. You, who would tell people they don't belong at DU for supporting lawful behavior, should think more about liberalism and progressivism.

You are not the boss of DU.

[mudesi]

55. Of course you totally miss the point

Thinking it perfectly fine to bring a gun to the zoo is not a liberal or a progressive view.

I don't know what's so hard to understand about that.

[exothermic]

58. Not 'hard' to understand, impossible to understand...because it's bullshit.

:grr:

[aikoaiko]

63. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you to explain your declaration.

After all, I have the 2nd amendment, which is a civil right like the rest, on my side to argue that it is fine to keep and bear arms even at zoos as long as one conforms to the laws of the land.

What is not progressive about this particular civil right?

[Recursion]

183. It's impossible to understand how you think it's "liberal"...

...or "progressive" to deny people their civil rights.

[tburnsten]

196. Hmm, maybe because you aren't the boss of me?

and you aren't the boss of what's liberal and progressive either, despite youir best (weak) efforts to convince us otherwise. I don't know what's so hard to understand about that.:dunce:

[exothermic]

56. OMIGOD you are right. How fucking any progressive DARE to avail himself of the Bill of Rights?

WTF was I thinking???????????????

:eyes:

[Edweird]

105. We are here because we support the Bill of Rights IN ITS ENTIRETY. Go startLynyrd_Skynyrd Undergroud

and perpetuate your selective support of others rights there.

[Edweird]

73. well then it's a good thing that decision isn't up to you, now isn't it?

Supporting the Bill of Rights -ALL OF IT- is Liberal.
Whether you like it or not.

[sl8]

91. I hear ya.

"These people ought to be thrown in jail."

But if you go around throwing people in jail that haven't broken any laws, pretty soon some do-gooders will accuse you being a fascist or something.

Let them carry their stupid guns, but just not around us. They can have their own zoos and drinking fountains and such.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

119. Anyone who wants to violate another's constitutional rights shouldn't be on DU.

The people who want to trample other people's rights ought to be thrown in jail.


David

[beevul]

157. Authoritarianism rears its ugly head.

Of course, if a pro-gun person were to have said "anyone that disagrees with open carry does not belong on DU" and "These people ought to be thrown in jail" about you and yours...why...outrage of the highest magnitude would ensue. We'd see in this thread posts that said things like "SEE? I told you the gun nuts were insane maniacs!!"


Must be nice to have it both ways.

[SteveM]

205. Quite the authoritarian, aren't you? (nt)

[anonymous171]

41. lol gun people

[BlooInBloo]

59. They're dead-set on proving how good & wholesome they and their guns are...

Else they'll kill us all trying.

[exothermic]

61. That has to be the most incisive comment I have seen in months.

:shrug:

[Judi Lynn]

49. Maybe we'll see clubs of people showing up carrying containers of acid around!

Cool, huh?

They have the ability to remove their lids and burn your face off, permanently, if you displease them. That's how powerful they are. You must bow to their might, or prepare to go get your own acid, too!

[Pavulon]

69. A slong as its good acid? Just dont text and drive..

that is my real concern. Either being killed or killing a person who is spaced out and screwing around in their vehicle.

To your logic that is why I buy safe cars.

[Callisto32]

166. yikes

"They have the ability to remove their lids and burn your face off, permanently, if you displease them."

You must life your life in fear if you think people are actually like this. Granted, there are a few sociopaths/crazy people out there that may be a threat but....damn. Seems like a heck of a blanket statement to me, which makes it a stereotype, which makes it a logical fallacy...you lose.

[SteveM]

206. Were you there? Did they demand that you "bow?" Goodness (nt)

[galledgoblin]

54. extremely inappropriate

it's not enough to quietly intimidate and worry the other people, we have to add the threat of possibly harming the animals, some of them endangered.

[dems_rightnow]

64. I think the worry

that somebody may just start shooting endangered species at the zoo is a little odd.

