Packing Iron Before the Cameras

It is hard to know what is more shocking: the sight of a dozen Americans showing up to flaunt guns outside the venue for President Obama’s speech in Phoenix on Monday, or the fact that the swaggering display was completely legal. We are all familiar with the right to bear arms and the noisome extremes indulged by its zealots. But is there no sense of simple respect due the nation’s elected leader when he ventures forth among the citizenry?

One man strutted through the crowd with an AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle slung over his shoulder. (That weapon was banned in recent American history until a bipartisan retreat before gun-lobby propaganda.) The man also packed a holstered handgun and completed this war-games ensemble with an ammunition clip in his back pocket. Such lethal parading, he announced, was legal under Arizona law and the public should “get kind of conditioned to it.”

The local police and the Secret Service were aware of the armed protestors and noted that they were kept out of the guarded convention hall where Mr. Obama spoke. That is hardly reassuring, especially this summer when so many protestors seem to consider primal rage a reasoned political statement.

New Hampshire is another “open carry” state. When Mr. Obama held a town hall meeting in Portsmouth on Aug. 11, gun-packing protestors were also there. As the television cameras zoomed in, one man preened as if in the O.K. Corral, his holstered gun strapped proudly to his thigh. What’s next? Citizens strolling in helmets and camouflage flak jackets? If we didn’t know better, we would think that the National Rifle Association would be embarrassed by such macho nonsense.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/21/opinion/21fri4.html?th&emc=th

The people who are carrying weapons outside the events are attempting to provoke a reaction by the Obama administration.
Remember how the far right predicted Obama was going to "take your guns". Well he hasn't. And guess what, he's not going to fall for this trick either.

The sad part is that it overshadows his message on heathcare.

"(That weapon was banned in recent American history until a bipartisan retreat before gun-lobby propaganda.)"

No, it wasn't. But if you use facts its harder to create faux outrage I guess.

Another piece of crappy research. The gun was never banned. If bought before the failed AWB it was perfectly legal to have or if made after without the lug or adjustable stock it was still perfectly legal.

It would be nice if journalists would stop using the GOP led Brady bunch's bumper stickers and press releases as if it was real research.

BTW Helmke, we're still waiting for that blood in the streets you promised us if the ban lapsed 5 years ago. Sadly, for you, but happily for the US, gun violence is at a decades low point.

It was a minor part of the piece, though. What did you think of the rest of the article? Pointing out errors in naming firearms has always seemed nit-picky to me, especially when the rest of what was written is ignored in a rush to point out an error.

I've seen thread that went on for dozens of posts about the difference between a clip and a magazine. Irrelevant, really, especially when the point of the thread had nothing to do with that.

If you can't get basic, easily verifiable facts right, it throws the entire credibility of the story in doubt.

particular types of firearms. He mis-described one of the firearms the asshole was carrying. The article was about something else.

If I start off an article about oranges, but I claim that the United States of America is in South America, doesn't it make you suspect my basic research abilities about anything?

That alone is sufficient to prove to me that the author either doesn't have a clue about the subject, or has an axe to grind, or both.

There's a lot that slackmaster doesn't read.

And the earth keeps spinning on its axis.

If you make a mistake in one aspect of something you write, should I ignore everything you write? You don't make mistakes? Glory be!

I really don't care what it says.

Besides that, it's an editorial and is therefore intended to change opinion, not to inform.

if not, you look like a utter fool.

If you wish to discuss the restrictor plate rules in NASCAR it helps to know that they are not mandated on all tracks.

If you want to discuss drag racing, it's helpful to know that:

The Hemi headed Chrysler based V-8 engine is solely responsible for virtually all the drag racing records in the world. You cannot compete in the top fuel categories in any class in the IHRA or the NHRA unless it is a Hemi V-8! Reportedly the horsepower generated on specialized high potency fuel reaches upward of 6,000!
http://www.allpar.com/mopar/hemi/chrysler-hemi.html

Facts are your friend. Research a subject before you make stupid statements. Firearms are not like truly complicated subjects such as economics or quantum physics. The terminology and the engineering are simple and easy to comprehend.

