‘My Parents Open Carry’ kid’s book portrays day in the life of ‘typical’ gun nut family

[doxydad]

The co-founders of Michigan Open Carry have published a children’s book extolling the virtues of having fun while openly brandishing loaded firearms.

My Parents Open Carry tells the story of “13-year-old Brenna Strong along with her mom, Bea, and her dad, Richard [spending] a typical Saturday running errands and having fun together,” according to the book’s official site. However, “[w]hat’s not so typical is that Brenna’s parents lawfully open carry handguns for self-defense.”

The book’s authors, Brian Jeffs and Nathan Nephew, claim that they were inspired to write the book because they “looked for pro-gun children’s books and couldn’t find any. Our goal was to provide a wholesome family book that reflects the views of the majority of the American people, i.e., that self-defense is a basic natural right and that firearms provide the most efficient means for that defense.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/08/02/my-parents-open-carry-kids-book-portrays-day-in-the-life-of-typical-gun-nut-family/

BAT SHIT CRAZY....GUN NUTZ!

Get 'em while they're young enough....load your kids up on unnatural fear, loathing for others and hatred...always be afraid of....something. Then get them a gun, and who knows? Maybe they'll take out an entire class! These open carry people should be jailed. And don't hit me up with that BS about 'SECOND AMENDMENT...ANYTHING. This is about 21st century weapons, not a musket! Te Second Amendment must be repealed.

[FarPoint]

1. Lethal propaganda machine.

[Duckhunter935]

2. to bad for you

that the banner side is losing the argument. Did you put this out with your quill pen or movable type press?

"unnatural fear" is right but you have the wrong side identified.

[Starboard Tack]

3. I must've missed the "banner" part

Where was that? Oh, you mean the "bare bearing" part. What side is that exactly?

[Duckhunter935]

4. the OP wants to ban and confiscate all guns

that is his position

[Starboard Tack]

6. Really? I missed that. Gotta link?

That would be a rarity around here, wouldn't it? All guns? Confiscate? Doesn't sound very practical or realistic, does it?
We even have guns in the UK, just not so many and we try not to be silly with them, like carrying them around in our daily life like the people in the book.

[Lurks Often]

8. You either haven't been paying attention to the OP's posts or are being intentionally obtuse

"No more guns" http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172150042

"Repeal the second Amendment now. NO MORE GUNS!" http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172150217

"NO MORE GUNS. RECALL THE SECOND AMENDMENT. SANITY BEFORE SHOOTING." http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172150095

" NO MORE GUNS!!" http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172149525

"NO MORE GUNS. STOP THE VIOLENCE. STOP SELLING GUNS." http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172149489

[Starboard Tack]

9. No, I haven't been paying much attention. My bad.

I don't look much at threads I'm not participating in. I shall have to ask the poster if he means "no more" as in no additional guns, or no guns at all. The first would not be so unreasonable a request, as there are more than enough to go around for at least another century or three.

However, let us stay within the context of this thread for now, which is about Tea Party wingnuts, and children's books promoting gun carry as a normal family activity.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

12. "However, let us stay within the context of this thread for now..."

Considering the poster's philosophical starting point the motive for the OP seems to be nothing more than, "Fear the other!" We could ask the poster directly but posting an OP and then declining any follow-up debate seems to be a thing with a certain sub-set of the grabber community.

What makes this book so objectionable? The people depicted aren't leading a life of crime and plunder and the safety rules seem to be prominent.

Okay, so they aren't like other families but a family isn't a monolithic construct. Again, unless the object is to instill fear of "the other" why all the hoopla?

If the concern is "Tea Party wingnuts" then that brings us to note that one of their strongest motivations is the concern about an attempt by the government to ban weapons or heap on so many burdens -- which do nothing to address the actual issues grabbers claim to care about -- that there is a de facto ban.

Certainly the constant demands by the poster and others to ban all guns only reinforces the reactionary motivations of the TP'ers. It's disingenuous to constantly prod people with a stick and then complain that they have an unreasonable fear of sticks.