Naturally, if someone has such a bizarre compulsion, a few signs saying "No guns" should prevent it.

[Judi Lynn]

82. Sadists are apparently attracted to a place where wild animals are

caged, helpless, and terrified, with absolutely no pleace to hide.

They go there to taunt animals, I've seen it, in astonishment, myself. It will be only a matter of time before one of these scums decides to do a _{George H. W. Bush} or Dick Cheney canned hunt and blow some of them away.

Some of us recall the stories coming out of Baghdhad IMMEDIATELY after it was invaded, like this one:

'Drunk' U.S. soldier shoots rare tiger in Baghdad zoo
Associated Press

September 20, 2003 at 12:10 PM EDT

Baghdad — A U.S. soldier shot and killed an endangered tiger at the Baghdad zoo after it bit another soldier who had drunkenly reached through the bars of its cage to feed it, a security guard said Saturday.

The soldiers had been drinking beer when they entered the zoo Thursday night after it closed, said the guard, Zuhair Abdul-Majeed. After the man was bit, the other American shot the tiger three times in the head and killed it, he said.

The head of the zoo confirmed the story in an interview with Agence France-Presse.

"The soldiers arrived in the evening with food and beer, accompanied by a group of Iraqi police officers," Adel Salman Musa said. "One of the soldiers, who the Iraqi police said had drunk a lot, went into the cage against the advice of his colleagues and tried to feed the animal, who severely hurt his arm."

The tiger tore off one of the soldier's fingers and mauled his arm. Another soldier immediately fired at the animal and killed it, Mr. Salman Musa told AFP.

"The soldiers don't have the right to behave like that. That was the most precious and valuable animal in the whole zoo. It was 14 years old and had been born here," he said, adding sadly that he has no way of stopping the regular parties held at the zoo by occupation forces.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20030920.wmaul0920/BNStory/International/

We also read stories of animals like gazelles, etc. being killed, and barbequed.

Stupid people simply are not evolved enough to be able to resist abusing power. It's just not in them. There's no pay off, no "fun," in being decent.

[Pavulon]

84. Quite an imagination on this one..

so by your logic these guys are going to flip and just start shooting people..

Just dont text and drive, if you do, get a geo metro.

Baghdad is as relevant as hugo chavez. We can discuss LA policy too.

[dems_rightnow]

86. The stupidity of that one

Was the drunk soldier reaching in the cage.

After the tiger began tearing parts of off him, I'd have shot it too. That's not a gun story, it's an "Idiot reaches into tiger cage" story.

[galledgoblin]

88. on purpose, agreed, little can be done to stop it

but accidents happen far too often.

[Callisto32]

167. Accidents dont happen with holstered sidearms,

they happen when people are manipulating those arms in a stupid/ignorant/irresponsible way.

[tburnsten]

198. A pistol secured in even a low quality holster

is still NOT going to go off on its own, under any circumstances. The only pistol I can think of prone to that sort of catastrophic malfunction is the Nambu Type 14, a piece of shit of the highest order that the Japanese cranked out during World War II. It fired an obscenely underpowered cartridge, even so it was somehow incapable of standing up to the "stress" of repeated firing and would deconstruct itself mid recoil without warning, if it were jostled it would discharge, if it were loaded it might discharge, it was inaccurate, it was basically more dangerous to the user than any intentional target he might have.

No one in their right mind would ever load, let alone carry, one of those monumental crapfests. No modern commonly found pistol is anywhere near that level of worthlessness. And no responsible carrier fiddles with their weapon while carrying out and about, it is worse than bad form. Unless they are making minor adjustments to the way the holster lays, they will not be buggering with the pistol, and especially not drawing it needlessly.

[tburnsten]

199. Also, please check the thread "how a semiauto pistol works" N?T

[Taverner]

60. Look - I'm all for gun rights, and I think you should be able to bring them to zoos

But - this is just stupid.

NO one is coming to take your guns away. NO ONE.

The Supreme Court just handed you a victory. Savor it. It was the right decision.

