Gunstalking Children

[stone space]

Man with gun causes scare during children’s baseball game

FORSYTH COUNTY, Ga. —
Parents at a Forysth County park abruptly stopped a children's baseball game after growing suspicions of the behavior of a man carrying a gun in a waist holster Tuesday night.

"He's just walking around [saying] 'See my gun? Look, I got a gun and there's nothing you can do about it.' He knew he was frightening people. He knew exactly what he was doing," said parent Karen Rabb.

Rabb told Channel 2’s Tom Regan the parents grew so alarmed that they brought the game to a halt when the man declined a request that he leave a parking lot overlooking the baseball field.

“He scared people to the point where we stopped the game, took the kids out of the dugout and behind the dugout, and kind of hunkered down,” Rabb said.

----------------------

Rabb's 6-year-old son Ethan was playing at the time and later expressed concern to his mother.

"When I was reading my son's story last night, he turned to me and said 'Mommy, did that man want to kill me?'" said Rabb

-----------------------

Video here:

http://www.wsbtv.com/videos/news/man-with-gun-causes-scare-during-childrens/vCYXxm/

[Starboard Tack]

1. But he was just exercising his Constitutional right to be an asshole.

Kids' baseball games are dangerous places. Adults need to be armed, in case the kids get out of control with those bats.

[gejohnston]

8. while the guy was being an asshole

Kids don't get out of control, they just get embarrassed at some of their out of control parents.

[Starboard Tack]

9. Yep! Probably gonna be more of that in Georgia's future.

[gejohnston]

12. no more than before

IIRC all Georgia did was lift the law prohibiting guns in churches and bars. It didn't do anything that most states don't already do.
While there is a reasonable argument for the State having a compelling interest in not allowing guns in bars (or Colorado smoke shops if consumed on the premises) but not religious buildings. That is a church/state issue, and the State has no business either way. Look on the bright side, at least it didn't do what California does and allow almost everyone carry into court rooms (the only ones that can't are plaintiffs in a civil case and defendants in a criminal case).

[Starboard Tack]

14. It would be intersting to see someone trying to enter a CA courtroom armed.

Or some idiot walking around a children's park with a gun.
Good luck to the churches who want armed congregants. It's their business. I suspect many will end up as NRA club houses or meeting places for religious preppers.

Where did you get the idea that anyone, other than LE can carry in a courtroom or public building in CA?

[gejohnston]

17. I don't remember where I read it

but the coastal parts of California, getting a CCW more often than not includes bribing oh I mean contributing to the sheriff's re election campaign, it's more a matter of never bothering to change the laws in the 1920s.
Actually there are quite a few Synagogues who like and have armed congregants. Church is used generically and not the legal term used. Wyoming law actually says:

Any place where persons are assembled for public worship, without the written consent of the chief administrator of that place.

I actually see that as a reasonable compromise to some degree. I don't think it should have the force of law that it wouldn't have in say a movie theater that puts up a no gun sign.
http://wyomingdci.wyo.gov/dci-criminal-justice-information-systems-section/concealed-firearms-permits/cfp-faq

Oh one thing about "any governmental meeting" and possibly some others. When CCW was liberalized, they made these restrictions that applied only to concealed carry. Even though open carry has always been legal but rarely if ever done (at least in city limits. I saw one guy on a motorcycle going to the range. He did it only because putting it in a saddle bag or backpack would have been illegally concealed at the time.) no one in Cheyenne thought to make the same rules about open carry. A case of out of sight out of mind and solutions in search of problems.

[Starboard Tack]

23. I think you are referring to Orange County CA's major Republican stronghold.

I think the last Sheriff is now doing time. Lots of corruption, especially when guys who issue permits are elected. A really fucked up system electing LE and judges.

[gejohnston]

57. Actually I was referring to Orange and LA counties

I doubt they are the only two. LA County is just in the local papers. Since the number of LA County CCWs are to Anglos over other groups are disproportional to the population, I suspect racial and ethic bias too.
The one thing nobody mentioned, but struck me as an important point one of the ladies made (1:59 in the video) is that had he sat and watched the game with it in the holster and didn't act like an asshole, maybe people wouldn't freaked. At the risk of race baiting, why was the white woman more freaked than the black woman?

[SQUEE]

21. I am armed at all the srvices at my local "synagogue"

as are 2-3 others.. we have been for ears.
Yeah, after the last few years, I can't imagine why we would want to be armed when together in groups to celebrate our faith.

[Starboard Tack]

25. And I don't blame you, I would be too

Considering the attacks on Synagogues and Jews by the Aryan Brotherhood and other RW whackos. Sometimes you gotta make the smart decision and when you are a target of hate groups, you'd be foolish not to be prepared.

[SQUEE]

27. thank you for understanding

.. that actually gives me a tiddle of hope we can actually do something on this issue.

[Bazinga]

33. Reminds me of a comment I heard from a CCW instructor when I lived in Utah.

"Yeah, the LDS church asks members not to carry their weapons at church. But where would you go in Salt Lake City to find a couple hundred hostages to make a political statement on a Sunday morning? So my Bishop doesn't mind that I carry, and a suit coat makes for a easy concealment!"

[hack89]

2. He is a moron. Nt

[Duckhunter935]

3. sounds like the guy was one of those idiots

that gives a bad name to 99.9% of the gun owners that are responsible.

[paleotn]

30. Kind of like....

Adam Lanza, Seung-Hui Cho, Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Jeff Weise, Omar Thornton, James Holmes, George Hennard, James Huberty, Jiverly Wong, Howard Unruh, James Pough, Michael McLendon, Michael Silka, Gian Luigi Ferri, Larry Ashbrook, Terry Ratzmann, Darnell Collins, Eric Pearson, Colin Ferguson, Jared Loughner, William Cruse, William Bonner, Issac Zamora, Kyle Huff, Tyler Peterson, Lynwood Drake, Louis Hastings, Chai Vang, Charles Thornton, Harvey McLeod.....the list goes on and on and on and on.

Bad apples? Ask their victims. Or is that just the price the rest of us have to pay for your little hobby?

Martin Bryant.....of course Australia actually did something about their gun problem, instead of coddling the little gun strokers.

[Duckhunter935]

32. so you are down for

confiscation. I am not just stricter laws and enforcement.

and how many drunk driving deaths are there? Are you for banning alcohol?

[paleotn]

34. So predictable...

and so quick to jump to conclusions. Open carry and carry & conceal in bars, schools, public parks is utterly and completely stupid beyond belief. Open carry and carry & conceal by unqualified yahoos with a couple hundred bucks and a free weekend is inherently dangerous and utterly and completely stupid. Go through the same rigorous training as law enforcement and then we'll talk, otherwise, do what I do and keep your damn firearms at home or in the field, not at some f'ing little league game. Simply put, Georgia's gun law is idiotic on it's face.