[DetlefK]

5. You think, an abundance of weapons decreases fear?

Your world-view mimics the Cold War: The more nuclear weapons everybody has, the less you have to fear.

Please do me a favor and imagine the picture in the article with some other weapons than guns.
* Imagine, the parents were open-carry machete-enthusiasts.
* Imagine, the parents were open-carry spiked-club-enthusiasts.
* Imagine, the parents were open-carry syringe-with-poison-enthusiasts.
* Imagine, the parents were open-carry jar-with-acid-enthusiasts.
* Imagine, the parents were open-carry jar-with-mercury-enthusiasts.

There is a simple reason, why guns work in this picture and other weapons don't: propaganda. Guns are the weapons of the good guys. They are small, elegant and look not lethal at all. Give the parents in this picture spiked clubs or syringes and they look like psychos watching over their hostage.


Imagine, sitting next to someone in a bar who carries around a machete, a spiked club or a vial with a 100% lethal chemical agent. Of course, you feel absolutely safe, because you have your machete or your spiked club or your deadly vial always with you.

[Starboard Tack]

7. Ah, yes, but what if he had a nice discreet holster for his machete?

How about carrying those wonderful "personal safety devices" concealed? Why not? Ignorance is bliss, they say.

Personally, I'd like to be able to spot the spiked club before he sat down next to me.

So, very reluctantly, I prefer open carry over concealed carry. Concealed carry is insidious. Open carry is just plain stupid in most situations, but it is, at least, honest.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. How would a syringe full of poison, a jar of acid or a jar of mercury serve as effective

self-defense devices? If you're looking for delayed-onset deterrents maybe you could get by with just a really bad head cold.

"Guh! I'm too sick and stuffy head to beat and rape people today."

[DetlefK]

13. A deterrent is a deterrent.

The purpose of a gun is not to threaten people. The purpose of a gun is to kill people. Kill them in a comfortable, quick and effective way. I dare to postulate that a slow agonizing death is equally well suited to deter an attack as a quick death.


My point was: People carrying guns for self-defense are considered normal. Would people carrying other lethal devices also automatically get considered as normal, mentally healthy, law-abiding citizens? For example, a law-abiding guy with a spiky armor, a machete and a Molotov-cocktail? Who would dare to attack that guy? Nobody. That means that his weapons are an effective crime-deterrent and keep him safe. But sadly, carrying those weapons in public makes him look like a psycho and would likely induce fear in non-criminal citizens, so his method of self-defense would see recriminations by law-enforcement. Isn't that unfair? All he wanted was to not get robbed.

I think that guns get an unfair bias over other tools of murder.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

14. I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, an expert on weaponry. Yet, I can spot so many flaws

and misconceptions in your argument that you are either being very disingenuous or you should probably refrain from making further arguments because you really don't know the first thing about self-defense.

The reason spiked armor would strike us as so peculiar is because no one wear such a thing in the name of self-defense. It would be large and cumbersome and preclude all other activity. Compared to the portability of a side arm the argument is ridiculous.

Similarly the damage done by a Molotov would be wide spread and indiscriminate whereas guns are aimed. Carrying about a Molotov would also be impractical as the gasoline would constantly spill and the fumes would make maintaining such a device impossible. No one would employ such a device in their car, business or home.

Nor could such a device be readied as quickly as a handgun.

A business person or a homemaker out shopping can easily carry and use a handgun without hindrance to their other activities. The same cannot be said of the ridiculous suggestions made in your posts. We would consider seeing such things as peculiar because we do not see these things. We do not see these things daily because employing them as a means of defense would be ridiculous.

You cannot supplant the practical with the ridiculous then claim the practical is ridiculous by extension.

[DetlefK]

15. This is not about practicality. It's about using threat of lethal response for self-defence.

Of course, a gun is better. As I said: It's more comfortable and more effective.

A person that carries a gun will not be robbed because he could kill the attacker.
A person that carries what I listed will not be robbed because he could kill the attacker.
Yet the person with the gun is seen as normal and the gun with the Fallout-outfit is clearly crazy. Why is that?

Why are people fighting for the right to carry assault-rifles, but several kinds of close-combat weapons (throwing-stars, tiger-claws, punch-daggers, brass-knuckles ...) are considered dangerous and must be regulated?
The NRA proposed mandatory classes in school, how to properly handle a gun without hurting oneself. Where are the knife-fighting classes? Where are the mandatory martial-arts classes in school how to fight a pedophile? (poke his eyes, punch the tip of his nose with your flat hand as hard as you can, punch his ear-canal with a fist as hard as you can, grab and break his thumb, stomp his toes with your heel as hard as you can, kick his shin in the same spot over and over again... And that's just the stuff that came spontaneously to my mind.)


My point stays the same: Why is one method of lethal response regarded as civilized and normal and other methods of lethal response are frowned upon?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

16. "Why is that?"

I already answered that; because such an outfit has no practical purpose (unless you're going to ComicCon).

Why are people fighting for the right to carry assault-rifles, but several kinds of close-combat weapons (throwing-stars, tiger-claws, punch-daggers, brass-knuckles ...) are considered dangerous and must be regulated?

1) The parading of weapons is a reaction to those demanding the banning of such weapons. It is as much a challenge of authority as was the burning of draft cards or the boycotting of segregated buses.

2) You must live in a different part of the world because brass knuckles, etc. are readily sold and legal to carry where I live.

3) Stating the authorities allow X but have outlawed lesser-x is not an argument against X it is merely an observation that one is outlawed while the other is not. The presence or absence of a law is not the same as a statement of potential harm, QED people being choked out by the police because there is a law against BBQ grilling without a license.

The NRA proposed mandatory classes in school, how to properly handle a gun without hurting oneself. Where are the knife-fighting classes?

You seem to be confusing safety instruction with instruction for tactical combat engagements. There is a tremendous difference between, "Don't touch. Leave the area. Tell an adult," and, "Stab, don't slice, and aim for the vital organs."

Where are the mandatory martial-arts classes in school how to fight a pedophile?

I'd be OK with that but the absence of such a class doesn't prove self-defense itself as being unwarranted.

You also make a "mandatory" argument. I am wholly unaware of any pro-RKBA advocate demanding children be taught tactical shooting or martial arts. Those who advocate for our inherent self-defense rights acknowledge that not everyone is comfortable with the idea of carrying and their wishes are to be respected. Conversely, they are expected to respect the rights of those who do choose to carry.

I would also hazard a guess that the reason children aren't taught in school to gouge the eyes of a sexual predator there would probably be a lot of blind gym teachers running around.

My point stays the same: Why is one method of lethal response regarded as civilized and normal and other methods of lethal response are frowned upon?

The real question is: Do people have a right to self-defense?

I defy anyone to make the argument there is no right to self-defense. No one among the grabber clan has the temerity (or intellectual honesty) to say they are demanding innocent people have a legal and moral obligation to submit themselves to killers, robbers and rapists.

No one can claim the police and restraining orders are viable substitutes; Bloomberg even made an entire commercial based on their impotence.

Once the answer is acknowledged that we do have a right to self-defense then any place where an attack is reasonably possible is a place where people should be allowed to carry. Since many violent crimes occur outside the home we have our answer. The means of self-defense should be the most practical possible. That would preclude bladed suits of armor and vials of anthrax. A handgun would be the most practical method of defense. It's not a matter of what is civilized but what is practical for the purpose.

[NYC_SKP]

10. Oh good grief, this book was released in 2011. Is "Raw Story" your main source of "news".

There are already multiple OPs about this book in this group, two from yesterday, and it was locked three times after being posted in GD.

I think it's a silly book, but I fully support the intention to lower the fear level generally and to promote awareness and safety.

Second Amendment, damned straight!

[Eleanors38]

17. "BAN TRIPLICATE POSTS!" Like summer re-runs in the 50s.

Is there anybody home in the controller/banner office, or it just a stack of CDs, playing in accordance with a laptop app?

[oneshooter]

18. I think that he just gets so "excited" when he finds this stuff that he forgets to check. n/t

[Eleanors38]

19. Scanning threads is like a vertical-hold problem.