"Gun-toting advocates" make the headlines

[mvccd1000]

From the Detroit News:
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20120612/METRO02/206120376/Gun-toting-advocates-protest-charges-against-teen-Birmingham

(Note that this is Birmingham, Michigan, not Birmingham, Alabama. Last time I posted an article on this guy's case, we got to hear about how this was expected from the rednecks in Alabama. Some prejudices run deep, it would appear.)

Birmingham— Gun toting advocates filled the Birmingham commission chambers Monday night, displaying their firearms in holsters and strapped to their backs in protest of charges against a teen they say had the legal right to do the same in public.

"It seems like cooler heads should prevail and the charges should fall," said Dave Campbell, a Westland resident involved with AR15.com, a website and resource center for gun supporters.

At issue is the April 13 arrest of Sean M. Combs, a Troy High School student, after he strolled Old Woodward Avenue in downtown Birmingham with a M-1 rifle strapped to his back.

He faced three misdemeanor charges for brandishing a weapon, resisting and obstructing police, and disturbing the peace — each punishable by up to 93 days in jail.

I guess "gun-toters" is an acceptable label, after all.

[Sandra14]

1. Spam deleted by gkhouston (MIR Team)

[ileus]

2. How rude and impolite can one get...

[Hells Liberal]

3. Speaking as a true gun-toting advocate

Let me say that these morons do not speak for me nor the majority of gun owners. I am a proud supporter of the 2nd Amendment and as long as someone is an adult who is not a convicted felon, convicted of a violent misdemeanor, adjudicated insane or incompetent or a minor, I support the RKBA.

Just just because something is legal, it doesn't mean it's a good idea. These assholes are playing right into the hands of those who want to ban private ownership of weapons.

[Hoyt]

8. Exactly. "Just just because something is legal, it doesn't mean it's a good idea."

Banks can screw people, but it's not right.
One can wave a confederate flag or swastika, but it's not right.
Manufacturers can still pollute, but it's night right.
One can move jobs overseas, but it's not right.
There's plenty more.

[SGMRTDARMY]

16. So by that logic

its legal for you to spout your anti gun nonsense, it doesn't mean its a good idea.
works both ways, although, unlike you, I would never ever deny your rights and even though I may not like what you say, I will always support your right to say it.

[Hoyt]

18. I support your right to free speech as well. But, I don't - nor does Constitution - toting rights.

[SGMRTDARMY]

20. RKBA

As in Right to Keep and BEAR Arms. Also my state says I can as long as I go through the program that the state has set out for CC.

[Hoyt]

28. If in a militia. . . . . . .

[Glaug-Eldare]

38. Phew, good thing I'm in one, then! n/t

[Tejas]

73. Still beating your dog?

Let me guess, the 1st Amendment is not an individual right either?

[Lizzie Poppet]

103. Not really.

The language of the 2nd Amendment, while clumsy and even tortured, doesn't actually require membership in a militia as a precondition for possession of firearms. Surely this linguistic matter has been discussed in detail in this forum previously?

[Hoyt]

104. I'd suggest you read Stevens' dissent in Heller. It's very different from the right wing twisting

of 2nd Amendment. But, what do you expect from a bunch of home schooled TBaggers, Birthers, bigots, "militia" types, etc.

[Lizzie Poppet]

105. Read it when it was issued.

Way, way ahead of you.

And in any case, Stevens' comments in no way alter the correct linguistic deconstruction of the language of the amendment...

[permatex]

106. So thats what your calling us now?

Because thats what most of us believe the 2A means. So now we're, let's see, home schooled TBaggers, Birthers, bigots, "militia" types. etc.
Have you no shame at all?

[sarisataka]

107. Interesting writing

but the majority disagreed. If I understand Stevens interpretation, his opinion is the 2A protects the rights of the individuals in the military to bear arms. Seems to be a bit redundant and would make Lautenberg unconstitutional as it denies the rights of military personnel to bear arms.

a bunch of home schooled TBaggers, Birthers, bigots, "militia" types, etc.

The SCOTUS justices?

[NewMoonTherian]

27. That's the cool thing about rights.

They're there, whether you support them or not. I believe the Constitution does protect "toting" rights, but the right exists whether the Constitution recognizes it or not.

[cherokeeprogressive]

48. You DO understand the the BoR confers NO rights on citizens (except for the 6th), right?

It is a list of things the Government CANNOT do to citizens.