But I guess it is acceptable to those who fear their little hobby is going to be taken away by those bad, bad Liberals, thus the deaths of 6 year olds at Sandy Hook is simply the price we have to pay. I suppose they think the tree of liberty does need to be watered once in awhile and if necessary, with the blood of innocent children.

Lastly, last time I checked the sole purpose of a six pack of Bud or a liter of Jack wasn't to kill humans or other creatures. Next time, try to stick with apples and apples. Not apples and light bulbs.

[Duckhunter935]

37. Go through the same rigorous training as law enforcement and then we'll talk

They really do not go through that much training. They qualify once or twice a year with about 20 rounds. I have 20 plus years of weapons training.

That is why NYPD and LAPD have to shoot dozens or hundresds of rounds wounding bystanders.

13 Cleveland police officers who fired 137 rounds into car, killing 2

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2012/12/13_cleveland_police_officers_w.html

[paleotn]

44. Therefore, the average Joe Blow....

...with friends in the Sheriffs office, a couple hundred bucks and a free weekend should have the same opportunity to shoot up a place and wound and possibly kill innocent bystanders, because they are in no way prepared for split second, life and death decisions and couldn't hit the broad side of barn from 10 yards anyway.

Not sure what jurisdiction you live in, but in mine initial training and annual qualification is a bit more rigorous, but I will agree that standards everywhere need additional rigor. I don't have those qualifications and would rather not live with the consequences of screwing up royally.

[clffrdjk]

38. Just what does post #30 have to do with concealed or open carry?

Which one do you want to talk about mass murders or rude toters?
Or are you just looking to vent?

[paleotn]

39. Rude toters....

are the disease that makes it far to easy for those on my list to do what they did. Get it?

[clffrdjk]

40. You are going to have to provide some evidence for that one.

[paleotn]

45. It's in front of your damn nose.....

....and yet you still can't see it. Since our gun regs are so weak, you can go to a gun store, or better yet, a gun show and then walk around with a semi-auto handgun at a little league game, showing your little toy to anyone in your path, casually threatening anyone you wish. OR, you could just go down to the nearest elementry school and kill a class full of 1st graders. Or you can get even with that worthless boss who just fired you. Or loose your cool on the highway and pump a few rounds into that asshole who just cut you off. Does it make sense now?

[clffrdjk]

48. No sorry.

You site the regs to purchase but make no note of the regs regarding legal concealed or open carry and how those rules or (in your mind) lack their of have contributed to mass murders.

Also
showing your little toy to anyone in your path
No that is brandishing

casually threatening anyone you wish.
Quick ticket to jail

OR, you could just go down to the nearest elementry school and kill a class full of 1st graders
First mention of a mass murder so a point there, but correct me if I am wrong but in that situation the person was not legally open or concealed carrying, it was a gun free zone so even if he had a permit he would have been breaking the law. So what concealed/ open carry laws are we talking about in this case?

Or you can get even with that worthless boss who just fired you. Or loose your cool on the highway and pump a few rounds into that asshole who just cut you off.
I am sensing some anger here try not to project that on to others.

Does it make sense now?
In short no.

[paleotn]

49. And what exactly do you call....

...walking around with a firearm on your hip, casually mentioning that to others and stating...."you can't do anything about it." If I where there with my child, given recent events, I'd consider that a threat.

What do you think would have happened if someone decided to "do something about it", maybe with a firearm of their own? He was not doing anything in violation of existing Georgia law, but since acquiring a firearm and carrying it around with you is lawful and so damn easy for any semi literate to do, why wouldn't getting pissed off and actually using it...umm, inappropriately be that much of a stretch for you. OH, that's right. It has happened.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/pretial-set-for-this-morning-in-movie-theater-shooting-case/2169793

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/judge-surveillance-video-showing-wesley-chapel-movie-theater-shooting/2164252

http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/story/24660469/2014/02/07/marathon-bond-hearing-continues-today-in-theater-shooting-case

Oops. That's just a case in point, by the way. The evidence you asked for previously is overwhelming.

[clffrdjk]

50. Wait you're resting your case

On concealed/open carry laws contributing to mass murders by trying to use an ex cop committing murder?
Here is a hint the laws that apply to me don't apply to him.
The best part is that up thread you suggested that we should be forced to go through the same training and selection that he did.

[Duckhunter935]

51. well of course that

will fix everything. Interesting how that ex cop murder comes up. Or the one who stole his mothers legal non-assault weapon. I am sure all of these additional requirements for open or CCW will apply to them.

[clffrdjk]

52. If he would argue honestly for what he wanted

He would not get stuck trying to defend positions he does not really believe in or thought through.

[paleotn]

53. Two issues here.......

...you should have to go through strenuous training as law enforcement does or at least should. That includes annual or semi annual re-qualification, with psych eval. Fail and leave your guns at home. You're not qualified to carry a lethal weapon in public, open or concealed. You're a danger to yourself, and far more importantly to me and my family and I will not tolerate that. I don't think the retired cop in question had re-qualified in many, many years. A simple psych exam would have disqualified him and potentially saved a life.

Oh, and if you do legally pack heat, don't have a brain fart and leave your handgun on the dinosaur ride at Disney World. Oops. Disqualified!!

http://news.yahoo.com/disney-world-patron-finds-gun-ride-204422359.html


Secondly, easily acquiring enough firepower yourself or from mom's stash (Sandy Hook), so that even armed guards and police officers can't stop you (Columbine) goes hand in hand with handing out carry and conceal permits like lottery tickets. Two symptoms of the same disease.

[clffrdjk]

54. Hey I gave you the choice of topics, let's try and finish that one first.

So concealed/open carry laws and how they have contributed to mass shootings.

Oh fine but only if you get back on topic.
...you should have to go through strenuous training as law enforcement does or at least should. That includes annual or semi annual re-qualification, with psych eval. Fail and leave your guns at home. You're not qualified to carry a lethal weapon in public, open or concealed. You're a danger to yourself, and far more importantly to me and my family and I will not tolerate that. I don't think the retired cop in question had re-qualified in many, many years. A simple psych exam would have disqualified him and potentially saved a life.
First step using your example, you would have to get the police to follow the same rules and regs of the general public. If you want my help there just let me know what I can do. Second and this one could be difficult, you are going to have to prove that the increased regulations are going to actually reduce the crime rate of legal concealed/open carriers. Oh yea you are going to receive quite a bit of push back from the mentally ill, be ready for that with some way to not make them feel singled out.

Secondly, easily acquiring enough firepower yourself or from mom's stash (Sandy Hook), so that even armed guards and police officers can't stop you (Columbine) goes hand in hand with handing out carry and conceal permits like lottery tickets. Two symptoms of the same disease.
You just made the same claim that I have been trying to get you to prove for the last hour, saying it more often does not make it true.