For many years the very liberal portion of the Democratic Party has been attempting to promote draconian firearms legislation. Many politicians have little knowledge of the subject and have made themselves look totally foolish to any gun owner. This tactic may appeal to the liberal base who also know little or nothing about firearms and have little interest, but fails in many areas of this country where firearm ownership is common.

When some well known Democrat makes an entirely stupid statement about guns, imagine yourself in the position of trying to defend his comments at the gun range. Everyone is sitting around laughing and saying, "Did you hear what that stupid asshole said?" In those moments, it's embarrassing to admit you are a Democrat.

All too often, we shoot ourselves in the foot when we discuss firearms. Many voters seriously believe that if we can't understand anything as simple as a firearm, how can they trust us to handle truly complex problems.

To you it may seem nit-picky. To gun owners it merely shows that the person who makes a stupid statement is not willing to take the time and effort to research a subject and therefore is uneducated on the topic and therefore irrelevant.

I see you missed the point of it, altogether. That's a typical response, but boring.

The title was:

Packing Iron Before the Cameras

and part of the article said:

One man strutted through the crowd with an AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle slung over his shoulder. (That weapon was banned in recent American history until a bipartisan retreat before gun-lobby propaganda.) The man also packed a holstered handgun and completed this war-games ensemble with an ammunition clip in his back pocket. Such lethal parading, he announced, was legal under Arizona law and the public should “get kind of conditioned to it.”

And by the way, if the article was not about firearms then why is it in the Gungeon?

I go out of my way to give the anti-gunners some advise and I get no respect.

Most of the arguments to which I am party fall somewhat short of being impressive, knowing to the fact that neither I nor my opponent knows what we are talking about.
Rodney Dangerfield

Do you know the difference?

Even though she started with that whole "Death Panel" stupidity that shouldn't discount anything else she says on health care right?

By your ground rules even if someone says something that is obviously wrong and incredibly stupid you should keep listening to what they have to say.

No thanks, if someone writes about something in the opening of an article or editorial that I know is blatantly wrong, I don't have much faith in much else they have to say. Sarah Palin, New York Times, both pretty dumb people that don't do their homework.

And no, based on the repetitive stupidity show in these threads, most people don't know the difference and buy into the whole "machine gun" lie and actually think these guns were illegal for a decade.

It's about incorrectly describing the legal status of a particular firearm under the 1994 AWB. The AR-15 was not banned, as such; it was merely illegal to manufacture new ones. And even this was in effect side-stepped by manufacturers who created "post-ban" configurations which lacked all but one of the objectionable features and renamed it (Colt called their the "Sporter," IIRC), thereby creating a firearm that was mechanically and ballistically identical to the prohibited weapon, but which did not meet the legal definition of an "assault weapon."

And, again, the 1994 AWB did not come to an end due to a "bipartisan retreat before gun-lobby propaganda"; that suggests the measure was repealed, whereas, in fact, it lapsed because the 10-year period granted it expired.

These are rather glaring inaccuracies indicating inadequate lack of effort to research the actual laws to which the piece refers. As for "the rest of the article," if you can describe to me what the point was that the authors were trying to make, I'd welcome that, because it seemed to me it was simply a four-paragraph way of saying "we don't think people should openly carry firearms in the same zip code as the president." Well, opinion duly noted, Gray Lady; we understand that you think only special, important people, like your publisher, Mr. Arthur Sulzberger Jr., should be allowed to carry firearms in public.

How deadly and powerful, so deadly and powerful that they had to be BANNED by federal law!!!



It would be more accurate for the NYT to say "Sales of some forms of this weapon were suspended until the 1993 law expired in 2004" but that doesn't set the tone the writer was hoping to set.


Emotion > facts, remember.

Next you are going to tell me that they are not really full auto assault rifles, but merely a semi-auto look alike.

The problem with being a gun grabber is that you have to exaggerate and lie to prove your case. Of course you can always rationalize your actions by saying that the end justifies the means.

