More anti-OC flak

[Rich B]

I'm NOT wrong, far from it. This legislation was introduced because we gave her an opportunity to introduce it when the public was going to be in agreement with her the most. They're in agreement because of this incident.

Is that also why the opposing legislation the eliminates all gun free zones was proposed at the same time?

 

[Bikenut]

All they need is an excuse.

I strongly disagree.... the anti gun crowd has been actively seeking gun control legislation for decades with and without any excuses.

The idea that if only we don't "offend", "annoy", or "scare" people then we won't have to worry about new and more restrictive gun control is as realistic a belief as the ostrich believing shoving his head into the sand will save him from the tiger.

The ostrich and the gun owner afraid of "offending", "annoying", or "scaring" people have one thing in common... both are leaving their arses hanging out in the wind for their enemy to take a bite out of.

The anti gunners love the timid gun owner who is willing to allow themselves to be restricted because they are afraid of "offending" or "scaring". All the anti gunner has to do is threaten to be "offended" or "scared" and the timid gun owner, the timid 2nd Amendment supporter, will not only back off but will apologize for his rights causing distress.

I see supposed supporters of freedom, of rights, not only backing down from the ridiculous concept that "feeling offended" or "feeling scared" trumps rights but also apologizing for having "offended" or causing someone to "feel scared"......... but the worst thing of all is after backing down and apologizing those same folks join the enemy camp and attack the real supporters of freedom and rights.

This hypocrisy makes me sad... very sad.

 

[UtahJarhead]

Regardless. They OCed shotguns into the library, sat in the teens section for 90 minutes, and now Bauer is specifically using it as a platform for her legislation to add libraries to the list. Pat your buddies on the back. Doing you guys proud.

 

[Rich B]

Regardless. They OCed shotguns into the library, sat in the teens section for 90 minutes, and now Bauer is specifically using it as a platform for her legislation to add libraries to the list. Pat your buddies on the back. Doing you guys proud.

How do you know it wasn't the multiple guys coming in OCing handguns on a daily basis that they are all complaining about?

 

[DanM]

DanM,
I'm NOT wrong, far from it. This legislation was introduced because we gave her an opportunity to introduce it when the public was going to be in agreement with her the most. They're in agreement because of this incident.

That is not the specific point of criticism I had for the specific thing I quoted from you. I quoted you specifically:

The difference between the library incident and other incidents is that the situation in your state is directly causal to them introducing legislation to outlaw carry in libraries.

And my specific rebuttal:

Not true. The library "incident" joins a LONG TRAIN of "incidents" currently or formerly used as direct causal excuses for anti-gun politicians to introduce specific anti-gun legislation targeting the type of RKBA exercise the "incident" represents. The legislative record is rife with this. You are wrong to imply the library "incident" is somehow unique or special in regard to causing action by anti-gun politicians. It is not. It has a vast host of other "incidents" cynically used by anti-gun politicians keeping it company.

Try sticking to the specific criticism of mine. Quote anything out of it which is wrong and explain how it is wrong. If you cannot, then my criticism stands, and you are wrong on the statement I quoted from you.

And to prove a point? The point is that OC is done by law-abiding citizens and there's nothing unusual. Proving a point that it's a legal thing they're doing.

I asked:

Why would anyone carry "to prove a point"? You are among very few others I see once in while saying such a curious thing. What "point" are you talking about? I've asked this of these few others before, and never got a straight or clear response. Everyone I know carries for a purpose: defense of self or family, protection of their business or large sums of money they are transferring, hunting, etc. I've never, ever, heard someone say "Yeah, I carry to prove a point, and the point is X".

You answered the question about the point, but you haven't addressed the rest of my response which I can rephrase now with the specific point you provided, inserted where appropriate, and in context with:

if you are going to carry for a cause other than self defense (like to prove a point)

Thus, my response rephrased with what you have provided:

Why would anyone carry for a cause other than self defense, like just to prove OC is done by law-abiding citizens and there's nothing unusual? You are the only one I've seen say such a curious thing. Everyone I know carries for a purpose: defense of self or family, protection of their business or large sums of money they are transferring, hunting, etc. I've never, ever, heard someone say "Yeah, I carry for a cause other than self defense, that cause being to prove OC is done by law-abiding citizens and there's nothing unusual".

