When they return from the range.

he made a penis joke

Other than LEO's?

I can count on both hands the number of open carriers I've actually seen in the past 20 years. Excluding hunting and at the range of course.


Something tells me most of the pictures/events we see on the innerwebs are actually staged by regressives.

at least one with holstered pistol in Arizona and one with a holstered pistol here in Oklahoma. No long guns.

Different trips....I also witnessed one dumbass sporting a HiPoint in a nylon holster at walturd a few years back.


IMHO if you're going to open carry dress sharply, and spring for high quality holsters and sidearms, give the best impression possible.

Of course being in a firearm friendly state there's really no reason to "protest" with long guns. Add that to our OC and CC laws and yahoo's don't have any reason to show their ass to prove a point.

Most all of them back in Arizona, where I grew up. Almost always out in the desert* or in small towns, and always handguns. Never bothered me at all, probably because it's fairly commonplace.

*Not hunters, although of course there are plenty of those, too.

if you'll recall until a couple of years ago even if one had a legal concealed carry license you were required by law to open carry in Virginia restaurants (which served alcohol).

Also prior to NM's agreeing to reciprocity with Texas on CHLs, the only way when travelling to legally comply with NM law was to open carry.

a hungry, unhappy spouse and kids 8 and 10 complaining "We're hungry!" from the back seat for 100 miles.

So much as I dislike open carrying, I nutted up and tucked it up.

If I'd lived 15 more minutes down the interstate I would have tucked it up also.

good news is we're not that backwards anymore...

And that's just so far this year...

Maybe, just maybe, one of these days you guys will figure out that the reason no legislators take you seriously is you have major sexual hang ups.

Nah, too ignorant and rude.

and find common ground -- for the sake of everyone
being protected from the current widespread misuse
of weapons. I don't exclude law enforcement or
military in this -- there are bad people with guns
in all those places.

Although there are extremists on both sides, they are
not the majority.

Do you think there is any value in any regulation,
licensing, background checking, ammunition limiting,
so on and so on -- actions that might help keep guns away
from bad and ill people who will hurt others for no
good reason?

Surely the gun defenders on DU have some really
good ideas for humanity, understanding which laws would
help and which would be pointless or counterproductive.

Of all places where great minds gather, I would think here
DUers could find some good ideas and solutions to offer,
instead of just arguments. Admittedly I do not
follow all of the gun discussions. But I do believe there
ARE many great minds and hearts here.

Who have put forth good ideas. They seem to get ignored since we hear how gungeon dwellers are against all gun control.

Then again not all gun deaths are equal in the eyes of those who want to ban- excuse me, pass common sense laws. Some deaths are cause for laughter and celebration. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025058388
This is the side that claims to have the moral high ground.

Also it is hard to have discussions about serious subjects when half of the conversation is juvenile sexual references.

Still, I and others are here, with ideas and willing to talk. But we need support to get our ideas passed into law and will resist authoritarianism being rammed down are throats.

I probably shouldn't even be putting in my two cents
here, I am not well informed on this whole subject.

you can become better informed. Commentary is welcome; snarky sexual innuendo not so much. There are also several less partisan resources that can be looked up for information regarding firearms ownership and the applicable laws. As several posters have stated; support for universal background checks by allowing private sellers to access the NICS (criminal background check) system is widespread. Banning weapons based on cosmetic features (bayonet lugs, flash suppressors) are not so well received. YMMV.

what is wrong with outlawing the kind of weapons that
are designed for battlefield, not even for hunting or
self-defense?

What is the argument for this, other than that it's
probably a very fun toy under the right conditions;
but so deadly otherwise.

but as follows:

Actual "battlefield rifles" are known as "assault rifles" and are capable of full auto/burst fire as well as semi-auto and are generally unavailable to the general public (heavily regulated by the ATF and the registry to allow ownership of additional weapons has been closed to new entries). What is currently popular are semi-auto only versions of the same weapon; to outlaw ownership you would either have to outlaw ALL semi-auto rifles or try to ban by name/specific feature. If banned by name (AR-15) the manufacturer will simply rename it the PDR-15 (personal defense rifle) or something similar. If banned due to features; simple remove or modify the feature and it is once again legal.

