Cooley's AR-15 Airport OC Leads to Fed Bill to Ban BOTH OC and CC at Airports

Bernymac said:

Do the anti-gunners really need a reason? From my observation, they will use any and all logical fallacies at their disposal to get their way.

Click to expand...

Exactly. So why give them additional ammo by failing (or refusing) to use sound judgement, good reasoning, and exercising discretion?

Long gun OCers are bad. Mmmkay?

I don't Open Carry my rifle unless I'm at the range.
I don't believe in participating in OC "marches" or "demonstrations".
That said, if someone wants to walk around with a rifle on then more power to him.
I will not be a Sunshine Patriot and make statements such as "He shouldn't be so In Your Face". This is divisive and I feel is not productive in the fight for our rights. If the OCer is not breaking any laws I will support his right to carry whatever the heck he wants.
I see it no different than the guy I see walking around town dragging a large wooden cross and standing on the street corners holding up a bible and shouting gospel verses at motorists as they drive past. Not my thing but I will defend his right to do whatever he wants within the scope of the law.
I don't know Rep Hank Johnson. I do know what he is. He is an enemy to freedom. He has come out against the right of a free citizen, a member of this nations unorganized militia, to bear arms.
No, we are not at war. No, wearing a rifle is not always the most convenient thing to do. There are issues with muzzle awareness and control over the trigger. Still, If he is not brandishing the rifle in an threatening manner I stand by his right to bear his chosen Modern Musket.
If any member of the public has a problem with seeing a citizen of this country peaceably exercising his right to bear arms I will recommend that this nervous hoplaphobe seek mental therapy to deal with their issues.
Either we hang together or we will hang separately.
Cooley with his AR-15 is not the bad guy. Those who turn their backs on their responsibility to defend the Constitution are the bad guys..
Against All Enemies....

since9 said:

Exactly. So why give them additional ammo by failing (or refusing) to use sound judgement, good reasoning, and exercising discretion?

Click to expand...

If you attribute carrying an unrestricted firearm in public to unsound judgement, poor reasoning and a general indiscretion, what would you consider proper exercise of the rights protected by the first amendment?

Applying for a permit to peaceably assemble?

Applying for press credentials before filming or writing?

Retaining a lawyer before preaching on a politically incorrect subject?

Privileges do not support or defend privileges.

twoskinsonemanns said:

Long gun OCers are bad. Mmmkay?

Click to expand...

Nope - not in and of itself bad at all.

Just outside of the scope of this forum - specifically mentioned (limited, restricted) in the Forum Rules.

ATM said:

If you attribute carrying an unrestricted firearm in public to unsound judgement, poor reasoning and a general indiscretion, what would you consider proper exercise of the rights protected by the first amendment?

Applying for a permit to peaceably assemble?

Applying for press credentials before filming or writing?

Retaining a lawyer before preaching on a politically incorrect subject?

Privileges do not support or defend privileges.

Click to expand...

Awfully disingenuous to ask that. We didn't suggest he needed or should have needed a permit. The suggestion was that there is a time and a place for discretion. A more proper first amendment analogy would have been to say "would you view his actions inappropriate if he had gone to the airport and began loudly orating on abortion (or pick another topic which upsets a number of people)?" Maybe people think he is crazy or dangerous, but he was only exercising his rights, right? Maybe he is asked to quiet down or leave. It's public property. He isn't really breaking a law, but he is being a bit of a nuisance. We wouldn't all just to support his obnoxious behavior. But neither would we be advocating to make it illegal but a lot of people would Same thing here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

nonameisgood said:

Awfully disingenuous to ask that...

Click to expand...

It was asked directly of the member who typed it and framed specifically with his signature line in mind.

We didn't suggest he needed or should have needed a permit...

Click to expand...

No, but he would need a permit to carry a handgun in lieu of the rifle, which others are indeed suggesting.

The discretion being asked for here amounts to forgoing one's exercise of the unrestricted right (rifle) to exercise only the restricted privilege (handgun). This would not be the case in every state, but there is certainly a difference in GA.

ATM said:

It was asked directly of the member who typed it and framed specifically with his signature line in mind.....

Click to expand...

Sigs don't show on Tapatalk. Seems a non sequitur without the context.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As has been said before, some of you sound like the CC only crowd when talking about Open Carry. THEY say the same things about Open Carry..

"Just because you can doesn't mean you should"

"All you're doing is scaring people"

"All you're doing is forcing businesses to decide, to make a choice of "no guns allowed""

Quit being Butters and wholeheartedly support the RKBA, or go put your little girl pants on and step in line with the sheeple...

twoskinsonemanns said:

Long gun OCers are bad. Mmmkay?

Click to expand...

Grapeshot said:

Nope - not in and of itself bad at all.

Just outside of the scope of this forum - specifically mentioned (limited, restricted) in the Forum Rules.