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

2. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

3. No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

5. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

6. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

7. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

8. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

9. The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. THIS is the one you need to pay attention to... as it says there is no limit to my rights (others retained by the people).

10. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

It may be called The Bill of Rights, but it's more about what rights the Government DOESN'T have.

[Hoyt]

51. Yep, "Well regulated militia," and you ain't in one.

[SGMRTDARMY]

53. Conviently left out the rest of it I see

Just who do you think the Militia is? Here's a hint, its the people, and you also left out the part that says "The Right of the PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". Pretty clear to me.

[Hoyt]

64. Go read Justice Stevens dissent. Tell me what makes more sense.

Without all the Constitutional stuff for a moment, do you really think it makes sense to have a bunch of right wingers walking around with friggin guns, more guns falling in hands of criminals, more kids either getting shot or shooting, more Loughners, Zimmermans, Stawicki, etc. I know we have to if we are going to coddle/protect the 4% that won't walk down the street without a gun tucked close.

[cherokeeprogressive]

65. "Without all the Constitutional stuff for a moment..."

Is there some kind of "extra-Constitutional" argument I should know about?

[SGMRTDARMY]

66. Thats the beautiful thing about this country

the BoR protects even those whose views we may find repugnent. Just because people have a different political view than us doesn't mean that we should restrict or abolish those rights.
BTW, I commend you not using the term tuck a gun or two down your pants,

[Atypical Liberal]

91. Absolutely.

Go read Justice Stevens dissent.

I have. And even Justice Stevens agrees that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. Of course, he had no other choice - there is no right that can be exercised collectively that cannot also be exercised individually.

Tell me what makes more sense. Without all the Constitutional stuff for a moment, do you really think it makes sense to have a bunch of right wingers walking around with friggin guns, more guns falling in hands of criminals, more kids either getting shot or shooting, more Loughners, Zimmermans, Stawicki, etc. I know we have to if we are going to coddle/protect the 4% that won't walk down the street without a gun tucked close.

Yes, it makes absolutely perfect sense. People deserve the right to bear arms for self defense no matter how many other bad people do bad things with them.

I don't care how many people drive drunk, I'm not giving up my right to drink, nor my right to drive (though obviously not both at the same time).

Likewise I don't care how many people do bad things with guns (though fortunately the FBI has just released preliminary data for 2011 and violent crime continues its decades-long decline) - I'm not going to give up my right to have the best tools to defend myself.

[cherokeeprogressive]

57. "Well regulated militia" is apropos of nothing.

Your problem is either in understanding the context of "shall not be infringed", or a deep-rooted need to be obtuse.

How about you tell me by what construct you arrive at "The Government shall allow citizens to possess firearms if they are duly enlisted in a well-regulated militia".

Here's the amendment... explain for me exactly how you use each part of the sentence to arrive at your belief that I have no right to possess firearms without being part of a militia. If you won't, I'll have to assume that your need to be obtuse outweighs your willingness to define your argument.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Just for your general information; I DO belong to a militia. It's a well-regulated one too. We've been known to expend upward of a thousand rounds of ammunition on a nice sunny Saturday afternoon practicing our militia-ness.

[Glaug-Eldare]

58. And according to this reading,

hundreds of thousands of organized militiamen in noncombatant roles are being denied their right to bear arms! Shouldn't the mess cook be able to sue the DoD for denying them the right to carry a rifle on the chow line?

[cherokeeprogressive]

60. If memory serves correctly, members of the Armed Forces aren't allowed to sue the US Government

for any reason.

[Atypical Liberal]

90. "I'm out of soda. I'm going to the store."

This does not imply that buying soda is the only reason to go to the store, or that soda is the only thing that stores sell.

[cherokeeprogressive]

92. I pretty much figured you'd forego answering post #57. n/t

[Meiko]

100. Had a chance to

browse those Federalist papers yet? probably not huh.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

88. I wish I could Rec your post a million times. I wish it was pinned at the top of GD. I wish it were

Mandatory Reading For ALL DUers.

[Tejas]

74. Michigan is not Kalifornia.

MI is much more sane, I think you will find that OC is not a problem in MI.