[DashOneBravo]

92. Wow

"you should have to go through strenuous training as law enforcement does" We all saw how well those well trained LEO shot bystanders on the street in NY. You know the "7th largest army". Or as professionals would say, " The morons in the circle ambush."

Annual training? Well, I'd be happy if you did that once a year. Kinda like PT. If your ass is too fat to chase someone I'm sure you'd just shoot at someone and prob hit bystanders again.

I won't even address the West Coast LEO's response when a fat naval reservist with zero combat training shut down the west coast and had LEOS so scared they shot up grandmothers delivering newspapers.

[sarisataka]

46. So assuming I have training

That far exceeds the typical LEO and greater than most SWAT officers have, would you be willing to talk? Would you still have any objections to me carrying according to local laws?

[paleotn]

47. If you meet standards far above those....

...of typical carry and conceal, I have no objections at all. I believe the existing laws put far to much firepower in grossly unqualified hands. And the ability to easily acquire enough firepower to outmatch anything less than a infantry squad makes massacres like Sandy Hook inevitable. People here complain about the militarization of local law enforcement, but in reality the cops have no choice when you think about what they're up against. The root cause of that is our lax gun laws and piss poor enforcement.

[sarisataka]

60. Interestingly, I do.

Not that I expect my training should be the standard as I acquired it over a couple decades. I do think that carry courses do not include enough actual firing evaluation.

Firepower is a relative term. An AR-5 firing 5.56mm has a muzzle energy of 1300 ft/lbs give or take. My most powerful rifle easily clears 5000 ft/lbs and is too powerful for virtually any North American game. Clearly 5.56 isn't near the high end strictly in terms of energy.

Police militarization stems from several sources. Increased firepower of criminals, especially gangs, is a factor. Terrorism threats, real and imagined also plays into it. DoD handing out hardware like candy- why wouldn't a police force take advantage of that? Also competition to have the most badass tactical unit for bragging rights helps escalate militarization. Much of that trickles down ever to beat cop level resulting in police looking a bit more like military each year.

Some laws could use beefing up but really until the enforcement angle is fixed it is a moot point. We can have 1 million gun laws on the books that don't get enforced and it will be less effective than ten well enforced laws

[Logical]

58. Shocked to see you posted this! nt

[clffrdjk]

4. Gunstalking children???? A bit much don't you think.

I am not a fan of open carry, and the parents may be within their rights to end the game, but this guy literally did nothing wrong or illegal.
This is a perfect example of an irrational fear leading to mass hysteria.

[stone space]

6. Gunstalking children may be perfectly legal in some places, but there is plenty wrong with it.

did nothing wrong or illegal

[clffrdjk]

7. Ok if you are going to continue to use that

Please show how the gun was stalking the children.
Edit to add: or how the children were stalking the gun.
Or alternatively how the man with the gun was stalking the children.

As for it being wrong well that is an opinion, I don't agree with rules or laws based only on opinion. Also looking at this story the parents did more harm to the kids with their reactions then the guy with the gun did by being there.

[Starboard Tack]

11. Yes, must be the parents fault.

Such bad parenting, removing their children from a public park because some freak is walking around with his gun hanging out. Shame on those over protective parents. They need to be taking their kids to the range for some "family fun" instead of playing baseball.
What's the world coming to when you can't walk around kids with a gun?

[clffrdjk]

13. So you think

That the kid asking if that man wanted to kill him was because he saw a gun. And had nothing to do with the parents reaction, sending the kid diving for cover behind the dugout and canceling the game?

[Starboard Tack]

16. Now why would a caring parent want to protect her kid from a stranger with a gun?

A reaction yes. Hopefully, the kid will have learned to avoid guys who flaunt their guns. Sounds like the parents are sending a positive message to the assholes out there. But go ahead, if you want to defend this guy for exercising his 2A rights to piss on a kids' baseball game.

[clffrdjk]

19. I am not defending him.

I am calling the parents response idiotic, irrational, irresponsible, and traumatizing to the children they will claim to be protecting. But hey fear for the sake of fear is a good thing and needs to be passed on.

[Starboard Tack]

24. Maybe they think carrying a gun is idiotic.

I see nothing wrong with getting kids out of harm's way. This is one of the reasons I prefer open carry and oppose CC (except in extreme circumstaces). Most folk, believe it or not, don't like being around guns and would be amazed how many idiots like this guy are walking around in parks where little kids hang out. Only difference is, most of them hide their guns. Now, apart from it being the law, one has to wonder why they feel the need to hide their "Personal Protection Device". Are they embarrassed, or do thy think it serves as a better deterrent when concealed?

[clffrdjk]

29. So you want to see more events like this? You think this was a good thing?

"I see nothing wrong with getting kids out of harm's way. This is one of the reasons I prefer open carry and oppose CC"

[Starboard Tack]

61. Absolutely! How else is the general population going to know?

Do you think people, in general, have any idea what kind of madness is going down? Keep the conversation honest.

[clffrdjk]

62. I have been entirely honest.

You on the other hand....
The only reason anyone would want things like this to happen more often would be to try and use it as an argument against any form of carry. That is why you say you support open carry you need more people to feel afraid in order to get carrying firearms completely banned.
Here even more honesty I find your plan of mocking concealed carriers in order to try and get more to openly carry and then attempt to drum up outrage against that very act, disgusting. You are a perfect example of a person who would celebrate the next tragedy because you could some how twist it to fit your goals. That is just sick.

[Starboard Tack]

63. No, carrying a gun for no good reason is sick. Admitting that would be honest.

I do not want to see all carry banned. I want people to wake up to the stupidity of indiscriminate carry and modify their behavior. To accuse me of reveling in tragedy is beyond sick. I want openness and honesty. If folk are OK with others carrying they won't be outraged and won't be afraid. Do you not think people have the right to know who is armed? You have the right to carry your gun, but others have no right to know you're carrying. That, my friend is fucked up. That is not what the Constitution says, but it sure as hell sells a lot of guns and paraphernalia.

[clffrdjk]

64. Back on to honesty eh

So you think this was absolutely a good thing, and you claim to want more open carry. What goal could those two things possibly lead to?

I want people to wake up to the stupidity of indiscriminate carry and modify their behavior.
Nowhere is legal carry indiscriminate and no one is calling for indiscriminate carry. But you obviously think the current situation is stupid, why is that? What evidence do you have that concealed carry is harmful?

I want openness and honesty. If folk are OK with others carrying they won't be outraged and won't be afraid.
Folks are carrying right now and most people are not outraged and afraid. But let's be open and honest here it is the outrage and fear that you support and want/need to see more.