The heathcare reform issue and gun control are similar. Those who oppose real reform, lie through their teeth and avoid actually discussing the fact that other countries enjoy far better and cheaper healthcare than the average middle class or lower class members of our society can get.

Harrumph. Huff. Puff. Outrageous.

Now, just be sure not to notice what was actually happening.

Carrying a firearm at a political demonstration is a symbolic message of defiance.

It is no different, and should be no less protected, then burning a flag, or hanging someone in effigy.

Over the last 8 years protesters on the left allowed themselves to be meekly shuffled off into free speech zones.

You don't see anyone shuffling these guys anywhere, do you?

Now this is largely due to having a new president who respects the rule of law more than the last one did.

But I'm sure a crowd of armed protesters is going to get hassled a lot less in any regard. No one wants to hear a second "shot heard 'round the world".

The expired federal "assault weapons" ban (1994 - 2004) only banned rifles with certain features. Sales of AR-15 type rifles increased dramatically before the ban took effect, continued during the ban, and have remained stronger than ever since the ban ended.

During the ban, existing "pre-ban" versions of the rifle were grandfathered and could be transferred without restrictions like any other used firearm.

(That weapon was banned in recent American history until a bipartisan retreat before gun-lobby propaganda.)

More bullshit. The reason the AWB ended was that it had a 10-year sunset clause. That was needed to get it passed in the first place, and the fact that nobody was able to make a credible case for renewing it proves that it was ineffective legislation.

that with all these guns being displayed in public by wild eyed fanatics, that no one has been shot.

We all know that Guns=death. More Guns = more deaths.

And yet that old axiom hasn't held true in this scenario.

And for some reason every assassin we've had in this country did not open carry, but rather concealed their weapons.

And so far none have used an "assault weapon" -

So much for the old 'axiom'
:-)

Indeed. You'd think you people would get tired of typing it. I mean, given how you're the only ones who do, and all.


I wrote almost the same thing before I saw your post.

Separated at birth?

And the public may be getting kinda the point of it?

We are the racists, misogynists, right-wingers and gun thugs, and all your public spaces are belong to us.

And so they need not resort to hurling epithets .

Lot of impenetrable prose around here today.



Yes, I gather it's an allusion. Why you decided to aim it at me, I wouldn't know.

Just for your info, calling a thing what it is is not hurling an epithet. Too bad, so sad.

I wouldn't expect the ninnies at the NYT to actually know the limits of the law in NH or AZ, much less the actual effects of the '94 AWB.

Is there something special about this grouping of people (outside a secured perimeter, on the street) that is so much more dangerous than any other group of people carrying?

let alone fired a shot.
:eyes:

People with an IQ over room temperature realize that someone carrying a weapon in plain sight is FAR less likely to harm someone with it than a guy illegally toting one surreptitiously.

...because "hey, everybody else is bringin' em", and will get his toe stepped on and start firing.

AND with all those other guns around, what's to keep them from going off? Responsible owners? I hope so.

The new TN law allowing guns in bars also worries me.

I'm a north georgia native who grew up with guns, hunted with them and I have a healthy respect for them. A gun is just a tool, nothing more, nothing less.

I'd sooner carry a chainsaw to a political rally.

Carrying a running chainsaw is more like carrying a loaded gun....

I don't know, I just don't think its a good idea to carry a gun unless you plan on using it....they are dangerous in that a slip, or an accident with one can kill.

would be a if a guy walks into a supermarket holding a rifle and walks up to the checkout counter. "Just exercising my rights to carry" he says as people duck down in the aisles and the checker is frozen. It's just plain stupid.

.. in AZ, of all places. Small hunting town outside Vail. No panic or hand wringing.

eta: I was there to hunt Javelina, they were probably used to hunters.

I get congratulated for it.


O.K., sometimes I get ragged on a bit. It seems a few people think I should carry something more expensive than a Taurus. I usually offer to go get my Hi-Point...:shrug:

I'd been given to understand that Tucson was the good and decent part of Arizona ...


Edit - hey, interesting way to gauge public opinion, though.