[Hoyt]

4. Bunch of right wing militia types acting normal (ie, stupid).

[SGMRTDARMY]

5. What a bigoted post

How the hell do you know who they are? Just because they carry and protest what they percieve as an illegal arrest makes them RW militia types? I carry, sometimes open sometimes concealed, does that make me a right wing militia type?

You really need to calm down and take a deep breath and hit your reset button.

[Hoyt]

6. Exactly, I'm "bigoted" against right wing militia types who intimidate with guns. Always will be.

[SGMRTDARMY]

7. So you know for a fact that these people

were RW militia types? Were you there? Do you consider all carriers RW militia types?
I'm pretty sure I know the answer, just want to hear it from your mouth.

[PavePusher]

10. No, since you are making judgements on zero or incomplete data...

you are simply a bigot.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

[Hoyt]

11. Better than a racist Minuteman or other militia member intimidating people with their guns.

I guess you find these types OK because they carry a gun.

[PavePusher]

23. You are the same as them.

The only difference is in your own mind.

[Tejas]

72. Agreed, racists such as Malik 'kill cracker babies' Shabazz

or morons like J.T. Ready should not be in possession of guns.

[Tejas]

9. MLK was a RW militia type according to your lunacy.

MLK wanted to carry, local LE wouldn't allow it. You really need to spend a week at dictionary.com

[Hoyt]

12. MLK had a reason to carry -- right wing racists who rely on guns and bombs to intimidate.

[Glaug-Eldare]

13. So would it have been OK for him to tote a death spewer into Chuck E. Cheese? n/t

[Hoyt]

14. Yea, that's right. He's about the only one though.

[SGMRTDARMY]

15. Wrong

my state says I can so I do.
You and your kind can disapprove all you want, doesn't matter, I and others here are going to keep doing what we do.

[Hoyt]

17. I know you can't go without a gun. Hopefully, like cigarettes, the image can become negative. n/t

[SGMRTDARMY]

19. What image

There is no image of CC, you can't see the concealed weapon.
Its not that I can't go w/o a firearm, its that I CHOOSE not to go w/o a firearm.
What a wonderful concept, choice.

[Tejas]

34. YUP, that's working so well with rapists and murderers.

YUP!

[PavePusher]

45. About beevul's hidden post...

How the Fifty Flaming Fucks is a real quote disruptive and against community standards?!

Are we trying to emulate the fucking Ministry of Truth now?!

[gejohnston]

47. I'm guessing the judges never bothered to listen to the clip

or think CSPAN-2 is a division of Faux. That is not the stupidest I have seen. The most memberable MoT alerts came from someone upset about a quote by a "former Nazi who served in the Waffen SS." He was not a member of the Nazi Party. The guy was or is active in German progressive politics and an active member of the Social Democratic Party. Yeah he was in the Waffen SS, as a 17 year old draftee in 1943 or 44 (when they started drafting) and spent most of his service in a POW camp.

[ileus]

49. Here you go....more drive by jury work...

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: One of your posts has been hidden by a DU Jury

At Tue Jun 12, 2012, 06:16 PM, an alert was sent on the following post:

No wonder you defend holder and fast and furious.
.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=43629

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Further evidence how many regulars in the Gungeon (beevul, this time) actually hate Democrats and the Democratic Party when it gets right down to it.

Eric Holder is a Democrat, in fact he is the Attorney General appointed by President Obama. This post should be deleted and this Right Wing Gun Fanatic should be banned. TOS is checked.

JURY RESULTS

A randomly-selected Jury of DU members completed their review of this alert at Tue Jun 12, 2012, 06:27 PM, and voted 4-2 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: I see no TOS violation, nor any evidence that the poster in question hates the Democratic Party. Just because Holder is a Democrat does not mean that he isn't open to valid criticism.
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT and said: Breitbart propaganda piece
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: the person quoted Holder as saying something tat I do not believe he said.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given


Oh and I was PM'd this...not to be confused with being an ALT.

[Glaug-Eldare]

50. "the person quoted Holder as saying something tat I do not believe he said."

Nice.

[ileus]

52. Some things are beyond amazing....aren't they?

[PavePusher]

55. DUzy-worthy....

moment, if I ever saw one.

[cherokeeprogressive]

59. LOL! Who ya gonna believe? Me, or your lyin' eyes and ears? n/t

[ileus]

56. what is worse is the one that whined begging to have the poster banned.

Maybe someones alt?