Do you not think people have the right to know who is armed?
Correct, you as an individual have no "right" to know anything about me.
You have the right to carry your gun, but others have no right to know you're carrying.
Correct again
That, my friend is fucked up. That is not what the Constitution says, but it sure as hell sells a lot of guns and paraphernalia.
Why don't you go ahead and show me where you are getting this claimed right to know I have a gun.

[Starboard Tack]

66. No, I don't think it was a "good thing"

It was a normal reaction to someone behaving like an asshole. Not good or bad.
This isn't about good and bad, it is about stupid and smart and honesty.
By "indiscriminate carry", I refer to the person who is afraid to leave home or go anywhere without his gun. People who live in such a constant state of fear are probably the last who should be armed. The NRA and it's allies peddle fear to boost their membership and to boost gun sales. Without the fear they fail. But they are very successful at it. You may or may not be a NRA member, but you and others who carry water for them are contributing to the problem. Your society is disintegrating around you and you think the solution is to arm yourselves againt your neighbors.

You, obviously have an extreme libertarian view of the world. It is all about you. Nobody else has the right to know anything about you. Tell the DMV that. Tell the IRS that. When you decide to adopt certain practices and behaviors, which are potentially dangerous to the public, we all have a right to know about them, Would you want to know if the weird guy hanging out where your kids were playing was a pedophile? Or would it only bother you if he was walking around with his dick hanging out?
You see, when people decide to live in close proximity to one another, there are certain norms of behavior that make up the social contract. Rule number one is that it's not all about you. So, if you want to walk around with a gun and be considered normal, go to places where it is normal. But be honest about it.
Rights don't come written on pieces of paper, they are innate. Restrictions come written on pieces of paper. Calling 2A a right is ridiculous. It is a restriction of a basic human right, as are many laws.

[clffrdjk]

68. Liar liar

Last edited Mon Apr 28, 2014, 12:15 PM - Edit history (1)

66. No, I don't think it was a "good thing"
It was a normal reaction to someone behaving like an asshole. Not good or bad.
This isn't about good and bad, it is about stupid and smart and honesty.

clffrdjk (619 posts)
29. So you want to see more events like this? You think this was a good thing?
"I see nothing wrong with getting kids out of harm's way. This is one of the reasons I prefer open carry and oppose CC"

Response to clffrdjk (Reply #29)Mon Apr 28, 2014, 05:11 AM
Starboard Tack (8,858 posts)
61. Absolutely! How else is the general population going to know?
Do you think people, in general, have any idea what kind of madness is going down? Keep the conversation honest.

By "indiscriminate carry", I refer to the person who is afraid to leave home or go anywhere without his gun. People who live in such a constant state of fear are probably the last who should be armed. The NRA and it's allies peddle fear to boost their membership and to boost gun sales. Without the fear they fail. But they are very successful at it. You may or may not be a NRA member, but you and others who carry water for them are contributing to the problem. Your society is disintegrating around you and you think the solution is to arm yourselves againt your neighbors.

Once again. What evidence do you have that concealed carry is harmful?

You, obviously have an extreme libertarian view of the world. It is all about you. Nobody else has the right to know anything about you. Tell the DMV that. Tell the IRS that. When you decide to adopt certain practices and behaviors, which are potentially dangerous to the public, we all have a right to know about them,

Did you not see the word individual? Look again it is there.

Would you want to know if the weird guy hanging out where your kids were playing was a pedophile? Or would it only bother you if he was walking around with his dick hanging out?

No kids yet, but where would I get the right to remove his right to be there? Is it a court order, well then yea get him the fuck out. Just some guy sitting in the park I do not have the right to say that he can't be there. Dick out well that is breaking the law no matter who he is.

You see, when people decide to live in close proximity to one another, there are certain norms of behavior that make up the social contract. Rule number one is that it's not all about you. So, if you want to walk around with a gun and be considered normal, go to places where it is normal. But be honest about it.
Rights don't come written on pieces of paper, they are innate. Restrictions come written on pieces of paper. Calling 2A a right is ridiculous. It is a restriction of a basic human right, as are many laws.

So you don't have anything showing that you (again as the individual) have any right to know anything about me. But you can sit there with a straight face and try to claim that the 2a does not protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Wow just wow.

[Starboard Tack]

69. Sorry, but we don't call each other liars around here

If you don't want a conversation, find someone else not to have it with. You may feel comfortable here in the Gungeon, but DU is still a liberal, progressive community. You sound rather young, maybe still trying to figure some basic stuff out. Nothing wrong with that, but insulting fellow DUers is not kosher my friend.

[clffrdjk]

71. Sorry but what should I have called you?

66. No, I don't think it was a "good thing"
It was a normal reaction to someone behaving like an asshole. Not good or bad.
This isn't about good and bad, it is about stupid and smart and honesty.

clffrdjk (619 posts)
29. So you want to see more events like this? You think this was a good thing?
"I see nothing wrong with getting kids out of harm's way. This is one of the reasons I prefer open carry and oppose CC"

Response to clffrdjk (Reply #29)Mon Apr 28, 2014, 05:11 AM
Starboard Tack (8,858 posts)
61. Absolutely! How else is the general population going to know?
Do you think people, in general, have any idea what kind of madness is going down? Keep the conversation honest.

[Starboard Tack]

73. I think my position is clear. Where am I lying?

I do not want to see more assholes carrying guns around kids in public parks. When that happens, I think it is appropriate for people to react out of concern for their children. I do not support the carrying of guns by the general population, except when a credible threat exists. If individuals feel the need to carry for self defense, then they should carry openly and honestly. This is my opinion. I realize it is not the opinion of most people, but I believe in awareness and knowing where a potential danger lies, rather than living in ignorance.
A visit to the mall should not be like crossing a minefield. I spend most of my time on the ocean, so guns are pretty irrelevant in my life, but situational awareness is critical to my survival. Technology has helped a lot in that regard.
I hope that similar technologies will be developed for land based people, where individuals will have devices available to detect firearms within a certain range, so that they may navigate safely. CCW creates a very lopsided playing field.

[clffrdjk]

74. Ok here I will spell it out even more

The question was
"So you want to see more events like this? You think this was a good thing?"

Your answer was
"Absolutely! How else is the general population going to know?
Do you think people, in general, have any idea what kind of madness is going down? Keep the conversation honest."

2 posts later I ask
So you think this was absolutely a good thing, and you claim to want more open carry. What goal could those two things possibly lead to?

You answer
"No, I don't think it was a "good thing""

Get it now?