The AR platform does have legitimate hunting uses; the .223 caliber can be used for wild boar hunting (these things are a blight on the ecosystem and are hard to keep in check); it can also be re-chambered for other more common hunting rounds (deer/elk/bison).

All firearms are deadly regardless of caliber or magazine capacity. I watched a "training video" of a SC State Trooper killed by a .22 derringer that went under his armpit and clipped his aorta causing him to bleed out in a minute. I almost changed careers that day.

Hope this helps. I lurked here for 10 years before creating an account; the group has been a deep well of firearms knowledge.

very helpful, and respectful to boot, a bonus.

All weapons were designed for the battlefield at one time. I have a few full military specification rifles. They are all bolt action dating from 1926 to 1953. These weapons could have very well been used during wartime. They were state of the art for there time. The AR-15 platform has been around for around 60 years and millions of people have been trained on them and are familiar with the operation just as the bolt action rifles in the past. As has been stated, a civilian version of this rifle will not fire full auto or 3 round burst. They fire semi-auto the same as any other civilian semi-auto rifle. The AR-15 and AR-10 (larger caliber) can make very nice hunting rifles as they are very accurate and lightweight. The other thing about the AR platform is it is designed as a modular weapon. You can change the upper receiver and bolt and have a weapon of another caliber without having to purchase another rifle. Very easy to go from 5.56 to 22 caliber in about a minute. The AR is just another military style weapon that has been adopted for civilian use like the rifles before it. They look the same as a military specification M-16 or M-4 rifle and that tends to cause confusion.

I think the best thing we can do is to mandate UBC and have current and accurate data available in the database to include mental health data in certain cases. Open NICS up for private sales for no cost. Single payer with full mental health coverage. Fully fund and resource law enforcement to enforce current laws. Many are on the books now but not enforced. Ensure stiff penalties for negligence and misuse of firearms. Hold parents accountable if a child finds a weapon unsecured. Tax breaks for weapon storage safes. If you break down most of these shootings, the warning signs were there just not acted on or information was not available in the NICS system to prevent a sale.

it is the amateurs who will be the swing votes.
Despite the claims, a person does not have to be an absolute expert to have an opinion. A few basic facts are sufficient.

Also I have no heartburn if I claim xyz control proposal will not work because the dohicky has nothing to do with the thingamabob, if a person asks, what can be changed in the proposed law to make it work? Sometimes the answer is nothing because it is approaching the issue from the wrong direction; sometimes there is a solution a knowledgeable person can see.

At least we are talking and weeding out chaff to get to ideas that we both can agree on and will actually be effective.

I think you will find that most pro-RKBA DUers are in favor of universal background checks, with some provisions for family transfers and loaning guns to friends.

What sort of 'ammunition limiting' are you proposing and why?

Here and there I've read references to limitations on
ammunition (as opposed to on guns); and/or having
legal ammunition serial numberized and linked to
purchaser; then of course, limiting the types of
weapons that can shoot many bullets, & children,
or shoppers, moviegoers, students, without reloading..
that sort of thing.

Fortunately for me it is an abstract subject and
I don't know what the best policies might be, beyond
individual integrity and carefulness.

The only things I've concluded so far:

• The current NRA is a sick and twisted puppet of
the arms industry. If we follow the money there,
whose names will pop up?

Who gets rich on weapons of death and destruction?

• I have to register my car every two years, and
recertify my eligibility to drive every five years.
I can't legally drive until 16, in most states. We all
must have auto insurance.

I must drive according to the laws, within speed
limits, lanes, and so on. I'm glad to follow these
laws because life is valuable. Without the structure and
rules, cars would become crazy killing machines much
more frequently. Little kids would be driving. Speeding
drunks & maniacs would rule the roads.

• It should be illegal to handle weapons under the
influence of alcohol, same as in a car, imo.

Some of the nicest people become murderers who
never ever meant to hurt anybody. They get in the
car drunk and drive. Just once. It only takes one
stupid moment of unconsciousness.
They play with their gun drunk, or leave it loaded
in the public restroom. Just one time.