[SGMRTDARMY]

61. I have a pretty good idea who the whiner was

but it would be considered a call out and I'm not going to do that. I'm pretty sure we all know who it was.

[friendly_iconoclast]

63. Fuck censorship- here it is again, and he does, in fact call for brainwashing at 0:48

[Son of Gob]

67. Lots of Breitbart fans around these parts

From the video's youtube page.

Breitbart.com
March 18, 2012

Breitbart.com has uncovered video from 1995 of then-U.S. Attorney Eric Holder announcing a public campaign to "really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way."

Holder was addressing the Woman's National Democratic Club. In his remarks, broadcast by CSPAN 2, he explained that he intended to use anti-smoking campaigns as his model to "change the hearts and minds of people in Washington, DC" about guns.

"What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that's not cool, that it's not acceptable, it's not hip to carry a gun anymore, in the way in which we changed our attitudes about cigarettes."

Holder added that he had asked advertising agencies in the nation's capital to assist by making anti-gun ads rather than commercials "that make me buy things that I don't really need." He had also approached local newspapers and television stations, he said, asking them to devote prime space and time, respectively, to his anti-gun campaign.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/18/Holder-Fight-Guns-Like-Cig...

http://www.infowars.com/the-vetting-holder-1995-we-must-brainwash-people-on-g...

[Son of Gob]

68. How dare Holder not want kids to think it's cool and hip to carry a gun!

Guns are Cool! Only thing cooler is RW Propaganda, right guys?

[SGMRTDARMY]

69. So whats RW about it?

Holder said it, he owns it. The proof is there in his own words. Just because that late asshole Brietbart found it doesn't make it not true. I support Holder for the most part but definitely not his attitude about private ownership of firearms.

[ileus]

77. Nothing; It's "hurtful" nt

[Hoyt]

78. What is wrong with believing it's "not hip to carry a gun?" Sounds like good advice and a smart

thing to teach kids. The alternative is to teach them "it is hip to carry a gun," and that is BS.

[SGMRTDARMY]

79. Nothing wrong with it if its your child

OTOH, let the rest of us determine what to teach our children. All my kids, 1 boy, 3 girls, love shooting firearms, they all learned at an early age about firearm saftey and once they had that mastered, they learned about shooting and now everyone of them own firearms and my son and 2 of my daughters have CHL's.

Now the grandchildren are learning about firearms. I guess Holder's anti gun message hasn't gotten through to them.
For every child thats taught to fear or reject our heritage of firarms in this country, there are scores more that are taught to embrace the 2A.
His is a losing battle as evidenced by the wholesale loosening of gun laws.

BTW, wife is cooking beer battered pork chops with mashed potatos, gravy, southwest corn and homemade biskets tonite.
Peace

[Glaug-Eldare]

80. Why is it any government's job to change public opinion about protected activities?

I wouldn't want the FCC convincing people it's not "fresh" to support white separatism, or the DoJ convincing people it's not "dope" to remain silent if you're guilty, or the DEA convincing people that it's not "killer" to refuse consent for searches if you have drugs.

[Hoyt]

81. Pretty simple to me -- like cigarettes, pollution, greed, bigotry, etc., guns are bad for society,

especially kids.

[SGMRTDARMY]

82. In your opinion they are

but millions of americans have a very different opinion. It's parents job to determine whats right and wrong for their children, especially on a protected right.

[Hoyt]

86. Well parents are doing a crummy job in this instance.

[SGMRTDARMY]

87. Thats your opinion

what you teach your children is your business, as is what we teach our children is our business.

I'm getting from your post that I was a bad father because I taught and encourged my children to embrace their 2A heritage. Are you really insinuating that? Really?
It's none of yours or the Govt. business what we teach our children.

Gotta go run some errands now. Be back later.
Peace.

[Glaug-Eldare]

83. Those examples aren't constitutionally protected,

and none of them have redeeming qualities. Guns are and do. Propagandizing the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms is just as reprehensible as the examples I gave above.

[gejohnston]

71. Was the C-Span clip edited or faked?

If not, it was also an attack on the shooting sports as a whole, not just kids taking pistols to school.

Either way, I wish he would forget his corporate defense lawyer past and start doing something about mine cave ins, BP, and sending Banksters to jail.

[Hoyt]

76. If that is what Holder said, I agree 100%. However, don't agree with hiding posts.

I agree completely with Holder's comment:

"What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that's not cool, that it's not acceptable, it's not hip to carry a gun anymore, in the way in which we changed our attitudes about cigarettes."

