Gun-toting woman divides community

[DickWanner]

The concept is simple:

Individuals are expected to follow the law even when it is inconvenient for them, or they disagree with the law. This woman is simply holding the government to the same standard.

But she's making a scene and they're gonna take away our rights because of it and not because we don't exercise our rights publicly

 

[Negotiator]

Moreover, it increases the change of accidental shootings, Vice of the Brady Center said. And a child could easily grab it. "Semiautomatic weapons are made so that even young children can fire them," he said.

What?????

 

[Rob Boudrie]

But she's making a scene and they're gonna take away our rights because of it and not because we don't exercise our rights publicly

Good point.

Some rights are lost is not exercised. Other rights are lost if exercised.

The right to carry long guns openly in CA was lost because the black panthers decided to exercise that right in the 60s.

 

[mikem317]

"I said, 'Kids are more in danger of falling off a piece of playground equipment or getting hit by a car in the parking lot than anybody coming and doing anything where you need a gun to defend yourself,' " Jones said.

How is this mutually exclusive? It's like choosing between seat belts and airbags.

Yes, you can check out the playground equipment (to mitigate the risk associated with playground accident), use crosswalks, traffic lights and common sense (to avoid getting hit by a car), and carry a firearm for self-defense.

I hate sheep.

 

[mikem317]

Moreover, it increases the change of accidental shootings, Vice of the Brady Center said. And a child could easily grab it. "Semiautomatic weapons are made so that even young children can fire them," he said.

What?????

Clearly, they don't own Smith and Wesson M&P pistols.

 

[Brigante]

"I said, 'Kids are more in danger of falling off a piece of playground equipment or getting hit by a car in the parking lot than anybody coming and doing anything where you need a gun to defend yourself,' " Jones said.

Sounds like an argument to begin banning cars from parking lots.

 

[GSG]

Individuals are expected to follow the law even when it is inconvenient for them, or they disagree with the law. This woman is simply holding the government to the same standard.

I didn't look at it that way before. Good point, +1, and thanks for the insight.

Some rights are lost is not exercised. Other rights are lost if exercised.

The right to carry long guns openly in CA was lost because the black panthers decided to exercise that right in the 60s.

A good (albeit scary) point as well. Scare someone enough with your rights and they just may try to take them away.

 

[MaverickNH]

Are you supporting 1st Amendment rights if you believe people should be able to speak their minds, as long as they say what you think they should?

Are you supporting 2nd Amendment rights if you believe people should be able to own/carry/shoot guns, as long as they do so in a way you think they should?

Don't forget that rights are INDIVIDUAL - what that means should be clear after Heller. People are not constrained to exercise their rights in a manner that promotes and perpetuates your opportunity to exercise your rights, as long as they are not directly interfering with your rights. If the woman's choices are unpopular and turn others against guns - whose side are you going to take? Will you stand aside and watch her lose her CCW while saying, in a not-so-quiet voice, that she brought it on herself by making poor choices? Do you have to wait until the Brady Campaign bankrolls the case against her before you grudgingly take a stand in her defense?

Unfortunately, for every "right way" to exercise RKBA, there's another segment of the gunowner community that will be critical of that way. If you start drawing lines of distinction on the "right way" to exercise RKBA, you will find yourself on the wrong side of someone else's line some day.

As goes my usual rant, when a bullet hole was found in an impossible location near Nashua Fish & Game Assoc, the President was quoted in the paper referring to "whacky" Practical Pistol/Rifle scenarios that were now halted at the club. There went the Practical disciplines under the bus. When a guy was nabbed by the Manchester PD for open-carry at a Border's another NFGA officer was critical in the newpapers of open-carry as a poor tactical and political choice. There went open-carry under the bus. And the club lives on, with high-power and trap safely protected from political pressure.

As Franklin said, "We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." Let this woman get thrown under the bus and you can plan on wearing fashionable tire-marks yourself next season.

 

[Jose]

Good point.

Some rights are lost is not exercised. Other rights are lost if exercised.

The right to carry long guns openly in CA was lost because the black panthers decided to exercise that right in the 60s.

This has been my point all along. A point that is lost on several either because they are too dense to understand realpolitik or because they do not like me personally. Either way, the truth is the truth.

 

[Jose]

Are you supporting 1st Amendment rights if you believe people should be able to speak their minds, as long as they say what you think they should?

Are you supporting 2nd Amendment rights if you believe people should be able to own/carry/shoot guns, as long as they do so in a way you think they should?

Don't forget that rights are INDIVIDUAL - what that means should be clear after Heller. People are not constrained to exercise their rights in a manner that promotes and perpetuates your opportunity to exercise your rights, as long as they are not directly interfering with your rights. If the woman's choices are unpopular and turn others against guns - whose side are you going to take? Will you stand aside and watch her lose her CCW while saying, in a not-so-quiet voice, that she brought it on herself by making poor choices? Do you have to wait until the Brady Campaign bankrolls the case against her before you grudgingly take a stand in her defense?

Unfortunately, for every "right way" to exercise RKBA, there's another segment of the gunowner community that will be critical of that way. If you start drawing lines of distinction on the "right way" to exercise RKBA, you will find yourself on the wrong side of someone else's line some day.

As goes my usual rant, when a bullet hole was found in an impossible location near Nashua Fish & Game Assoc, the President was quoted in the paper referring to "whacky" Practical Pistol/Rifle scenarios that were now halted at the club. There went the Practical disciplines under the bus. When a guy was nabbed by the Manchester PD for open-carry at a Border's another NFGA officer was critical in the newpapers of open-carry as a poor tactical and political choice. There went open-carry under the bus. And the club lives on, with high-power and trap safely protected from political pressure.

As Franklin said, "We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." Let this woman get thrown under the bus and you can plan on wearing fashionable tire-marks yourself next season.

There is a difference between publicly throwing one of your own under the bus and keeping disagreements internal. If I had the opportunity to speak to this woman, I would strongly warn her about the political repercussions that she is formenting through her ill-advised political stunt. I agree completely with her reasons for carrying a firearm, since they are the same as mine. But her reasons for carrying one openly are foolhardy to say the least. Her main argument is that she wants quick access to it. If she needs to open carry to get to it quickly, then she is untrained. Period. Anyone with any modicum of training can quickly learn to draw from concealment and get shots on target in 1.5 seconds or less.

The sheriff in her county is a moron and deserves to get his ass sued to kingdom come. But none of this would even be an issue if she threw that t shirt over her pistol and called it a day.

The problem is not that she might lose her right to carry a firearm. The problem is that mindless actions like hers may cause ALL of us to lose them through some bullshit Federal law. A law which we will have to fight an uphill battle in the courts on 10th Amendment grounds since Heller did not address this issue.

 

[Jose]

Sorry Jose--my mistake. I'm not sorry about the neg rep, though--you deserved that a while back with some comments you made towards myself and others in a previous thread.

Whatever