I can't just walk into a motor vehicle dept. and buy
a license. I have to prove my skill and responsibility,
and pay the state a fee. I have to keep my car
from emitting too many extra toxins. It is a
public health issue.

• If gun owners aren't willing to have at least that
much regulation, for the sake of everybody's well-
being and peace of mind, then in my opinion they
should be forbidden from owning any guns except
water pistols, bb guns, cap guns, cork pop guns, etc.

serializing ammo isn't technically possible. Public policy should not be based on emotion or one time events.

That is mostly from propaganda from the likes of Bloomberg. It is a propaganda technique called demonizing your enemy. Like them or not, the NRA is more of a grassroots organization that represents its 5 million members and the 70-80 million gun owners who are not. Of course, you are not going to hear that from the "gun safety groups" which are really dishonest astro turf organizations funded by a few rich people.


Only if you are going to use it on public roads, not to own it. Under current federal law, you must be 21 to buy a handgun from a store, and 18 from a private person. Comparing guns to cars are absurd partly because of the license to own vs license to operate on public roads. It is also absurd for another reason: it is usually suggested by people who don't know anything about current federal gun laws. If we were to regulate guns the way we regulate driving, all of the current federal gun control laws, about five of them, would have to be repealed. For example:

Gun dealers are licensed and regulated by the federal government
Poor inventory control will result in losing your license and going to federal prison
federal agents inspect your inventory and sales records
licensed gun dealers record personal information
It is a federal crime to sell guns to certain people
It is a federal crime to go to the next state and buy a gun.
It is a federal crime to make a gun and give or sell it without a manufactures license. You can make your own gun, it can't be transfered to anyone.
It is a federal crime to sell a gun to a resident of a different state without the sale going through a licensed dealer in the buyer's home state.
there are minimum ages to buy a gun (21 handgun, 18 long gun)

That is just the basics of the 1968 Gun Control Act. That doesn't cover the Brady Law, Federal Firearms Act, National Firearms Act, or Pistols Act of 1927. Cars are not regulated in that way.

I don't know of a state where it isn't.

the only case of leaving a gun in a public restroom I have heard of was a Portland PD detective.

That isn't a very rational, "you can't be trusted if you don't agree with me." It isn't really a legitimate argument. Besides, all public policy should be based only on logic, facts, and reasoned debate. Gun control groups simply do not attempt any of those. When gun control advocates can bring proposals based on reason and facts instead of logical fallacies and penis jokes, I'll listen. Until then, why should I bother?

Have you ever watched Piers Morgan? He is the perfect example of what I'm talking about. Morgan would have someone like Larry Pratt, Richard Feldman, or even Ted Nugent who is bat shit crazy. I'm not a fan of Pratt's politics beyond guns, but at least he and Feldman were calm and half way well reasoned arguments, especially Feldman. What did Morgan (or Cenk Uyger on his show) do? Yell, scream, call names, use every known logical fallacy while screaming. Who in their right minds would take Morgan or Uyger seriously? Same with Bloomberg, Brady, or stupid cartoons like this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172147244
Frankly, if that is their argument, they should be ignored.

I want to take much more time to read your post carefully,
and if you have already answered this in the
post, doubly forgive me..

What do you personally see as the solution(s)?

Or do you believe the status quo is ok?

I'll give them in a follow up post.

(I read your other post before this one.

I love constructive thinking.

First, this is how I would reform current federal gun laws.
we have had gun control on the federal level since 1927, not counting the 11 percent tax on all guns and ammunition imposed in 1919. Those funds went in to the general fund until 1937.
How do we deal with rampage killers? No law is the answer, no ideology has the answer. Simple answers to complex problems are not answers. First, we have to know what motivates them. What do these people have in common? This study might have part of the answer. From what we know about Elliot Roger, he certainly had the first two. Mom and Dad's parenting skills sucked. The self esteem issue, or lack of, has been the subject of most discussion.
But that is just a tiny fraction of violence. Yeah, they get the newsprint, if they use a gun. If they kill as many or more people by other means, it might get ten seconds on CNN.
80 percent of murders in the US gang related. Criminals killing each other, and the occasional innocent caught in the crossfire. What do these have in common:
---Corrupt and incompetent local governments. See Chicago, Tammany Hall on steroids.
public school funding is based on local property taxes. School districts with low property values get screwed
--drug distribution hubs
--blight and zoning ordnances prevent walkable communities. That was the first thing I noticed in Japan and Korea, residences and businesses mixed. If they have zoning ordnances, they are nothing like ours. In Germany and Switzerland, people grow vegetables in their front yards. Many places in the US, code enforcement will be knocking on your door.
My overall solutions are:
--end the drug war.
--equal funding for public education.
--use the money saved on drug war and MIC on infrastructure, including building inner city schools
--end corporal punishment, another difference between us and Western Europe
--money in VoTech, not stop degrading the trades
--put trade barriers to discourage manufacturing in China (might not even need a min, wage raise, the resulting labor shortage could fix that.)
--eliminate zoning ordnances that prevent walkable neighborhoods
--give more aid to county health departments for services