[gejohnston]

84. so you are saying it was taken out of context?

He was talking about kids and youth gangs switching back to switchblades and tire chains like the 1950s-1960s? If so, I'm cool with that.

Some take it as an attack on gun ownership in general as well as the shooting sports.

[Hoyt]

85. It's pretty clear to me what he is talking about -- could have come from Bill Cosby.

[Tejas]

70. Then I have a reason to carry also, that is, unless

you want to be a right wing racist towards me. I have enough RW racists in my neighborhood already, they don't need your help.

[delgreco]

21. What the hell are these people thinking

I don't understand that mind-set of someone who walks around downtown with a loaded rifle (round in chamber) on his back. The pictures online of these protesters carrying these assault rifles is frightening to me. One pic shows a woman holding her weapon in an almost "ready" position. Her right hand is holding the hand grip and her trigger finger is extended and out the guard.

How can you anyone say that this is not intimidation? Is that what you want for your town or city? How is this anything other than intimidation of others? Please convince me that these people feel threatened because I don't see it. What I see is the steady decline of our civilization. The root of that word, in case you missed it, is civil.

[Glaug-Eldare]

22. Kinda like carrying around Skittles and iced tea,

It's a protest that happens to involve guns. As for that woman in the front with the rifle in her hands, that is simply outrageous. If you choose to transport your rifle on your person, or even carry it for defense if you're an odd enough duck to do so, I'm all for your right to do so. That said, there is no right to walk around town looking like a posse or a deranged gunman on your own say-so, and she ought to be prosecuted for disturbing the peace (or whatever local ordinance is roughly equivalent), at the VERY least. It's no more meaningful or less threatening than walking down Main Street with a handgun in your hands at low ready. That is a threatening posture, period.

[PavePusher]

30. "disturbing the peace"?

Check the local laws, there is frequently no such catagory.

And it's usually just a shitty means of prosecuting exercise of a COnstitutional Right that someone else finds offensive. IIRC, it was used against Civil Rights marchers frequently. Not a good example to follow.

[PavePusher]

24. A light Fisking....

someone who walks around downtown with a loaded rifle (round in chamber)

Cite for the loaded weapon, please?

The pictures online of these protesters carrying these assault rifles is frightening to me.

Sorry, but your ignorance is no excuse for your fear.

One pic shows a woman holding her weapon in an almost "ready" position. Her right hand is holding the hand grip and her trigger finger is extended and out the guard.

Yes, that is the proper way to carry/control a weapon safely when it is on a single-point sling. Please refer to "your ignorance", above.

How can you anyone say that this is not intimidation?

Carrying a weapon lawfully in a peaceful, non-criminal manner is not "intimidation".

Please convince me that these people feel threatened because I don't see it.

One of their fellow Citizens was arrested and prosecuted for lawful, peaceful, non-criminal exercise of a Constitutional Right. Any time that happens, to any exercise of any Constitutional Right, it's a threat. Whether you like that Constitutional Right or not.

What I see is the steady decline of our civilization.

How, exactly?

The root of that word, in case you missed it, is civil.

Do you think that criminal prosecution of a lawful, peaceful, non-criminal exercise of a Constitutional Right is "civil"? If so, I think I know how our civilisation is declining....

[Glaug-Eldare]

26. That may be so

Yes, that is the proper way to carry/control a weapon safely when it is on a single-point sling. Please refer to "your ignorance", above.

That may be so, but if you need to keep the rifle in your hands to use the sling properly, then you need to find another sling. This ain't Baghdad.

[PavePusher]

29. Has nothing to do with Baghdad.

Any sling you use, you'll still need to keep manual control of the firearm, if only to keep the muzzle in a safe direction, and the firearm secure.

Edit: After a better look, that doesn't seem to be a SP sling after all, but as I stated above, the issue is still about control of the firearm. She's doing it right, even if it scares the ignorant.

[sarisataka]

32. Quite correct

Pictures 6 & 8 I find much more disturbing with the lack of muzzle control.

[gejohnston]

37. she could have

slung across her back with the muzzle down, like some SP (or SF now?) dog handlers in AMC (in garrison). That is a better choice if the goal is be seen as "just like you" (which IIRC is the goal of gay pride parades.) Being in "in your face" doesn't work as well.
To change the subject, please tell me that the AF did not adopt this uniform. It might have been OK for the 1920s, but it looks hideous.