[Starboard Tack]

75. Some slick parsing there Clifford.

So let me clarify, so you won't be confused or have to call me a liar, which is kinda verboten around here.
Your first question about wanting to see more events like this. No, I don't want to see family frightened by idiots who carry guns around little kids. Yes, I want to see those same families stand up against the loonies who intimidate them and their children,, while hiding behind a truly fucked up interpretation of the Constitution.

Do I want more OC? No. Do I want less CC? Yes. Do I want sanity to prevail in a country I love? Yes. Do I want to ban guns? No. Do I want to ban CC or OC? No.
Do I want people to think more about what they are doing when they buy into the NRA's fearmongering propaganda? Hell yes!

Now, I've made it pretty clear where I stand. So there's no need for the personal insults and attacks. If you want an adult conversation, I'll be more than happy to oblige.

[clffrdjk]

88. There was no parsing, there was no taking anything out of context.

I asked questions based on your comments and quoted your answers that was it. I can only take you at your word and that is all I will do. If you want to clarify your position that is fine. I only ask that now that you have admitted that no you don't want expanded open carry could you not use this argument "Only difference is, most of them hide their guns. Now, apart from it being the law, one has to wonder why they feel the need to hide their "Personal Protection Device". Are they embarrassed, or do thy think it serves as a better deterrent when concealed?" We both know that is not what you want and you just come off as disingenuous.

[upaloopa]

80. You leave out the very real cure. Nobody carries guns!

I am not at the place where I accept people carrying guns is the status quo. We will change the laws some time in the future. We can't continue on the curve we are on were we have to accept guns in our everyday lives and have no say in the matter.

[Starboard Tack]

86. Of course, that is the best solution.

Unfortunately, in the US, the so-called right to carry guns trumps public safety. That leaves you in quite a dilemma, as a nation and as a society. America, land of the free, home of the brave. A land full of ironies. The champion of individualism and freedom, yet enslaved by corporate consumerism, fed by fear, greed and insecurity. A society struggling to keep it's shit together, while it plunges deeper into debt and consumes more and more garbage. The gun craze is emblematic of the social decline in America.
I wish you well and truly hope you manage to rein in the madness, but I fear it will take many more Sandy Hooks and Columbines before people start to realize what their complacency has wrought.
Personally, I am glad to be away from it, with no desire to return. A beautiful country it may be, but there is a much more colorful world beyond it's shores.

[upaloopa]

87. I was born in 1946. My dad had returned from the

war in Europe the year before. For most of my life we moved in a progressive direction. The last 30 years have been ones where we moved in a conservative direction. Logic tells me we will return to a progressive direction again. Maybe not in my life time.

[Starboard Tack]

103. I hope you are right and I hope we get to see it.

I'm not much older than you. I grew up dreaming of living in America, the great land of opportunity and equality. I finally made it during the Carter administration. I found lots of opportunity, not so much equality, and a country poised to swing toward the right, after it's short respite of shame and dismay over Watergate. Carter actually restored a good deal of respect from the rest of the world. Most of that respect was squandered by Reagan and the Bushes. Unfortunately, the electorate doesn't seem to care much about international opinion and the unraveling of that respect. They care more about insatiably consuming junk, including guns.

[clffrdjk]

94. I have asked you a couple of times now

To show how Concealed or heck even open carry is causing harm. You have refused and yet now you are trying to tie mass shootings to concealed/ open carry. I will ask you the same thing I asked above what does sandy hook have to do with carry?

[Starboard Tack]

101. Do you not follow the news?

Are you seriously asking me what these events have to do with people carrying guns around? The NRA fascists are trying to get guns into fucking classrooms, arming both teachers and students. Do you think they are pushing for such lunacy out of the goodness of their hearts? Do you think they give a fuck how many die? The more deaths the merrier for them. The more fear they spread, the more guns they sell. They don't give a damn about public safety.
Is it possible you do not see this? I doubt it, which leads me to conclude that you are a willing participant in the madness. Carry on!

[clffrdjk]

102. So no.

You don't have a single thing linking legal carry to sandy hook or an increase in mass shootings or causing harm in general.
Let's keep this conversation in the realm of adults and leave emotional name calling and unprovable accusations out of it.

[Starboard Tack]

104. Who gives a fuck whether it is legal or not? It's a stupid thing to do.

Lots of "legal" killers get away with murder daily. Ask Trayvon martin's family. Do you really think people who lose loved ones care if the shooter was carrying legally? The asshole who killed the guy in the movie theater over popcorn was carrying legally.
OF COURSE THERE IS A CONNECTION. Adam Lanza used legal guns, bought by his mother, RIP, who had put guns in his hands at the age of 4. That's when the Lanza "family fun time" began.
I suppose you want the teachers to carry now.

[clffrdjk]

105. Where are you going with this?

Trayvon: 2 year investigation and a trial and you think you know better?
The cop: hey get them to abide by the same rules I do please. Then you might be able to use him against me. I saw the video hopefully he is going to jail.
Lanza: I thought this was about legal carry. Sandy hook has nothing to do with legal carry. So what are you going after with this?

Armed teachers well I haven't really thought about how to implement it but the unarmed ones are doing so well.

[Starboard Tack]

110. OK, you've made your position clear

We are obviously in opposition regarding the subject. I'm sure we'll talk again.

[gejohnston]

107. Lawyers speak for their clients, not themselves

that is why the Republicans were wrong when they opposed Obama's pick for Civil Rights division head. My point? The Martin family lawyer Daryl Parks told Piers Morgan that Zimmerman should not have resisted Trayvon's beating because "the police would have been there any minute." They did not contradict him. The truth and trial is public record. Please spare us the canard.

OF COURSE THERE IS A CONNECTION. Adam Lanza used legal guns, bought by his mother, RIP, who had put guns in his hands at the age of 4. That's when the Lanza "family fun time" began.
I suppose you want the teachers to carry now

According to whom? The media that never gets it right? The media that uses stock footage of one place claiming it is another? There is no evidence that she taught him to shoot other than some pundit's claim. Pundits make shit up all the time. The State Police Report did not mention it, but did mention that Lanza was 6' tall and weight 112 pounds.

Oh, one more thing. Look up the word "fascist" and look at the domestic policies of fascist countries. The NRA has a lot of faults, but "fascist" is one of them any more than "communist" would apply to Bloomberg.

[Starboard Tack]

111. I use the word fascist in it's literal sense.s derived from the Italian word "fascio"

Meaning "sheaf", as in a sheaf of wheat. A group tightly bound by common cause. I apply it to all groups who find themselves linked by dogma and a sense of self righteousness and a good dose of evil thrown in for good measure. I find it a most suitable description of the NRA. Bloomberg a communist? LOL

Regardless of lawyers and trials and talkingn heads, Zimmerman was legally carrying when he killed. If he had not been carrying, I doubt there would've been a killing.