Who says that? If you say that you say that, you are the only one on that list that I'm aware of so far. Who else says that, that you know of? You, and a very small minority I'm not aware of, may say that. So your advice to "do your due diligence and make sure you're going to be as normal as possible" only applies to yourself and that small minority (if it exists).

 

[UtahJarhead]

I'm not sure where I got the thing about '3' men with shotguns hanging in the teens section, but I can no longer finding it. As such, I'm going to assume I either read it wrong and there was only the single shotgun incident.

If he was carrying a shotgun because of his age and if MI law prohibits handgun carry for 18-20, then I contend it was his only legal option for self-defense.

If he was legally able to, but didn't know it, then he should have researched the laws. He's still legal and was doing what was legally appropriate considering the age.

If he was over 21, then my statement(s) still stand.

 

[Bronson]

I'm not sure where I got the thing about '3' men with shotguns hanging in the teens section, but I can no longer finding it. As such, I'm going to assume I either read it wrong and there was only the single shotgun incident.

Could it have been a biased media member spreading lies and misinformation? Which you believed out of hand because it agreed with your view.

If he was carrying a shotgun because of his age and if MI law prohibits handgun carry for 18-20, then I contend it was his only legal option for self-defense. .

Then stop arguing now because for this particular young man he felt it was his best option at the time to not be disarmed. He wasn't trying to "make a point" or push an agenda. He was looking for the best way to stay armed and not run afoul of the law.

Bronson

 

[Rich B]

Another one:

http://www.gunpundit.com/5443.php

 

[Bronson]

I think this was a dumb, bone headed move, if and only if EDIT: BOTH of the following things are true.

1. If they OC'd a shotgun into a library just to prove a point, that's ridiculous.

2. If in proving said point they sit in a children's section, and spooked a bunch of kids, then that's fatal.

Remember the anti war cry? THINK OF THE CHILDRENSZZ!!1ONE!1!!11!ONE321!!

I carry to defend myself, not to push a political agenda, and not to prove a point.

I argue for the rights of long gunners on here constantly, I take the stance that if it's legal, it's legal, can't have it both ways, but to prove some dumb as point, and scare a bunch of kids was just hitting a hornet's nest, and we will be paying for it in the end. Forget about HB 4009 or SB 59. This kind of ********, at this critical time may have killed it.

We could have just sat tight, let the stuff land where it does, and see what we get. Nope, someone has to prove a point, and carried a shotgun in a library. An adult in a teen section, with a shotgun? I would have thought, wtf pedo, where is Chris when I need him to expose you, and GTFO of here around my kids. Damn the gun, it was creepy to hang in the kids section, worse to do it a shotgun.

Neither of your conditions is true in this instance yet you still write a diatribe condemning the man as if they were true. Perhaps you should have taken the time to learn the particulars of the situation before you jumped in with the internet lynch mobbers.

Bronson

 

[DanM]

Since discussion of LGOC (long gun open carry) is against the rules, I have substituted a phrase in the quote below which is acceptable to this site and also is synonymous with the commenter's meaning. I see weaknesses in his apparent view, unrelated to LGOC, which are germane to OC generally, or any other form of RKBA considered "inappropriate" by subsets of gun owners.

If he was carrying [in a way that is legal, but some consider inappropriate] because of his age and if MI law prohibits [any other way of legal carry] for 18-20, then I contend it was his only legal option for self-defense.

If he was legally able to, but didn't know it, then he should have researched the laws. He's still legal and was doing what was legally appropriate considering the age.

If he was over 21, then my statement(s) still stand.

It seems you are stating a view that a form of carry normally considered inappropriate by some should be considered appropriate for a particular person if it is the only legal option that particular person has.

Some CC'ers consider OC inappropriate. Are you saying their view is perfectly fine, as long as they make an exception and consider OC appropriate for a particular person if OC is the only legal option that person has?

 

[MarineSgt]

Regardless. They OCed shotguns into the library, sat in the teens section for 90 minutes, and now Bauer is specifically using it as a platform for her legislation to add libraries to the list. Pat your buddies on the back. Doing you guys proud.