[Glaug-Eldare]

39. Oh my god.

That really hearkens back to the days when the Air Force was a division of the Army's Signal Corps.

[PavePusher]

42. Not yet...

But, since my opinon of the Uniform Board is approx. the square root of -1 (It has taken over 3 years to approve/stock a light-weight, hot-weather ABU uniform... just as they mandate that we now have to take USArmy multicam uniforms to Afghanistan now...), I won't believe it can't happen.

2 1/2 years til retirement.... Not that I'm counting...

[Glaug-Eldare]

40. I really don't understand why you'd be supportive of this kind of carry.

Last edited Tue Jun 12, 2012, 08:12 PM - Edit history (2)

Do you feel that it's a legitimate exercise of a Constitutional right to walk around the neighborhood carrying a pistol in your hand? If not, how is a rifle (a much more powerful firearm, btw) so fundamentally different that it's acceptable to walk around with it in your hands, ready to rip as far as anyone else can tell? I believe carry is a right, including open carry of hand and long guns, but they don't belong in your hands unless you're using them. If I see a gun in your hands in public and no reason to need one, I think it's a reasonable presumption that you're one of the BGs.

[PavePusher]

43. Respectfully, you are making the mistake of a false equivalance.

A rifle on a sling, controlled by a hand or both hands, is the long-gun equivalent of a pistol in a holster.

Secured, pointed in the safest possible direction, not in a threatening pose.

The idiots who carry a rifle with the muzzle pointing up.... if by some random chance/negligence, they have an AD/ND, where is the bullet going to land? If someone is carrying a rifle on a sling, do you want that rifle bouncing around uncontrolled, or with the weapon firmly controlled by the carrier?

After my life experiences, training and study with/of firearms, I want them firmly under the control of the carrier, not subject to fate and hope.

[Glaug-Eldare]

46. I'll defer to your greater knowledge of rifle carry,

as I've never done it. Nevertheless, in my ignorance I would be very alarmed by the sight of someone in public with both hands on their rifle. I've only pictured long gun carry using two-point slings that allow hands-free carry, and this is new to me. Honestly? Even knowing that it is necessary for certain slings, if I see somebody handling a gun in this manner in a populated place I'm going to treat it as a potential threat -- the number of people who would carry this way in town is too low, and the number of people who would shoot up the town is too high. Hopefully, my apprehension will be silly someday.

Thanks for the explanation of rifle carry, btw.

[PavePusher]

62. Here's the issue:

It used to be quite common to carry a defensive long-gun in public. The origonal long-guns were very long indeed, and a pain in many places to carry. Eventually, in the form of various shotguns of shorter length, and lever-action carbines, easier to handle than a normal length rifle, more reliable and effective than the early multi-shot pistols.

However, as anyone with more than 60 seconds of rifle experience knows very well, any long-gun is far more of a pain in the ass to carry than almost any hand-gun. (My experience comes from occasional tours in combat zones. Carrying an M16 sucks. The alternative, however, sucks worse.) As hand-guns became more reliable, easier to use and more powerful, they gradually became more likely to be the preferred defensive-carry gun. Since almost no-one carries a rifle in public it anymore, outside of hunting or a few organised sporting events, the unfamiliarity makes those unfamiliar with the process uneasy.

Many "long-guns" are still very effective defensive weapons, and carrying them in public can make sense with a bit of thought. AR carbines, double-barrel shotguns and shorter lever-action carbines have excellent stopping power, are moderately easy to carry, the repeating arms can have excellent magazine capacity (though tube-mag lever-guns can be a pain to reload...). They can deal with threats beyond efficient/effective hand-gun range (rare, but not unknown).

In short, just because they make some people nervous, this is not areasonable reason to ban the practice, or even sneer at it.

the number of people who would carry this way in town is too low, and the number of people who would shoot up the town is too high.

I think you've made a claim with no statistical evideence to back it up. That's the other sides job.

Thanks for the interesting debate. My apologies if I came across as a bit snippy, was busy getting caught up at work from my vacation.

[Hoyt]

31. Only folks saying it's not intimidation are those who can't envision life w/o gun in their pants.

Welcome aboard.

I agree with your assessment of folks who would walk around with their guns in public. It's mostly right wingers who care only about themselves, and little about society.

[kestrel91316]

33. It is intimidation, pure and simple. First cousin to bullying.

[gejohnston]

35. intimidate whom?

perhaps she should have slung it across her back? I think that would have been better.

[Tejas]

75. Like mall ninjas with their 87 velcro-attached accesories?

And to top that off, they occasionally ride a bicycle through the mall wearing all of that crap. Really makes for a pleasant shopping experience......NOT!

[Tejas]

36. Better to be a member of SWAT with a FULL-AUTO rifle

or a Glock-18? Oh wait, they NEVER go off, they NEVER wind up being loose cannons.





















oh wait

[SGMRTDARMY]

41. In case you missed it

exercising a right is not intimidation, the state I live in has shall issue CC and open carry, hasn't seemed to be a problem yet.
And in case you missed it, overall crime, including gun crimes, are at a 30 year low.

Quit dithering over something thats not a problem.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

44. welcome to DU. Have a Nice Day.

Enjoy your stay.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

89. cross posting for Transparency

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1240&pid=108475

[cherokeeprogressive]

93. I'd like to shake juror #5's hand... then tell him/her the handshake never happened.

BTW thanks for the compliment.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

94. I bet Juror #5 is someone's sock or a zombie. and thanks again

for one of the most cogent posts ever.

I am wondering if they have quit teaching American History in schools. They are definitely not spending enough time on the BoR and The Constitution.

[L0oniX]

95. Only problem I have with open display is that when the police are called...

about a crime where a gun is involved and they show up and people at the scene are openly displaying a gun it creates a problem which is obvious.

[Glaug-Eldare]

96. I had an amusing LEO encounter at a Chick-fil-A this year

while I was wearing an empty holster as a protest against our state laws. Apparently, somebody got spooked and called the police to come check me out. I've heard of "Man With A Gun" calls, but "Man With A Holster?" The encounter was brief and professional, but just goes to show that there's a lot of public education that needs to be done about carry.

[mvccd1000]

97. I suppose that depends on your location

It's not at all uncommon to see an openly carried pistol in your daily activities in Arizona. I've yet to hear of any confusion created if police need to be called (although they generally don't, because who's going to be stupid enough to commit a crime when there's so obviously an armed citizen in the vicinity?).

In a place that doesn't see much open carry, your argument may have more merit.

[mvccd1000]

98. **UPDATE** - 'Brandishing' or 'carrying'? Court will weigh teen's gun charge arrest

From today's Detroit Free Press:

An evidentiary hearing will be held today for a man charged with brandishing a rifle, disturbing the peace and obstructing a police officer after he walked around downtown Birmingham with a military rifle strapped to his back.

The Observer and Eccentric reports police officers stopped Sean Michael Combs, 18, around 10 p.m. on April 13 while he was walking down South Old Woodward with his girlfriend. Police said Combs was sporting a 1942 M-1 Garand military rifle on his back, loaded with a round in the chamber.

...

Combs' defense attorney James Makowski claims his client's civil rights were violated, because Michigan is an open carry state.

Just an update; I have no additional comments. I'll try to post another if the verdict is reported.

[mvccd1000]

99. **UPDATE** - Teen acquitted in Birmingham gun incident

From The Detroit News today:

Bloomfield Hills— A recent Troy High School graduate was acquitted Thursday of all charges in his arrest for carrying a rifle in downtown Birmingham.

A jury in 48th District Court found Sean M. Combs, 18, not guilty of brandishing a firearm and disturbing the peace.

...

(Combs) said he was walking to a parking lot to return the rifle to his car when he was confronted by officers Rebekah Springer and Gina Potts, who demanded to see his identification.

He drew a crowd of teenagers when he refused, prompting the officers to call in another officer, who arrested Combs.

"It was about freedom of speech and freedom of expression," Combs said, explaining why he carried the rifle. "It's my way of saying what I believe in."

Should be the final update to this one. Clearly (once again), the courts have shown that the police have no business arresting people engaged in legal behavior. Score another one for civil rights.

[ileus]

101. Victory for this brave young man, society and the 2A

Reclaiming injustice...

[permatex]

102. Correct verdict

The jury saw beyond the bullshit charges, actually knew the laws, unlike the police and prosecutor, who are the ones supposed to the laws, and delivered the correct verdict.
Another win for gun rights.