You have a right to have an ass-cap-popper. Great.

But don't you think flaunting the right makes you look a bit - loony?

[Paladin]

80. Well Said, Taverner

Any civilian who feels compelled to carry his or her firearm openly has departed from any reasonable notion of personal self defense and is into full-fledged public intimidation, evidently hoping that some unfortunate incident occurs. People who do such things are revealing a lot more about themselves than they intend, all of it negative....

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

124. Glad you are in favor of concealed carry.

[Callisto32]

168. Please note that police officers are also civilians.

I find it disturbing that so many people seem to think they are somehow members of standing military bodies.

I also fail to see how a person in normal clothing is threatening and intimidating society while the people doing so while wearing a uniform and badge are not. My honest question is whether people are okay with being intimidated by the police or if they simply do not see the government wielding deadly force as intimidation.

If it is the second, it is certainly a problem with disconnect with reality, in the US, as the people hold the sovereign power. The people ARE the government in the US and as such the people carrying weapons is NO DIFFERENT than the police doing so. Both represent the sovereign exercising the same power.

[exothermic]

81. Do you think your First Amendment expression in that post was a bit - loony?

Just checking.

[Taverner]

97. Nope - but that's a different ammendment altogether

One says "shall not be abridged"

Look, there should be no penalty for what they did.

Just like there should be no penalty for someone coming to work dressed as a chicken. If someone took issue with someone coming to work in said clothing, I'd fight for their right to do so.

But I'd still think it was a dumb idea.

[exothermic]

132. It does please me that you're willing to defend silliness.

I absolutely agree. :D

[iverglas]

142. did you actually think

that these people really gave a damn about the Heller decision? Or about firearms, for that matter?

Nothing to do with firearms, any of it.

All about the racist, misogynist right wing occupying the public spaces of your country. Occupying its political discourse, occupying its university campuses, occupying its zoos, for the love of god.

They don't want to cohabit and coexist. They want to occupy. Every last inch.

[Callisto32]

169. Straw man, stereotyping, your opinion....shall I continue?

[friendly_iconoclast]

171. "Racist, misogynist right wing" are the new "secret cabal of Satanists"

The Left version of "They really don't want the vote" or "Violent comic books cause juvenile delinquency"
or "Our Negroes are happy, it's those outside agitators that are causing the trouble" or "those
women's libbers are all dykes or ugly chicks who can't get a man"

Religious belief is impervious to logic.

I recommend Richard Hofstadter's "The Paranoid Style in American Politics" to
those unfamiliar with it

It's not just the Birchers these days, anyone can play!

[iverglas]

173. feel free

For your continuing, I recommend a basic primer on logic.

"Straw man". The wild abandon with which that term is thrown around here makes me sneeze.

But hey. It sure beats coming up with something intelligent.

Stereotyping? You're aware that thorough examination of the evidence and the application of critical thought thereto, and the conclusions reached through that process, are not stereotyping, right?

Maybe not. And maybe you think it would be wrong to call George W. Bush a stupid and evil person. That would be stereotyping, I'm sure.

[Callisto32]

207. Got a 98 in that course, ma'am.

A straw man consists of misrepresenting the person/group's argument in such a way as to make it easier to refute, or dislike, or whatever.

"did you actually think


that these people really gave a damn about the Heller decision? Or about firearms, for that matter?

Nothing to do with firearms, any of it."

They don't think X, like they said, they think Y...Hey! Y sucks! That is straw man. Maybe you need some remedial logic classes?

You claim to have thought critically based on evidence. What evidence here possibly shows that they they are all those very nasty things you claim?

You made an assumption about that particular, small subset of people based upon your preexisting notions about groups of people. You applied a blanket statement to a specific group. Your statement that they are misogynistic et cetera is a simplified view of "gun people" and thus a stereotype.

[iverglas]

211. can somebody lend a hand here?

I need to know what language the above post is written in. Not one of the several I read.