Wear a gun and see how much negative reaction you get ... while you're wearing a gun ...

I'm sure your opinion means something... somewhere...

Where, o where, could that mythical place be?

Ah, yes, between you own ears.

Good night, peace be unto you.

With pistols, there's a perceived crucial difference difference between carrying a pistol in a holster, and holding one in your hand. Similarly, there is a difference between carrying a rifle slung over your shoulder, and holding one in your hands, especially if you've got either hand on the grip. That latter is, indeed, justifiable cause for alarm; the former, less so.

there's a perceived crucial difference difference between carrying a pistol in a holster, and holding one in your hand.

Because anybody looking at the former would understand that it would take a good, oh, 10 minutes for it to become the latter.

Does opposition to open carry cause the inability to notice that there are already over a dozen threads on this topic?

But panic does . Sense of urgency mostly .

Maybe they're all idiots.

should require accuracy and responsibility.

Just as the ownership of a firearm and its use under the Second Amendment (especially for self defense) should require enough responsibility to handle the weapon safely and only use it in proper circumstances and enough accuracy to prevent unnecessary injury to innocent targets.

How about if we ban a public display of anything that freaks out radical liberals or radical conservatives.

Who needs rights anyway.

The guys in the pic should be carrying.

NYT TIMES wrote:
It is hard to know what is more shocking: the sight of a dozen Americans showing up to flaunt guns outside the venue for President Obama’s speech in Phoenix on Monday, or the fact that the swaggering display was completely legal. We are all familiar with the right to bear arms and the noisome extremes indulged by its zealots. But is there no sense of simple respect due the nation’s elected leader when he ventures forth among the citizenry?

They think standing in some area near a building where the President is speaking while open carrying is disrespectful? That makes no sense at all. I wonder have they feel about burning images in effagy. This might be the first time I've seen the NYT suggest that political protesters be respectful. Its not a safety issue because the President was no where in the line of fire of these individuals openly carrying their firearms, supposedly.

NYT TIMES wrote:
One man strutted through the crowd with an AR-15 semi-automatic assault rifle slung over his shoulder. (That weapon was banned in recent American history until a bipartisan retreat before gun-lobby propaganda.) The man also packed a holstered handgun and completed this war-games ensemble with an ammunition clip in his back pocket. Such lethal parading, he announced, was legal under Arizona law and the public should “get kind of conditioned to it.”

And if people did "get kind of conditioned to it", open carrying of firearms that is, what would be the problem with that? Ohhhh, the NYT and anti-gun lobbies would have a much harder time fear mongering. So sad for them.

NYT TIMES wrote:
The local police and the Secret Service were aware of the armed protestors and noted that they were kept out of the guarded convention hall where Mr. Obama spoke. That is hardly reassuring, especially this summer when so many protestors seem to consider primal rage a reasoned political statement.

This part was interesting because the implies that the folks open carrying tried to get in to the town hall meetings, but were "kept out". As far as I know they didn't make any attempt to get in. But it appears that the NYT doubts the Secret Service is keeping the President safe. I think the NYT doesn't know what its talking about. I'll defer to the Secret Service. I'll defer evenif the SS changes its rules to prevent the open carry that we've seen so far.

NYT TIMES wrote:
New Hampshire is another “open carry” state. When Mr. Obama held a town hall meeting in Portsmouth on Aug. 11, gun-packing protestors were also there. As the television cameras zoomed in, one man preened as if in the O.K. Corral, his holstered gun strapped proudly to his thigh. What’s next? Citizens strolling in helmets and camouflage flak jackets? If we didn’t know better, we would think that the National Rifle Association would be embarrassed by such macho nonsense.

I have no idea what it means to preen as if in the OK corral. This is a strange metaphor to be sure. And then the editorial asks if citizens will stroll in helmets and flak jakets. Guess what, NYT, they can if they want and yet no one is doing so. But there are groups who have a history of fear mongering on gun issues. The NYT is doing its best chicken little, but they have nothing to go on because nothing has happened. Even chicken little had an actual acorn fall on his head.