[gejohnston]

113. that would apply to

gun control groups as well. Bloomberg using his money to buy his way in heaven. But then, he pays people to picket the NRA. I think anyone who wants to take rights away from the individual outside of the one percent and the State is evil. Bloomberg is dishonest, the gun control movement is intellectually bankrupt. That may not make them evil, but it makes them despicable and worthy of being resisted.

Zimmerman was legally carrying when he killed. If he had not been carrying, I doubt there would've been a killing.

Since he endured 40 seconds of being beaten until the shot. The cops got there about one to two minutes later. How many people can survive getting their head beat in sidewalk? Had Zimmerman not been armed, there were only three possible outcomes:
Trayvon would be in prison for felony assault and Zimmerman would be alive but paralyzed or some other brain damage.
Trayvon would be in prison for murder or manslaughter
Trayvon ignores cop's orders like he did John Good's and get's a .40 caliber bullet instead of a 9mm.

[Starboard Tack]

114. I have no interest in Bloomberg or gun control

My interest is about the pheno,enon of carrying guns in public, not who owns them.
My point about Zimmerman, as I have mentioed before, is not about how he reacted to having his head bashed in, but how it got to that point. I am sure it would never have gotten close to a confrontation, had he not been carrying. The false courage, that carrying a gun gave him, led to him killing another human. This case exemplifies the negative and socially destructive impact that carrying guns has on society. It turns otherwise law abiding citizens into assholes and killers. And, at the end of the day, nobody is accountable.

[gejohnston]

115. I am sure it would never have gotten close to a confrontation, had he not been carrying.

I don't know him, nor do I claim to know how he or anyone else thinks. There is no evidence, and no rational reason to believe that any action would be different.
You base that on what? Assumptions and and ideology. The assumptions are based on lies made by propagandists, ideologues, race baiters, and fools. You can cling to their bullshit as truth if you want. Personally, I lost all respect for those who I did and now I simply despise the rest. Why? If it can happen to him, it can happen to either of us.

This case exemplifies the negative and socially destructive impact that carrying guns has on society.

Actually, it exemplifies life imitating art. The case exemplifies the dishonesty of the media, how low some some people will will destroy innocent lives for financial and political gain, and not all of those people are Republicans. I also realized that there is no difference between Mark Levin and Thom Hartman, both are dishonest ideologues who value truth only as long as it serves their purpose. You know what the real fucked up thing is? A moderate Democrat was smeared as being right wing and racist because he lives in Florida and had a CCW. He was prejudged as being a murderer and a racist, with no evidence, because of the color of his skin.

It turns otherwise law abiding citizens into assholes and killers.

Sorry, that isn't how the real world works. It doesn't turn anyone into an asshole. You either are or are not and there is no evidence that he was. He might be now given the trauma he experienced and the realization that believing in the integrity of the system is a bit naive. On the latter, being falsely accused of a crime does that to you. I learned that when I was about his age. Nothing that serious, and it didn't go to trial. It was just a long unpleasant conversation with the AFOSI.

And, at the end of the day, nobody is accountable.

Accountable for what, wearing the wrong dress? It is the same concept.

[Starboard Tack]

116. There is no rational reason to think that any action would be different?

Are you serious? You think he would've been following Martin to the point where Martin felt threatened, had he not been armed? I can't believe you defend this POS coward and bully. Enough on the subject.
An asshole may always be an asshole, but when he carries a gun it increases the chances of others getting seriously hurt by his assholery. Of course, we have no reason to be concerned about those upstanding citizens, also known as the "good guys", who nobly walk the streets of Murka, protecting the weak and defenseless, for they would never be allowed a CCW permit if they were assholes.

[gejohnston]

117. based on what evidence?

Are you serious? You think he would've been following Martin to the point where Martin felt threatened, had he not been armed?

The falsity of that claim has been pointed out and proven in court. The court proved Martin ran out of sight, went to Dad's girl friend's house and doubled back and attacked. So please, get educated.

I can't believe you defend this POS coward and bully. Enough on the subject.

I can't believe you still believe the lies and false narrative created by greedy bigots and racists and spread by stupid assholes like Cenk Uyger. Let me clear, it isn't about him. It is about justice and basic principles. Crump and his PR firm smeared him and tried to send him to make money, that is always wrong. By clinging onto the nonsense, you are supporting them. You are also supporting the king of bigots and race baiters, Al Sharpton. This is the real Al Sharpton who is a dishonest, racist, race baiting, and antisemitic POS.
It isn't about defending someone I have been told to despise. It is about justice, truth, right/wrong. The individual involved doesn't matter. Like I said before, the people who told us that he is a coward or bully have been proven to be lying racists and opportunists that are far worse than anything they claim Zimmerman to be.

An asshole may always be an asshole, but when he carries a gun it increases the chances of others getting seriously hurt by his assholery. Of course, we have no reason to be concerned about those upstanding citizens, also known as the "good guys", who nobly walk the streets of Murka, protecting the weak and defenseless, for they would never be allowed a CCW permit if they were assholes.

Usually, it is the weak defending themselves from assholes.

[Starboard Tack]

118. Wrong! The court proved nothing.

Z was not convicted because the prosecution faied to prove it's case. Certain facts were either unchallenged or stipulated.
!. Zimmerman followed Martin, who was committing no crime. Just looked "suspicious" to Zimmerman. Suspicious how? Well he appeared to have one hand in his pocket and he appeared to be wandering around looking at houses. Hey, it doesn't get more suspicious than that, especially when the "wanderer" is black.
2. Zimmerman was armed. Martin was not.
3. Zimmerman killed Martin.
3. Zimmerman created the situation that led to the killing. He followed Martin to the point where Martin, according to Zimmerman, started running. Well, innocent people don't run do they? Especially in the rain when being followed by some creep in a vehicle.

You accuse me of believing lies told by people I've never heard of. I don't watch or listen to MSM, even when it iis available to me, which is very rare.
I deal with undisputed facts and try to draw certain conclusions from them. Fact: No armed Zimmerman, no dead boy.

Carryying guns around, while following strangers you don't like the look of, is a dangerous activity. It is also extreme assholery.

[gejohnston]

119. in rare cases, yes

in this case, Z was proven innocent by the prosecution's own witnesses. IOW, there should never have been a trial. Had George went by Jorge or his mother's maiden name, there would be no demonstrations or trial. Same if he had been black. Had it happened in New York, it would have never made the news. IOW, his attackers, including many on DU, judged him by his geography and the color of his skin. That is always wrong, no exceptions.

17 years old and being 6'3" is not a "boy". It doesn't matter if it is the MSM, I wouldn't call talk radio and MSNBC as being part of the MSM. TYT isn't part of the MSM. If you never heard of Cenk, not missing much. Picture a younger and louder Bill O'Reilly.