I tried translating it ...



A straw man consists of misrepresenting the person/group's argument in such a way as to make it easier to refute, or dislike, or whatever.

"did you actually think


that these people really gave a damn about the Heller decision? Or about firearms, for that matter?

Nothing to do with firearms, any of it."

They don't think X, like they said, they think Y...Hey! Y sucks! That is straw man. Maybe you need some remedial logic classes?

You claim to have thought critically based on evidence. What evidence here possibly shows that they they are all those very nasty things you claim?

You made an assumption about that particular, small subset of people based upon your preexisting notions about groups of people. You applied a blanket statement to a specific group. Your statement that they are misogynistic et cetera is a simplified view of "gun people" and thus a stereotype.




but this didn't help ...

[Name removed]

226. Deleted message

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

[DrCory]

200. While on this subject...

I asked you some time ago which one (or combination thereof) of these dastardly identities (racist, misogynist, right-wing tool) I might be as I admit to continuously possessing a firearm for the purpose of self-defense. You replied that you could not say with certainty. Have you decided yet? I'd love to know. Hopefully, I am one of the extremely rare exceptions you allow otherwise I'll need to hunt down a primer on proper self-flagellation.

[iverglas]

212. no clue

It's not like we can't all pretend to be something we're not in cyberspace, eh? If you want to tell me the answer, g'head.

[DrCory]

221. Disappointing Dodge...

Not up to your usual standard. Now, back to the question. Shouldn't be difficult to answer. Just pick one of the choices: racist, misogynist, right-wing tool, exception, or some combination thereof.

No big deal if you somehow forget to reply today, because I'll be frequently reminding you that I'm awaiting an answer.

[tburnsten]

224. You are a racist misogynist right-wing exception! There! N/T

[iverglas]

235. no clue

Jeez, you people must think I spend as much time keeping files on you all as my fan club does on me.

Busy today. Planning a trip to a theme park.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

66. They just want to protect their nuts from maneating squirrels.

What a bunch of wienies.

[anonymous171]

67. lol Another guns and penises joke.

[pipoman]

222. I always find it entertaining

when someone flying the anarchist flag makes such a post..

[tburnsten]

225. Anarchist flag... something doesn't sit right...

Maybe it's the idea that you are an anarchist who is moonlightint as an authoritarian? Or maybe you just think the government should have a monopoly on armed force... Either way it is an awfully odd position for someone who wants to follow anarchy to take...

[supernova]

71. It's creepy

And no, I don't want to visit the zoo on the same day as these people.

I have no problem with people being able to own guns, but they belong on a shooting range or out hunting, or for target practice. Anything else is just a person looking to intimidate others.

[Pavulon]

74. CCW

on the rare occasion I carry a weapon it is concealed. So when you do what ever you do, eat out, pick your car up from the shop, or hit the farmers market, consider that there are armed people there.

You know how many people I have shot??? 27umm I mean ZERO.

A gun belongs in a paddle holster out of sight wherever common sense and the law allow it to be.

[supernova]

75. Why does anybody not in law enforcement

feel a need to carry one anyway? Open or CCW doesn't really matter to me. And frankly "concealed" is something of a misnomer anyway. I can usually tell.

Though, it's a legal habit I find it a genuinely odd one. :shrug:



edit: A gun is a tool, a leathal one, but a tool nonetheless. It's about the same to me as someone carrying a hammer around who isn't really intent on hammering anything that day.

[Pavulon]

79. Because they can. same reason you need 1st and 4th ammend

rights. As long as a person has legally obtained and continues to meet requirements I see no reason they should be barred.

The person who decides to murder another person over gang shit or drug money is not, generally, a ccw holder.

It does no harm to anyone for me to legally carry a concealed weapon.

[exothermic]

83. Yeah well how do we know you won't decide to annihilate the Mormon Tabernacle Choir

in a fit of righteousness one warm afternoon? Huh? Huh?