Some can only be done by the feds, some only by city, county, and state. That is the basic start of my solution.

That is mostly from propaganda from the likes of Bloomberg. It is a propaganda technique called demonizing your enemy. Like them or not, the NRA is more of a grassroots organization that represents its 5 million members and the 70-80 million gun owners who are not. Of course, you are not going to hear that from the "gun safety groups" which are really dishonest astro turf organizations funded by a few rich people.

This is an interesting article, if you are interested.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-nras-true-believers-converted-a-marksmanship-group-into-a-mighty-gun-lobby/2013/01/12/51c62288-59b9-11e2-88d0-c4cf65c3ad15_story.html

I've listened to speeches from this fellow, and found him to be a fear mongerer.
Do you like him, agree with him?
I am not here for a fight, just am curious.


Also I know almost nothing about federal gun laws, or state laws.
But it is scary when bullets come through the roof, as they do.

The NRA in its current form until the proliferation of gun prohibitionist groups, who openly advocated prohibition of private ownership of firearms. The NRA and its membership created its lobbying arm to deal with that reality by being part of the debate.
My opinion of Wayne? I think he does more harm than good, and says stupid stuff (or make an important point, but it comes out wrong). I thought his "mentally ill registry" was awful, because it scapegoats some of the least violent people in our society, and starts a really ugly slippery slope. When gun control advocates jumped on his bandwagon, I was still pretty appalled.
I think Richard Feldman is a better choice. No, I don't like Ted either, but I didn't like his music when I was a kid either.
I separate the person from the politics. What I think of someone personally has nothing to do with their politics.
As for changes or the status quo, my list is quite long when it comes to changes in current gun laws, and changes in the larger society that would actually do more. If strict gun laws actually did as advertised, then Califoria should have a lower murder rate than Utah, and UK (or even Jamaica and Mexico for that matter) should have lower murder rates than Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland. I'll add my list in a follow up post.
Examples of Richard Feldman:

It seems every well meaning, reasonable "middle of the roader" on guns wants to know what the pro 2nd people are willing to give up or "compromise" on.

Compromise means you don't get what you want, you get some but the other side gets some of what they want.

For over a decade here, I've been asking the gun control side of the discussion what are they willing to give up for something like Universal Background Checks or another "Assault Weapons" Ban. I never get an answer. Their idea of a compromise seems to be; "You give this up now and give other things up later"

But it does seem important to the other side to use penis references a lot and the folks like you seem to think that's alright.

Oh, and be careful, if you bring up the obvious need for a better system for mental health treatment and including medical mental health records in the gun background check data base (NICS), you'll be reminded that those are just NRA talking points.

I'm asking the OP, and also you, everybody, or anybody.

Is constructive, collaborative problem-solving a possibility
here on DU among those who have strong opposing points
of view? Instead of argument, constructive collaboration,
ie, seeking solutions together?

There are some who would like all guns forever banned
under all circumstances. Others want no restrictions, ever,
for anybody, no matter what.

But there is a vast continuum in between, wherein there are
creative answers, possibilities -- because at heart none of us
want innocent to be shot.

Two approaches: (A is pro-gun, B is anti-gun; C & D are unknowns)

Approach #1

A: I am willing to give up x y and z. What are YOU willing to give up?
B: ... (A is still waiting for a response)

(Note: B probably doesn't understand what A means.
B wants to stop ALL people getting shot for no good reason, and
doesn't understand why people want to have guns in the
first place.)