Wait... So, a legislator trying to enact a law that goes against Article 1, Section 6 of the Michigan Constitution, and the U.S. Second Amendment, is whose fault again? Sounds like someone wasting their time trying to do something unconstitutional.

 

[Venator]

Regardless. They OCed shotguns into the library, sat in the teens section for 90 minutes, and now Bauer is specifically using it as a platform for her legislation to add libraries to the list. Pat your buddies on the back. Doing you guys proud.

You really have no Idea of the facts. Every thing you just wrote above is incorrect.
You really shouldn't argue something without knowing the facts.

 

[Rich B]

Such vitriol from 'friends'

http://www.thebredafallacy.com/2011/02/worth-thousand-words.html

 

[Rich B]

Reasoned discourse

http://www.atomicnerds.com/?p=4409&cpage=1#comment-10427

Banned for sticking to the facts.

 

[Haman J.T.]

http://www.atomicnerds.com/?p=4409&cpage=1#comment-10427

Banned for sticking to the facts.

You can also expect to be rejected,insulted,harrassed etc. etc. by those who do not understand the responsibility for the preservation of their own lives.They are blind when it comes to rights and natural law(I picture them not ducking when something is thrown at their head)!

 

[Rich B]

You can also expect to be rejected,insulted,harrassed etc. etc. by those who do not understand the responsibility for the preservation of their own lives.They are blind when it comes to rights and natural law(I picture them not ducking when something is thrown at their head)!

Yep. Nothing new. Can't say I really care. Just a sad display by people I thought I could at least respect.

 

[Slave]

Neither of your conditions is true in this instance yet you still write a diatribe condemning the man as if they were true. Perhaps you should have taken the time to learn the particulars of the situation before you jumped in with the internet lynch mobbers.

Bronson

/sigh...... Bronson, I could say 2+2=4, you and Wolverine would say I was wrong.

READ MY POST BRONSON. I said if both where true, that he carried a shot gun section in the library to prove a point AND sat in the kids section, it is bad, and that's only true because of the timing and the fact that kids are the anti's warcry.

I am all about long arms carry, if it is your normal carry. I hate any carry just to encite an pick a fight.

In the end, I don't know the story, he could have been sitting with his kid, and his shotgun was his normal carry, which is why I said if both where true.

 

[Rich B]

More of the same

http://elmoiscariot.blogspot.com/2011/02/after-very-silly-dustup-at-bredas-over.html?

At least one voice of reason has popped up:

http://blog.robballen.com/2011/02/16/p4601-i-have-a-much-longer-post-about-ocing-but-i-wanted.post
http://blog.robballen.com/2011/02/17/p4603-the-long-hard-fight-on-open-carry.post
http://blog.robballen.com/2011/02/17/p4606-why-this-whole-thing-about-shotguns-in-the-library.post

 

[Super Trucker]

You know what? The world we live in sucks and lots of people are anti-gun... but the simple fact of the matter is the act of carrying the shotguns into the library is what CAUSED the representative to add libraries to the list of victim disarmament zones. If they hadn't tried to stick out like a sore thumb, the legislation wouldn't have been submitted.

This isn't an issue where someone was arrested. If it were, I'd be dumping money into a defense fund. This is an issue where we have to try and let people realize that guns aren't bad, ugly, self-animated objects that want to shoot everything. We have to convince people and we don't do that by OCing what offends THEM most and then sitting in the teen section of the library. 3 men that OC shotguns in the TEEN section of the library is not smart, I don't care if you're anti or pro gun. It's not a matter of what you like, when you're trying to sway opinions, it's what is offensive to OTHER PEOPLE.

There are 2 ways to get somebody to do something. They can convince you or they can force you. Shotguns are not going to convince people that are sitting on the fence.

http://www.wilx.com/news/headlines/...pons_Policy_115694279.html?storySection=story

Read it. 3 grown men with shotguns sitting in the teen reading section. That's 100% legal, but it's 100% going to make the librarians and the parents of the children HATE the idea of OC and possibly of guns themselves.

Where are you getting 3 grown men WITH SHOTGUNS in the library?

 

[Rich B]

Where are you getting 3 grown men WITH SHOTGUNS in the library?

Probably the same place people keep getting the idea that there were a bunch of panicked civilians.

Making it up.