[supernova]

118. I didn't say they were

"The person who decides to murder another person over gang shit or drug money is not, generally, a ccw holder."

My point is that it's pointless to carry firearms into a civilian situation. It doesn't scare me, but makes me think the gunholder is overcompensating for their own insecurities about everyone else. Are you that afraid you'll run into said drug dealer?

[Pavulon]

130. Nyet.

the guy who decides to freak out over a car accident or some simple shit is more concerning. No particular fear, but it never hurts to have options.

Now does it?

[SteveM]

208. I don't think there is "overcompensating for... insecurities" involved...

www.opencarry.org has had other actions. The one I saw (via NBC) in Virginia was a group of folks at a BBQ. For whatever value opencarry sees in their actions, they were NOT trying to intimidate folks; in fact, they were trying to show that they fit in with others. And since no one around them was upset, apparently they did.

I am up in the air about the advisability of "open" carry vs. "concealed" carry as a prudent way to effect self-defense; but in any case, the folks involved didn't seem insecure, unfriendly, intimidating, threatening, etc. Their's is a fledgling movement designed to "introduce" the general public to folks who advocate open carry. They seem quite level-headed and confident.

[Real_Talk]

151. Some people don't live in nice places

or have enemies or travel lonely roads or have the wrong color skin or so on and so forth. I am sure you can think of many reasons a person might want to be armed. Have you ever been out where there is not another soul within sight and you can see for miles either way? Have you ever come across the sketchy guys on a lonely trail? Have you ever walked into the middle of a felony in front of your house?

[spin]

195. Good reply (n/t)

[depakid]

201. Yep. Many times- both here and abroad

And while I'm not paranoid in the states (like some cowardly folks are) I do feel MUCH SAFER in places like that (actually, pretty much anywhere) in Australia, where one doesn't have to worry about being shot by some yahoo with a handgun.

[Real_Talk]

234. paranoia

What do you define as paranoia? Why are you worried about getting shot?

Statistically speaking you probably have a pretty microscopic chance of being shot, but correct me if I'm wrong.

[beevul]

158. If...

If the presence of a firearm in a holster on the hip of someone who is clearly being peacable intimidates you, you have a problem.

[BlooInBloo]

85. To Idaho: You can stop giving me reasons not to go there, now. You've convinced me.

[sandyd921]

87. Exactly what is the purpose of carrying a gun into a zoo?

:wtf:

If you want to walk around openly carrying a gun, go to a shooting range! I (as a non-gun toter) have as much right in a public place to not have to worry about the possibility of ending up in the middle of the cross-fire when a gun-toting individual perceives a threat from another gun-toter.

Beyond exhibitionism, what exactly is the purpose? Seems like the threat to 2nd amendment rights in this country is extremely minimal, if not non-existent (especially given the recent Supreme Court decision).

Seems to me like the wrong animals are in the cages!

[Recursion]

112. Honestly, I think the issue is...

...that they want to force people with that kind of bizarre and irrational knee-jerk fear of the simple presence of a firearm to get over whatever your hang-up about it is.

[sandyd921]

139. This rational person

believes that there is good reason to be fearful of a society in which everyone is toting a gun!

[aspergris]

229. wow. you are SO wrong

"I (as a non-gun toter) have as much right in a public place to not have to worry"

There is no such right. What you do or don't worry about is entirely up to you, and outside the bounds of the law.

"about the possibility of ending up in the middle of the cross-fire when a gun-toting individual perceives a threat from another gun-toter. "

except there is no such right. Nor is there any evidence that open carry results in shootouts as above. Iow, evidence please.

"Beyond exhibitionism, what exactly is the purpose? Seems like the threat to 2nd amendment rights in this country is extremely minimal, if not non-existent (especially given the recent Supreme Court decision).

Seems to me like the wrong animals are in the cages! "

You are correct in that the tide is turning back towards recognizing this important civil right.