Approach #2

A. Is there anything we have in common? Let's start there.
B. Well, none of us want innocent to die, right?
A. Good one. Anybody have ideas for ways to prevent
that happening?
B. Brainstorm.
C. Use our brains.
D. Use our hearts!
A. Focus on solutions, not angry differences.

Both are needed, and both can happen at the same time.
Changing the system for mentally ill could take a very
long time. In the short term, meantime, there could be
some of the other.

better regulation of weaponry

better system of care for the unwell

Stop being so sensitive to penis jokes people! Sometimes they apply. Guys like the one depicted in the cartoon have some serious issues.

Except that there are no "guys like the one depicted in the cartoon" posting here, yet the sentiments are directed at pro-gun posters here.

Somehow, I doubt goldilocks gungrabber would be as well received these days:



Lets see if this gets hidden.

And you think there are no guys like the cartoon in the OP? I have no idea if they post here, but they sure as hell have in the past. Nevertheless they exist. And they make the news with their antics every day.

Both take a fringe element of each side of the firearm ownership issue and attempt to equate that element to a larger pool. Certainly numerous, highly visible persons that promote more gun control fit the description in the second cartoon; and they make the news with their antics on a regular basis.

Both were attempts to point fun at extreme behavior. The first one worked for me. The second was pretty lame, but I'm sure it got some guffaws down at NRA HQ. The message seems to be that you think little rich girls who don't like certain types of guns, (eg. Dianne Feinstein) are as big a problem as rednecks walking around with AR-15s.

Each appeals to the biases found on either side of the gun ownership debate. While I do not agree with the methods of the open carry proponents that are trying to normalize the presence of long guns in a non-rural environment, I do not think they are "compensating" for inadequate sexual performance.

But some definitely are trying to compensate for some personal sense of inadequacy. I think Freud would find them very interesting subjects. I don't think all who like big guns, or big cars are either impotent or have small dicks, or in the case of women, penis envy. But I'd wager a fair percentage do. The tell would be in the swagger.

Using Freud and pop psyc as a cover for banal political arguments is, well, beyond stupid and don't deserve any consideration in the discussion.
For 40 years, it has been the argument used by stupid people and bigots who have no valid arguments. If that is all "anti gun" types have, there is no rational reason to pay attention to them or Bloomberg's billions.
As for Freud's theories, his theories were bullshit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Freud_Was_Wrong

People buy guns and the cars they do have nothing to do with penises or any or pseudo-scientific nonsense any more than people buy Priuses just to feel morally superior to others. They do for their own individual reasons.
That is why I dismiss most gun control arguments out of hand, their arguments are simply not rational.

Wow! You just dismiss him as a quack. He sure as hell didn't get everything right, not by a long chalk, but he opened so many doors. His ideas still form much of the foundation for psycho-analysis.
Enough said.

I'm going to take it that you got this crack pot theory from Thom Hartman's staff. There are so many things wrong with this, it would take pages point out all of the absurdities it is.
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/15364-americas-newest-penis-enhancer%E2%80%93the-ar-15-assault-weapon

That said, such juvenile nonsense has no place in public policy debates and is the "anti gun" equivalent of Ted Nugent's concert antics.

that one side of the gun ownership debate is so universally focused on sexual imagery as it relates to gun ownership.

I suppose this is where I could include some snark about how an unhealthy pre-occupation with sex indicates a lack of healthy occupation with sex; but I'll pass on the low-hanging fruit for now.

Only a tiny minority oppose gun ownership. But I'm sure you knew that already.
The cartoon in the OP has nothing to do with gun ownership, just gun nuttery, which is high hanging fruit.

As he had this to say on the subject...

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."
10th Lecture of Freud's "General Introduction to Psychoanalysis" (1952) and Freud and Oppenheim's "Dreams in Folklore" (1958)

A lot of our fears and neuroses have a sexual component. He wasn't right, imo, in all his interpretations, especially regarding homosexuality and female orgasms, but he did a hell of a lot to help us understand the connection between sexuality and psyche.

and it has also been discarded.