It is wrong to bring guns to a protest

[begbert2]

@Mr.Excellent

So, when I see a large crowd of open-carrying folks, at a political rally, ranting about government conspiracies and The Evil Libruls, I think I can be forgiven for being taken aback.

In this case I figure the label of “gun-owner” is considerably less specific to the crowd than that of “at a political rally, ranting about government conspiracies and The Evil Libruls”, and so I draw my conclusions about their stability from the latter label, only afterwards assessing and factoring in how much more or less reliable a person with a gun is than a person without a gun.

So, the logic is, “Wow, those guys seem unstable! And they have guns - yipes! Having a gun (open-carry) doesn’t make you more stable than average - but it does make you more dangerous. Ergo: flee!”

Heck, the crowd was small enough to be composed entirely of outliers anyway - and as I think the ‘armed mob’ thing is an obviously bad idea, that leads me to suspect that most of the sensible, responsible types elected not to attend, leaving this particular crowd of gun owners as likely to be composed of the most foolish, angry, and unstable gun-owners the area had to offer, as a matter of self-selection. Making assessments based on the activities of gun-owners-on-average almost completely useless.

I mean, Oakminster, you sound rational enough at the moment - would *you *strap on extra guns and go chant at such a rally?

[Oakminster]

@Mr.Excellent

You seem to be saying, though, that even the gun-owners who don’t need permits to carry their guns legally aren’t a danger, because they have a moral and legal responsibility not to do anything stupid. I agree that they probably won’t be dangerous, just like most people. But if there’s no permitting process for open-carry, then there’s very little to distinguish the open-carrying population from the population of folks who don’t own guns at all. And we know that that population sometimes does immoral or illegal things. So, when I see a large crowd of open-carrying folks, at a political rally, ranting about government conspiracies and The Evil Libruls, I think I can be forgiven for being taken aback.

Maybe it’s a cultural/generational thing. I was raised in the rural South, and I still live in the rural South. You see a crowd of armed men as some scary something. I see them as people who look much like my neighbors. You see guns as bad. I see them as a normal, routine part of everyday life.

You woulda freaked out at my high school. Back then, I routinely went to school with a shotgun in the trunk of my car during hunting season. Lots of guys did. There was no internet or cable in that part of the world, Atari was state of the art as for as video games went. Men and boys often sought their entertainment outdoors. Hunting, shooting, fishing, camping, etc. Guys of my generation grew up around guns, we were taught how to handle (and use) them, and we developed a certain amount of skill in that regard.

Now, if a kid takes his shotgun to school, even locked in his car, even if it is hunting season, he’s probably going to get arrested/suspended/expelled after he gets through being taken down by the local S.W.A.T. team. This anti-gun hysteria that pervades modern liberals baffles me.

[Mr.Excellent]

@Oakminster

Maybe it’s a cultural/generational thing. I was raised in the rural South, and I still live in the rural South. You see a crowd of armed men as some scary something. I see them as people who look much like my neighbors. You see guns as bad. I see them as a normal, routine part of everyday life.

You woulda freaked out at my high school. Back then, I routinely went to school with a shotgun in the trunk of my car during hunting season. Lots of guys did. There was no internet or cable in that part of the world, Atari was state of the art as for as video games went. Men and boys often sought their entertainment outdoors. Hunting, shooting, fishing, camping, etc. Guys of my generation grew up around guns, we were taught how to handle (and use) them, and we developed a certain amount of skill in that regard.

Now, if a kid takes his shotgun to school, even locked in his car, even if it is hunting season, he’s probably going to get arrested/suspended/expelled after he gets through being taken down by the local S.W.A.T. team. This anti-gun hysteria that pervades modern liberals baffles me.

Well, I don’t think I’d be freaked out by your high school - context matters. (I’m not saying I think it’s a good idea to let students have guns anywhere on school property - but I wouldn’t be freaked out by it.)

Let me ask you this, though - what if the school had decided to change its policy, and require kids to leave their guns at home? And then a bunch of seniors had decided to protest in front of the school, while waving loaded shotguns? To me, that’s a different context, and a much more troubling one. If you’ve got a gun in your car because you’re going hunting, that’s reasonably normal. If you’ve got a loaded gun in your hand merely because you think it makes a neat statement - well, that’s much more troubling.

[Oakminster]

@begbert2

I mean, Oakminster, you sound rational enough at the moment - would *you *strap on extra guns and go chant at such a rally?

Really can’t see myself attending that particular rally, gun or no gun. I don’t usually do political rallies, and even if I did, that rally doesn’t mesh with my political views.

However, suppose it were, instead, an NRA rally against gun control. If weapons were allowed, I might very well carry something. And if they dig up Moses to give us his “Cold dead hand” speech, I’ll raise my weapon to the sky right along with him.

[Mr.Excellent]

I’d also like to point out that I don’t see guns as bad - I see them as dangerous, and thus in need of careful regulation. Just as cars are dangerous, and need to be carefully regulated. Just as prescription drugs are dangerous, and need to be carefully regulated. But, heck, given the chance, I’d not be averse to heading to a range and learning to shoot a gun myself.

[begbert2]

@Oakminster

Really can’t see myself attending that particular rally, gun or no gun. I don’t usually do political rallies, and even if I did, that rally doesn’t mesh with my political views.

However, suppose it were, instead, an NRA rally against gun control. If weapons were allowed, I might very well carry something. And if they dig up Moses to give us his “Cold dead hand” speech, I’ll raise my weapon to the sky right along with him.

Yeah, see, it’s all about messages. I see a gun removed from a holster, I expect it to be fired - or at least used to threaten and intimidate, since that’s what unholstered guns are for. If I saw an excited crowd with guns upraised in the air, I would expect that at least one of the people there would be excited and stupid enough to fire it off in the air. Not the whole crowd, and not you - just one nimrod. (There is always a nimrod, in any sufficiently large and disparate group.)

Of course, after the first shot, I would assume that all bets were off.

Is this my imagination running wild? Sure. But when it comes to things of moderate importance like my life and limb, I have the be wary of at least a few of the not-too implausible extreme cases.

[Oakminster]

@Mr.Excellent

Let me ask you this, though - what if the school had decided to change its policy, and require kids to leave their guns at home? And then a bunch of seniors had decided to protest in front of the school, while waving loaded shotguns? To me, that’s a different context, and a much more troubling one. If you’ve got a gun in your car because you’re going hunting, that’s reasonably normal. If you’ve got a loaded gun in your hand merely because you think it makes a neat statement - well, that’s much more troubling.

You…really don’t understand…the way things were in that time and place. The school would never have instituted such a policy, and if they had, the parents likely woulda raised hell and gotten whoever responsible for it fired. Assuming the school did, for some reason, try to institute the policy, and for some reason, the parents did not get the principal fired, then yeah…the seniors…and probably the juniors, sophmores, freshmen and even eight graders woulda protested loud and long. Maybe by taking guns to the rally. Maybe not. But we’d have had the right to do it if we so chose.

[Oakminster]

@begbert2

If I saw an excited crowd with guns upraised in the air, I would expect that at least one of the people there would be excited and stupid enough to fire it off in the air. Not the whole crowd, and not you - just one nimrod. (There is always a nimrod, in any sufficiently large and disparate group.)

Of course, after the first shot, I would assume that all bets were off.

.

And the fact that nothing remotely like that happened at the rally that prompted this thread would not cause you to reconsider that position?

[begbert2]

@Oakminster

And the fact that nothing remotely like that happened at the rally that prompted this thread would not cause you to reconsider that position?

Nope.

Did they have their loaded guns unholstered and upraised at a moment of excitement? 'Cause that is the most scary image. Merely being an agitated mob loaded for bear is still a step less than collectively brandishing.

[HMS_Irruncible]

I don’t worry at all about people carrying guns to protests. Most likely it’s for show. If not, the duly appointed federal well-regulated militia can blow them to smithereens, and then everybody will understand how that goes.

[Clawdio]

We are talking about the implications of bearing arms at a protest, but we have mostly limited the discusion to gun rallies…

Is it appropriate to wear a loaded gun to a protest at an abortion clinic?

How about displaying your loaded gun as you protest a place that performs gay marriages?

The argument has been made repeatedly in this thread that a fear of guns is irrational. But if someone tells me they don’t like what i’m doing, I cannot agree that that message is the same comming from someone displaying a weapon. To shift from guns even… a protest group bearing baseball bats (which i believe are also legal to carry in public places) projects a much different message than a group with signs.

[Lust4Life]

@spark240

M
This is essentially true, and it is also the embodiment of what I hold the Second Amendment to be all about: that in the final extremity, if necessary, rights–all of them–are and should be defended with force.

If you deny this, I must ask, what of police and military? Do you expect them to defend your rights in some circumstances? (Leave aside, for the moment, the matter of whether these institutions might be, in other circumstances, trampling your rights.) Why do you think it is more moral to ask others to wield violence, or the threat of violence, on your behalf, than to do it yourself? I submit that the truth is closer to the reverse.

This is two different questions.
The reason that it is Ok for police to use force on your behalf is because of emotional detachment.

Some one you love has been raped or murdered, you’re not thinking logically.

Someone says that a person of this/that description was seen in the area at the time of the offence .

You, or I for that matter will probably take the law into our own hands in our rage and our anguish if we ourselves hunt down the person responsible.

You MURDER someone who you think is guilty in your grief.

Too late when the next day it turns out your witness hated whitey/blacks/jews/their next door neighbour and the person you lynched was totally innocent.

So thats why we have police.

The reason we have a proffessionally trained army is because self trained amateurs in the West are crap in this day and age, and have been for quite some considerable time.

The War of Independance wasn’t won by backwoodsmen sniping Redcoats from the forests but by formally, and conventionally trained troops.

The modern militias are pathetic, they couldn’t fight off a bunch of reenactors, and would most likely end up mostly killing themselves.

What was left after that wouldn’t last more then a couple of days (if that) once even very small,numerically, proffessional unconventional forces started on them.

They are’nt Taliban by any stretch of the imagination.

They haven’t been brought up routinely to use weapons openly on a daily basis, and they don’t think that they’ll be getting the virgins on death.

They seem to be suffering from "Small mans "disease.

I.E. I may be little and got beat up at school alot but now I’ve got a gun !
And oneday…

[Oakminster]

@begbert2

Nope.

Did they have their loaded guns unholstered and upraised at a moment of excitement? 'Cause that is the most scary image. Merely being an agitated mob loaded for bear is still a step less than collectively brandishing.

Couple of things here:

1. You are, admittedly, not very knowledgeable about guns. How can you tell if a gun is loaded or not by visual inspection from more than arms length? (hint: you probably can’t, and one of the linked articles specifically mentions that the rally required participants to show open chambers, even had a device to insert in the breech to show compliance.

2. Long guns generally are not carried in holsters.

3. Raising weapons to the sky is a warrior’s tradition that likely predates recorded history. My ancestors did it with axes and swords before guns existed. If I ever sire children, my descendants will likely do it with phasers and light sabers.

[Czarcasm]

@Oakminster

3. Raising weapons to the sky is a warrior’s tradition that likely predates recorded history. My ancestors did it with axes and swords before guns existed. If I ever sire children, my descendants will likely do it with phasers and light sabers.

So they were waving their weapons to show that they were warriors?
Interesting.

[begbert2]

@Oakminster

Couple of things here:

1. You are, admittedly, not very knowledgeable about guns. How can you tell if a gun is loaded or not by visual inspection from more than arms length? (hint: you probably can’t, and one of the linked articles specifically mentions that the rally required participants to show open chambers, even had a device to insert in the breech to show compliance.

I admit it would be pretty hard for me to tell while I’m rapidly employed in getting the hell out of dodge. Remember what I said about life and limb? And about guns existing to shoot? I never assume that the gun-owner is using it as a plaything for display. I assume it’s loaded, always. And I’m certainly not going to walk up to somebody who I think is unstable and ask him to hand me his gun so I can check it out.

@Oakminster

2. Long guns generally are not carried in holsters.

I know. They’re also generally not waved in the air.

@Oakminster

3. Raising weapons to the sky is a warrior’s tradition that likely predates recorded history. My ancestors did it with axes and swords before guns existed. If I ever sire children, my descendants will likely do it with phasers and light sabers.

:eek: Holy the f’ng carp. You think this helps?? You want me to picture gun-owners as a bunch of Rambo wannabies who think they’re warriors??

Yeah, your ancestors waved their weapons in the air - right before they went and killed people with those weapons. Shit!

[The_Second_Stone]

@Bricker

And of course, we all remember that terrible tragedy in which a gun-rights protest turned violent, and dozens of people were wounded and killed in the crossfire. My gosh, I still shiver when I recall those horrible events.

Yes, that was called Kent State. And we all remember what a bunch of criminals the Black Panthers turned out to be.

Yes, it may be legal to blather like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, or carry guns to a rally. But that doesn’t make it a good idea. Hitler and the Nazis did both.

[Oakminster]

@begbert2

Yeah, your ancestors waved their weapons in the air - right before they went and killed people with those weapons. Shit!

Yeah, they did. Because if they hadn’t, they’d have been killed. War works that way.
Other times, they raised weapons to the sky and didn’t go kill anyone. “Weapons to the sky” is sometimes used as a salute, or to indicate approval, or to invoke the blessings of the gods, or as a sign of solidarity, etc.

[begbert2]

@Oakminster

Yeah, they did. Because if they hadn’t, they’d have been killed. War works that way.
Other times, they raised weapons to the sky and didn’t go kill anyone. “Weapons to the sky” is sometimes used as a salute, or to indicate approval, or to invoke the blessings of the gods, or as a sign of solidarity, etc.

Uh huh.

Even if I pretend for an instant that an undisciplined mob waving their weapons is more akin to an orderly lineup of uniformed military firing off a salute than the mob of black-hat cowboys that dragged Marty McFly through town, which I don’t pretend, I have this thing about life and limb, which requires me not to assume that the tiger is tame, when it’s got its claws out and is roaring.

[Bricker]

@begbert2

Uh huh.

Even if I pretend for an instant that an undisciplined mob waving their weapons is more akin to an orderly lineup of uniformed military firing off a salute than the mob of black-hat cowboys that dragged Marty McFly through town, which I don’t pretend, I have this thing about life and limb, which requires me not to assume that the tiger is tame, when it’s got its claws out and is roaring.

What evidence would convince you that your fear is misplaced? I mean, it’s hard to say,“No instances of gun violence at events like this,” because we’re ALREADY at that state of affairs and you still contend your fear has some reasonableness to it.

So what sorts of additional evidence would be needed for you to believe that the actual danger from events like this is negligble?

[FE3O4ENAIL]

Are there pictures of the rally with people holding raised arms? Are the peoples’ trigger fingers in the trigger guard or alongside it?
That would answer my questions as to the intellegence of the protesters.