But the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

[devilgrrl]

89. Why don't they pull something like that at a sporting event, like a NFL game or something?

:crazy:

[spin]

145. Possibly because it's illegal...

At least in Florida.

The following is a list of places where you are restricted from carrying a weapon or firearm even if you have a license.

****snip****

any school, college, or professional athletic event not related to firearms
http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/possession.html

[iverglas]

185. and here we have the amazingly eponymous fallacy known as

arguing in a circle.

[spin]

186. Reminds me of a circular firing squad (n/t)

[alarimer]

90. I prefer unconcealed because then I know who to avoid.

Paranoid assholes.

[Dimensio0]

95. Please justify your accusation of paranoia.

[spin]

147. I prefer concealed carry...

because I avoid strange looks from the people I pass in the street. I consider them the "paranoid assholes".

And primarily because open carry is illegal in the state I live, Florida.

[aspergris]

228. In WA state,

Open Carry is legal. But rare.

I have only seen a few people open carry here.

But it is entirely legal, and I support the right of others to do so.

I open carry at work, but that's different :)

[AtheistCrusader]

236. It's technically legal, BUT

in Washington all you need is someone to call the cops and say they felt threatened, and you could be screwed. There is a test case already on the books, and the defendant lost. In order to be 'safe' open carrying, you need to be engaged in some lawful use of a firearm, such as hiking, hunting, horseback riding, pretty much any out-doorsy type stuff. If you open carry in Downtown Seattle... just walking around, well, the last guy went to jail.

I'll dig up the court case later tonight. Open carry is kind of a mess in this state.

[jtb33]

160. Pot, meet Kettle. n/t

[mdmc]

94. nice

good to see our rights being protected

[Name removed]

123. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

141. what ...

That they were no different from all the other visitors was the point the group members were trying to make.

... every single other person in the zoo that day was a total fucking asshole?

I do find that hard to believe.

[beevul]

146. Of course...

I'm sure you will happily let everyone know how - in your opinion - one might excercise their right to open carry in public, without being an asshole, wont you?

[tucsonlib]

209. I'm Always Packing When I Visit Zoos

Just like Dick Cheney I prefer to have my game caged and helpless.
That's Huntin'!

[iverglas]

210. so

this explains the fascination with theme parks ...

[tucsonlib]

213. Oh Yeah?

You try taking out one of those animatronic child terrarists with one shot from an open speedboat. "It's a Small World" my ass!

[Major Hogwash]

143. Hahahahahahahaha - this is the funniest shit I've ever read - post of the day!!

Gawd damn, depakid, this is hilarious!!

I didn't see this thread, but they were talking about these goofy fuckers on the news tonight!!

It reminds me of that old Bill Cosby record - the one about the "special class" -

"We're going to the zoo today, yup, yup, yup."


LoL

[jody]

165. Pathetic that Obama supporters won't support Obama, the Democratic Party, and We the People who say

the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms.

That's evident because one DU moderator reminded me on another thread that all DU members support Obama and it's obvious that many who post to this thread oppose the civil right to keep and bear arms.

Ergo, many Obama supporters do not support RKBA.

[iverglas]

184. shall we remind jody of the immortal words of whoever it was

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.


It's entirely possible, I should think, for someone in the US to adhere to the values expressed in their Bill of Rights, and support the Democratic Party candidate for President -- and still consider gun militants to be the scum of the earth.

Defend to the death someone's right to do something, and still despise them for the contemptible pieces of shit they are for choosing to do it.

Next, we keep an eye out for the gun militants adhering to the values expressed in their Bill of Rights and supporting the Democratic Party candidate for President ... while not holding our breath ...

[spin]

188. Whoever it was...

Well put.

Commonly the quote is attributed to Voltaire but many sources believe that Evelyn Beatrice Hall writing under the pseudonym S.G. Tallentyre wrote it in her biography of Voltaire to illustrate his beliefs.

Why am I not surprised that you would be aware of this?

Voltaire did say:
To hold a pen is to be at war.