Click to expand...

xd shooter said:

As has been said before, some of you sound like the CC only crowd when talking about Open Carry. THEY say the same things about Open Carry..

"Just because you can doesn't mean you should"

"All you're doing is scaring people"

"All you're doing is forcing businesses to decide, to make a choice of "no guns allowed""

Quit being Butters and wholeheartedly support the RKBA, or go put your little girl pants on and step in line with the sheeple...

Click to expand...

Surely you are not talking about not following the Forum Rules on OCDO and being able to exchange opnions w/o being insulted........even if tempered with emoticons.

Of course not!! Perish the thought...

I apologize for the slight dig, I was just on another blog discussing the new Texas OC law and I saw the exact same comments from the CC crowd there. I thought it a bit ironic that I see them here from the supposedly very pro carry group and let my fervor run through my fingers...

Funny thing though, these same comments were thrown around with the MOCG vs CADL lawsuit, how the carrying of the shotgun was simply way over the top and shouldn't have been done.... Justice and the law prevailed with the correct ruling (IMHO of course), so the point became moot. Just as it will here (hopefully)...

Lately, everyone wants to take things to the extreme when it is not necessary. Since when did moderation become a vice - it has always been a virtue. Acting appropriate to a situation instead of going extreme in all cases. It's not always black and white.
But, again, this crowd is not advocating the forcing of people to accept or adopt a view. It is my view that it is indiscreet to carry a long gun when carrying a handgun provides the same net result without causing the antis to point and say "see, this is why we should restrict long guns, no one needs to do that!"
I am particularly sensitive to this in Texas since we have zero laws regarding when, where, and how we can carry long guns. I would hate for the issue to become the cause du jour for the antis.
(I get your point about CC people here. I was called an idiot by a friend of a friend in FB. My friend is retired PD, he supported OC and campus carry, but his post was about the wisdom of OC. It's all very new to this state and people think "if I hide my gun I keep tactical advantage". )


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So many Butters on an open carry forum.

nonameisgood said:

Sigs don't show on Tapatalk. Seems a non sequitur without the context.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I see. Here is the portion I was referring to:

"The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. They both protect the rest, but only if you exercise them"

I wonder what would have happened had he simply told inquisitive, "I couldn't find my permission slip to carry a weapon*, so I had to carry this instead."



* he could more easily said 'pistol' but the proper term in GA is 'weapon' as it encompasses more than handguns but exempts long guns.

since9 said:

Exactly. So why give them additional ammo by failing (or refusing) to use sound judgement, good reasoning, and exercising discretion?

Click to expand...

You are blaming the proverbial gun and not the anti-gunner wielding the proverbial firearm. They score every time we turn on each other. Do you think there is infighting within their ranks, I mean besides how much they need to spend on paying people to attend their anti-gun rallies and make ads about how best to scare people with anti-gun propaganda?

all I will say, for case in point is this, he oc'd a long gun, in the process NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON WAS HARMED BY A FIREARM AT THE AIRPORT. be anti all you want, it doesn't matter, he harmed no one in doing so, and everyone at the premises during his exhibition left unharmed by "potentially dangerous" man. so while there was potential, there was nothing that happened aside from a bunch of "ZOMG A GUN IN THE AIRPORT LOBBY!!" freakout peeps blowing up the complaint line. these people are more dangerous cause they could have caused a "panic flee" which is essentially a stampede that could have killed more people then this guy did by harmlessly walking through the airport!

Bernymac said:

Yes those "in your face" antics are the reason why we get stricter gun control laws...keep exercising those rights and it will be taken...:shocker::banghead::dude:

It didn't work in Texas, it didn't work for the LGBT community and it will not work here! :cuss:

Click to expand...

Quoted for the volumes of truth it speaks!

Decades of gun owners/carriers being quiet has gotten us where exactly? Like it or not, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Silence = ignored, ignored = no chance of change (for the better that is). Look - when LEGAL activities lead to dumb@$$ legislators calling for even more dumb@$$ laws, that do nothing to keep anyone safer, they need to be exposed and shown for what they are, petty little people, who seek to control others at the expense of the constitution they swore to uphold.

Gun hating dems bring legislation every year to ban some sort of gun related activity. And we will do whatever we can to see it fail every year.

Yawn, these are not the droids you are looking for.

nonameisgood said:

Awfully disingenuous to ask that. We didn't suggest he needed or should have needed a permit. The suggestion was that there is a time and a place for discretion. A more proper first amendment analogy would have been to say "would you view his actions inappropriate if he had gone to the airport and began loudly orating on abortion (or pick another topic which upsets a number of people)?" Maybe people think he is crazy or dangerous, but he was only exercising his rights, right? Maybe he is asked to quiet down or leave. It's public property. He isn't really breaking a law, but he is being a bit of a nuisance. We wouldn't all just to support his obnoxious behavior. But neither would we be advocating to make it illegal but a lot of people would Same thing here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

That is why you should only pray in a church, never in public.:uhoh: