Yeah, I know, just wanted to make a point that no gun (and I LOVE guns) is non-lethal. When I was in college one guy shot and killed another guy with a single shot from one of those “knock down all the ducks and win a prize” rifles shooting .22 shorts. Or .22BBs.
BUT, given the time, you’d be sure to hit him. 
All this obviates the complete irresponsibility of openly carrying a gun into a probably crowded area where tempers are prone to rise. This guy screams, that one shoves and it’s possible for anyone from either side to fly off the handle grab the gun and start shooting.
I kind of like the guy. I came into this thread expecting “oh, another one of those hypocrite idiots who are outraged at government expansion now who quietly sat while Bush was in office” but he voted for Ron Paul and took the time specifically to criticize both parties for their spending policies.
The fact that the first video from that link has people basically saying “THE GUY HAS A GUN! OMG A GUN!” “YEAH A GUN WTF A GUN” “YEAH HE’S REALLY REALLY, RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW WITH A GUN” “OMG A GUN!?!?” for 5 minutes serves to show the hysteria people have over guns.
In the interview, the guy seemed level headed during an onslaught - I just wish he’d dismissed the birther issue entirely. And trying to be dodgy about the issue about what the rest of the quote was seems dishonest - he should’ve stood by his point.
He didn’t act in a provocative or threatning manner, but simply made a statement about excercising his open carry rights.
I’ve debated doing something similar myself - recently my state has passed laws that invalidate certain city ordnances preventing the carrying of guns in certain circumstances. Some of the police still indicate that they’re willing to arrest you under the now unenforcable laws. I should really be carrying everywhere as a way of trying to educate the public that guns in good hands aren’t a threat and to remove some of the mysterious stigma that surrounds it, but I’ve been kind of a pussy in that I’m afraid of the consequences of getting arrested even though I know it’s right and legal.
Common freakin’ sense. If you see people carrying guns in public you are more likely to carry one also. The fewer guns you see, the less need you see in carrying one for protection against those other yahoos.
Yeah, see, the whole position of “you only need guns to protect yourself against other people with guns!” is just silly. You people act as if the world before guns featured no violence.
Guns are an equalizer in this regard. You aren’t necesarily at the mercy of someone who is bigger, or stronger, or a better fighter, or who gets the drop on you. A 110 pound woman doesn’t suddenly become immune to attack from a 250 pound guy. But I guess if that guy doesn’t have a gun, then she doesn’t need a gun either, because guns are only useful to protect yourself against other people with guns!
You’re fucking kidding here, right?
I can understand people’s alarm at the sidearm when accompanied with that sign. Hearing the man’s explanation I accept it. I may not agree but I accept what he said as his honest expression. He seems to be an intelligent thoughtful guy. Given that and the atmosphere of the last week he knew what kind of reaction to expect. Still, if he feels his point about exercising our rights is important enough that’s his privilege.
We have a customer that occasionally wears a gun into the store. No problem. He has a carry permit and it’s in plain sight. He is a bit of an oddball. One day when talking to the cashier he decides to remove the gun from it’s holster for no apparent reason. I’m not sure what would prompt a responsible gun owner to do that.
You know, I checked the Minnesota Department of Public Safety website.. They have a list of where one cannot carry a firearm (Minnesota is, by the way, both an open and concealed carry state).
Bars and other establishments serving liquor are not specifically mentioned.
Please note the post before yours stating the same astonishment, yet at the same time claiming the need for an “equalizer”.
This was a response to a post I made regarding someone carrying concealed.
Mind explaining how people are seeing other people carrying concealed weapons?
Better yet, how about posting a cite showing the slope factor that people carrying guns leads to more people carrying guns which leads to more people carrying guns.
And then try to show how more people carrying guns is, in itself, a danger to public safety.
I did not “claim the need for an equalizer”. I’m saying that there’s an imbalance of power in a physical sense between people based on size, strength, handicap, fighting ability, handicap, disposition, whatever. In a world without weapons, these factors would decide who was able to effectively commit violence against another.
Weapons change the equation. They provide a means by which the less physically powerful can defend themselves against the physically powerful.
The implicit conclusion to the idea that people only need guns to defend themselves against other people with guns is that if all guns were removed from the equation, then there wouldn’t be violence for people to protect themselves from. This is ridiculous.
If a person does not carry a gun, they will not see using a gun as a solution to a problem(real or imagined).
That has nothing to do with your originally statement, and is also mostly meaningless. Essentially “a person that does not carry a gun won’t use a gun” - sure, where’s the point here?
I don’t know-maybe if people don’t carry guns they are less likely to shoot people, either intentionally or unintentionally.
In what way does that support the idea that seeing people carrying guns in public will also cause other people to carry guns in public?
What we need is a 21st century Smedley Butler - a decorated combat veteran who can cultivate whoever is influencing these dirtbags (Preacher This, Crazy Rich Dude That, the National The-Other Foundation) into a clandestine shock force bent on the overthrow of the current administration. Then, instead, he rats 'em out to Congress and the media.
I suppose if I had said anything about it being illegal, that would be a pretty crisp point, but I didn’t, so its pretty much just some typing.
What is customary is more important than what is legal, by and large. It may be perfectly legal for a man to beat a porcupine to death with his dick, but you still won’t see many guys doing it.
What do you think, in other countries where it is very unusual to be armed, you think they pine away with distress, can’t wait for the day when they can pack some heat? From what I hear, and this is just what I hear, mind you…those people think we’re nuts, think our obsession with firearms is some sort of national fetish, its on their Top Ten Reasons to Think the Americans Are Batshit.
What do you think, think they might be right? I think they might be right. Yep.
You’re starting to babble in your old age.
You posted a statement that made it clear you think there are no guns in your bar. I asked how you know that. Your level of comfort is a delusion. It’s not specifically outlawed and unless everyone is nude or you have x-ray specs there’s no way you could know that nobody is packing.
So why don’t you admit that.
Unless, of course, you’re the only one in the place.
Well, I suppose whenever the Packers come to town, they tend to draw a bunch of riff-raff from over the border… Got to keep a closer watch on the livestock, and all.
But what about the other question, the one you seem to ignore. In countries where its neither legal nor customary to go about armed, you think they miss it? Think they just agitate for the chance to strap on? Or is it, like I suggested, they think we’re crazy in our firearm obsession?
Can you think of a good, solid, logical reason Americans would feel the need to be armed, when others don’t? Who are we afraid of, if not each other?