Suspicious how? Well he appeared to have one hand in his pocket and he appeared to be wandering around looking at houses.

under the eaves of houses looking in the windows in the rain.

2. Zimmerman was armed. Martin was not.

yet Martin was trying to kill him with his bare fists.

3. Zimmerman killed Martin.

who was trying to kill him

3. Zimmerman created the situation that led to the killing. He followed Martin to the point where Martin, according to Zimmerman, started running. Well, innocent people don't run do they? Especially in the rain when being followed by some creep in a vehicle.

Actually, Zimmerman was going straight on the same street, he was not "following" in the same vehicle.
The area Zimmerman had several burglaries and one home invasion in a short period of time. So, you are saying that people should not care for the welfare of their neighbors? Should he have drove off and said "sucks to be whomever's house he hits"? So you think Kitty Genovese's neighbors did the right thing?

I deal with undisputed facts and try to draw certain conclusions from them. Fact: No armed Zimmerman, no dead boy.

Actually, a lot of your facts are disputed. All of your conclusions are based on your own prejudices.

[Bazinga]

65. You have as much right to know of I'm armed..

As I have to know if you've trained in martial arts, ie if I don't want to tell you, you don't have any right to know.

[Starboard Tack]

67. If you carry a gun that is only deadly within 10-15 feet, then I would agree.

However, that is not the case, I'm sure. As we navigate the streets and shopping malls, it is easy to avoid physical proximity to those who you may consider a threat. Guns change that equation. There are many SD devices available that are neither lethal, nor dangerous to anyone who does not invade your personal space. Living in fear is bad enough, but instilling fear in others, as a way to mitigate one's own, is not the solution.

There are legitimate reasons for CC. I think we all recognize that, But the average Joe going about his daily business has no reason, beyond fear for his own personal safety. Now how does that bode for society, as a whole?

[Bazinga]

70. I'm all for holding people responsible for every bullet that exits a muzzle.

But to presume that you have any right to know anything about me or anyone else is the kind of authoritarianism that dooms these discussions before they even start.

[Starboard Tack]

72. Hardly authoritarian

It is not about anyone knowing anything about you. It's not about you. It's about the presence of firearms in public places. It's not about your freedom. It's about public health and safety.
I applaud your desire for accountability after tthe fact, but suing the department of highways for not posting signs, after an accident, does little to help the dead and injured.
I don't want to know if you are carrying or not, but I do want to know if there are firearms in my vicinity. Not because I'm afraid of them, but because I have a healthy respect for them. Many gun carriers claim their behavior serves to level the playing field. I would argue that it tilts the playing field severely in the wrong direction, downwards toward a failed society. The great irony is, that if and when the NRA wins it's game of totally saturating the country and destroying society with guns, then the constitution won't be worth the paper it' written on.

[gejohnston]

108. by definition

It's about public health and safety

that is authoritarian.

[Starboard Tack]

112. Hardly, my friend

Public health and safety is about peole caring for eah other, not about living in fear of each other. It is about evolving as a society, not devolving into a jungle mentality, where authority comes from the fastest, biggest, most powerful gun.

[Packerowner740]

84. "Walking around with his gun hanging out"

I see what you did there.

[gejohnston]

85. I thought he was prancing?

the phrase is "prancing with his gun hanging out".
Yet the black lady said that had he just sat and watched the game with the gun holstered, all would be good. The white woman was going bat shit crazy. Hummmmmmmmm.

[stone space]

5. Looks like this idiot's repeated gunstalking has managed to empty a normally full park.

Parents keep kids away from popular park after armed man shows up twice


http://www.wsmv.com/story/25326365/parents-keep-kids-away-from-popular-park-after-armed-man-shows-up-twice

[rrneck]

10. Right to carry demonstrators.

The PETA of the gun rights movement.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

15. You warrant an A+...

...for this one sentence paper in the Advanced Analogy course.

[Lizzie Poppet]

18. Oh, bravo!

[sarisataka]

20. Accurate description n/t

[SQUEE]

22. .

[Duckhunter935]

26. you are correct

on that

[Logical]

59. +1000

[Common Sense Party]

78. Absolutely.

Although I have to wonder if he's a closet grabber. This almost sounds like someone who wants the new GA law to be repealed.

[Politicalboi]

28. LOL!

I'm sorry but this is what Georgians wanted when they vote for the GOP. I feel for the Dem's, but this has to play out. What the fuck did they think was going to happen with such loose gun laws. Assholes.

[paleotn]

31. Exacty......

...since every freaking moron with two brain cells to rub together can now pack heat damn near everywhere. Oh, that's right. We've must put up with this shit so all the "sensible gun owners" can assuage their irrational fears of make believe they're Clint Eastwood.

[Straw Man]

77. Exactly.

Exacty......

...since every freaking moron with two brain cells to rub together can now pack heat damn near everywhere.

Right. Just as they can in New York. This brings Georgia law into line with that notorious hotbed of gun-nuttery and blood in the streets. Any thoughts on that?

[upaloopa]

81. If true both are fucked up!

Two things equal to the same thing are equal to each other.

[Straw Man]

82. Would you like to comment ...

... on the fact that this doesn't seem to be a problem in New York? That the sky isn't falling here and it won't fall in Georgia?

[upaloopa]

83. I just did

Carrying guns is fucked up!
Sorry you don 't get that!

[Straw Man]

89. Well that's certainly a reasoned ...

... and nuanced reaction to the issue. That's it? Guns bad?

Can I take it, then, that you favor a ban on civilian carry of firearms in any manner?

[upaloopa]

90. I don't need to play gunner debate games on this board

People don't want to be around people carrying guns that doesn't take much brain power to figure out . If you still want your warm cuddly gun in my face you are doing something fucked up and again sorry you can't see that.

[Straw Man]

91. Then what are you doing here?

I don't need to play gunner debate games on this board

People don't want to be around people carrying guns that doesn't take much brain power to figure out . If you still want your warm cuddly gun in my face you are doing something fucked up and again sorry you can't see that.

I mean besides spewing pablum and insults?

[upaloopa]

93. look in the mirror and read your post

[Straw Man]

95. I'm merely responding in kind.

It's very clear that you're not interested in any discussion. Every attempt to engage in such with you just brings on your usual litany of condescension and insults.

I raised an issue and gave you a chance to respond. You indicated (quite rudely, I might add) that you had no intention of engaging in discussion. Therefore, I repeat: Why are you here?

[upaloopa]

96. There is nothing more than can be said

We have gone over this hundreds of times since Sandy Hook. I want less guns you want more guns. The fight goes on.
We will never stop fighting for more gun control you will never stop claiming a right to own guns. Discussion is a ploy by your side. If you want discussion show a willingness to understand the other side.

[Straw Man]

97. You've got it all wrong.

I want less guns you want more guns. The fight goes on.

Who ever said I wanted "more guns"? I don't want fewer rights. That's it in a nutshell.

We will never stop fighting for more gun control you will never stop claiming a right to own guns.

Since you formulate those as opposites, it is clear that the ultimate goal of your "gun control" is removal of the "right to own guns." All the cant about "reasonable regulation" is just hypocrisy and obfuscation.

Discussion is a ploy by your side. If you want discussion show a willingness to understand the other side.

The irony of that statement is rich, considering your open disavowal of discussion. I asked you specific questions, which you declined to answer. Obviously your position is an extreme one, which is why you are so reticent to bring it into the open. I can only conclude that you are a propagandist with no interest in good-faith discussion.

[upaloopa]

98. My position is not extreme

I want a return to the way things were before the current pro gun culture changes were made. I live in CA so for the most part they don't effect me.
I don't want somebody carrying a gun anywhere near me.
I don't want to see gun violence accepted as the price we have to pay for your freedom. I don't want ALEC and the NRA making laws for us.
You are on the side of the extreme

[Straw Man]

99. I beg to differ.

I want a return to the way things were before the current pro gun culture changes were made.

When was that and what changes were those? I have seen nothing but a steady erosion of rights with only a few small concessions in the other direction. California is a textbook example of pointless and intrusive legislation. Why is a new Smith and Wesson revolver on the list of approved handguns but one made ten years ago is not, when the two are functionally identical? Why is it legal to have a magazine that you can detach with the tip of a bullet but illegal to have one that you can detach with the tip of your finger? I could go on and on, but you don't care, because you have no interest in discussion, which means you can support these ridiculous laws without having to say why. So convenient for you.

I don't want somebody carrying a gun anywhere near me.

Then perhaps you should live in a gated community where that isn't allowed. Some people don't want people of other races, religions, or sexual orientations anywhere near them either. What do we call that?

I don't want to see gun violence accepted as the price we have to pay for your freedom.

Violence of all kinds is a symptom of social failure on so many levels that to try to dump it all on the heads of responsible, law-abiding gun owners is not only an insult but a pathetic failure to understand the roots of violent behavior. If you could magically make all guns disappear tomorrow, this would not be a peaceful society. If you harbor that particular delusion, I suggest that you research murder rates in the medieval period.

I will ask you a simple question: If you could, would you outlaw private ownership of firearms? If the answer is "yes," then you are, by my reckoning, an extremist.

[upaloopa]

100. You are Rip Van Winkle?

Two recent Supreme Court rulings, stand your ground, guns everywhere
You slept through those!

[Straw Man]

106. If you're referring to Heller and MacDonald ...

... they merely extended to residents of D.C. and Illinois a right enjoyed by residents of every other state in the Union.

"Stand your ground" has been invoked in case law even in your anti-gun paradise of California. The key is whether the victim reasonably believes that it is the best course for preserving one's life:

Even though it’s not in the law, the California Criminal Jury Instructions (CALCRIM) do allow a jury to acquit someone based on a stand-your-ground defense. The instruction appears in CALCRIM #505 and #506, both of which deal with justifiable homicide:

“A defendant is not required to retreat. He or she is entitled to stand his or her ground and defend himself or herself and, if reasonably necessary, to pursue an assailant until the danger of ( death/great bodily injury/<insert forcible and atrocious crime> ) has passed. This is so even if safety could have been achieved by retreating.”

So in California, not only could you stay and fight, you can even chase your attacker if it will neutralize the threat to your life.

--http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2013/07/22/5-things-to-know-about-stand-your-ground-in-california/

As for "guns everywhere," it's a hysterical chant used against those who see selective bans as merely stepping-stones to a total ban. What good is the right to bear arms if the entire world is a "gun-free zone"? In other words, you're not fooling anyone with your incremental strategies.

On the other hand, we have the NY SAFE Act, registration of semi-auto rifles in Connecticut, magazine limits in Colorado, and many, many more attempts at infringing on the right to keep and bear arms in America.

Nope. I'm wide awake.

[gejohnston]

109. Dude, SYG started in Califoria

in 1880. Brown v. United States (1921) (256 U.S. 335, 343 (16 May 1921) established it on the Federal level.

[beevul]

120. Yes, your position is extreme.

You want to ban the most popular rifles in America.

That fits the textbook definition of extreme.

Your views on guns are nowhere near mainstream.

[upaloopa]

121. In your paradigm maybe

You gunners are not only in love with your guns you are in love with your opinions.
I don't give a shit if AR-15's are popular with your crowd!
I don't like our growing gun culture. It isn't good for us meaning all of us. You care about yourself that is not good.

[beevul]

122. You're almost there. You're sounding just like Anakin Skywalker...

You're almost there. You're sounding just like anakin skywalker, right before he changed his name.

"You care about yourself that is not good."

Enlightened self interest is such a bad thing right?

And you'd have everyone believe you're selfless. That the leaders on your side are selfless. Selfless mayor 1 percent stop and frisk and his armed security. Selfless Shannon "Dupont" Watts and her armed bodyguards.

Ar type rifles are the single most popular firearm in America.

It has nothing to do with "my crowd", since I don't own one, or even know anyone that does.


"I don't like our growing gun culture."

Aww. Just come out and say it. What you don't like is the "defend the second amendment"" culture.

Embrace it.

[ileus]

36. Did he have a kid at the game? If not he really didn't need to be there anyway.

This kind of smells like a false flag operation.

[blueridge3210]

41. Occam's Razor

All other things being equal; the simplest explanation for an observed incident that accounts for all known facts is usually the correct one. In this case, based on the knows facts, the simplest explanation is that the guy is a jerk and trying to cause an uproar. If this was his goal he certainly succeeded. Additional information may change this evaluation of course.

[clffrdjk]

43. Agreed

He saw one outrageous response, got a laugh out of it and did it again.

[Electric Monk]

42. re: False flag, please do continue

here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1135

[deathrind]

55. Wow- this guy really felt the need...

To go to a park where children were playing baseball to exercise his newly expanded 2nd Amendment rights...unreal.

Way to go NRA.

[gejohnston]

56. Actually, this has nothing to do with the "newly expanded"

he was just being an asshole.

[stone space]

124. No, he wasn't "just being an asshole". Assholes are a dime a dozen.

he was just being an asshole.

He was being an asshole with a gun.

There's a huge, huge difference between an asshole and an asshole with a gun.

[Blue Owl]

76. Jackass and the Gunstalk

n/t

[upaloopa]

79. This going to happen more and more.

We citizens must decide if it is a good guy with a gun or a bad guy with a gun. Both have the 2A right to scare the shit out of us. Fuck our rights gunners rights are more important.