OK - so toters show up to your protest - what do you do?

You are at an Occupy protest, like in Atlanta, where open-carry of a firearm is apparently legal.

A few zealous 2nd Amendment types show up obviously carrying semi-auto rifles and a handgun or 2, and mix with the protest.
They state the guns are loaded and legal, but they are doing their bit peacefully and otherwise are non-threatening.

Do you:

I would probably stay and try to stay away from the gun geeks. But just the presence of guns ups the chances for serious violence and injury.

And when they start, a few loaded AKs in the crowd can't be good. AT THAT time I think I would definetly be out of there!

Toters expect respect or fear. Laughter confuses them. Then they get angry. Then they start feeling embarassed. Finally, they sulk away.

Your poll doesn't indicate the teabaggedness of any of the other "toters", so maybe they're down with the movement like I am and just happen to "tote" like I do.

So what do I care?

:shrug:

Though some of us are trying to reclaim it...

That's a different kettle of teabags

Some people may carry signs I do not particularly care for. Still others may be wearing "lucky socks," or carrying a rabbit's foot. That happens in large protest movements. The guns are the same: they express that person's point of view on a specific section of the Bill of Rights, and/or is something that makes them feel more comfortable in what they believe to be a stressful situation. I have 100% confidence that, in time, they will undergo an internal transformation that makes it unnecessary to carry a weapon.

In a nonconfrontational manner, make it clear the guns are unwanted although the people toting them are welcome to stay minus their weapons. Maintain the position in a positive way that weapons have no place in a peaceful protest.

You are confusing the presence of objects with actions.

The presence of weapons has no place in a peaceful protest.

But if its legal, its going to happen. OWS is either open or its not. It will find a reasonable way to include the outliers or it will fail, be they the drummers or those doing open carry

OWS can be open and make their peaceful protest weapon-free.

since it will no longer be the 99%, it will be a much narrower demographic and get markedly less support

"Pragmatic" is what the wingnuts tell us what we should be, and we must not allow them to define us.

And open carry types are not the only outliers being threatened. Did you follow the controversy about drumming?

OWS can make it plain to all that the presence of weapons is unwanted without any use of "force".

It is both possible and desirable to be inclusive and to make it clear that the presence of weapons is not welcome in OWS.

Best to not fan the overly combustible flames of the gun-happy crowd.

The police will be all over him. Can't have those dirty peaceful hippies having guns ya know.

We are defined by our behavior.

as some here suggest over the drummers, the movement is done.

Sure it can. It can ask the gun toter to leave. It can make him or her feel unwelcome. It can establish an agreement on how to deal with him or her, as in not associating with.

Guns have no place at a peaceful protest. They are an implicit threat of violence. Period.

There are all sorts of outliers at the different encampments. This is no different.

Actions not objects determine is a protest is violent or not.

The cops are already assuming there are weapons in the encampments...

when social pressure works as well if not better.

And what the police assume is not the issue here.

Actually some here have suggested physical violence...

The social pressure may or may not work. Depends on the person/people. Look at the Ron Paul supporters.

They don't have to welcome people with guns.

There is a time and a place for them to protest for the 2nd Amendment. Having guns present just dilutes and confuses the message. I'd ask them to take it somewhere else.

Serious question!

Having guns present just dilutes and confuses the message.

What do you believe "the message" is? (And is there just one message?)

As long as it's legal, they are exercising their rights along with all the other 99%. You can't just pick and choose what rights you think others should have, and frankly, we need as many allies as we can possibly get and need to stick together.

It's about ECONOMIC JUSTICE. If banks and corporations were actively trying to disarm Americans (tell me, where does the NRA stand on banks and corporations), then yeah, there's no problem. No one should be trying to hijack this movement, and anyone who's trying to make it about the 2nd Amendment is doing just that.

Excluding them could be a grievous mistake.

No one says they can't be there. But they should be there as Occupiers, not Second Amendment advocates. Their guns are a distraction from the message. And it might encourage other peaceful participants to go home.

Sort of surprised there were not sooner.

Interesting.

Again, this is not and was never intended to be a Second Amendment protest. Gun toters are becoming the story and distracting from the real message. Maybe that's what you want? While the Second Amendment is in no danger at all, economic justice is.

They have as much right to be there as anyone else. If you want a more focused and pure movement, go start one.

Do you not believe in personal choice?

Is that reason sufficient enough to do them at an Occupy protest? I'd say the same thing if homosexuals tried to make Occupy about LGBT rights, too. It's a distraction from the original message.

Wanting to do so is sufficient reason for any free person to engage in any lawful activity.

I just want them to respect the message and spirit of the protest.

And I support their right to do so.

But it's still disrespectful to do that. And if you can't respect the protest, you should leave.

Deal with the differences and the outliers or start your own movement where you are in control of things.

It changes the conversation. What don't you understand?

Those who have their undies twisted need to chill and get on with things

It is really not going to make any difference

As you say, OWS media relations are already FUBAR. Having open carriers only makes that situation worse.

and the right to shove my metal penis in your face. Why don't you understand?

political ideology from the left to the right whether they're 2nd Amendment gun rights advocates or people that don't need to own or brings guns to the table as coming together in support of people over corporations and economic justice.

The radical reich wing of the Republican Party and/or the corporate media can hardly point to the Occupiers for economic justice as just being gun hating "hippies," when peaceful people with guns are at the same demonstrations in solidarity primarily focused against the destructive greed of corporate supremacy and Wall Street.

Get used to it.

Get used to it

You're arguing that the Jim Crow laws were OK because they were...laws.

and it is. Nothing inherently evil about open carry.

Your argument is bankrupt.

That's why originalism, and your argument, both suck so badly.

Every anti-war rally gets the Free Mumia crowd and the Palestinian flag contingent trying to sidetrack things -- it's the nature of the beast.

I don't see a problem with pro-gun Leftists.

Out of the 4,359 issues that OWS has... this is the one that is a no go?

You can scan the crowd and easily see 100 different messages.

...to make it about economic justice. If the purpose of the protest is economic justice, then the "armed" status isn't an issue. Neither is a bunch of other stuff, like race and sexuality.


If several gay people show up to the protest waving anti-Wall Street signs, does the fact that they're "gay in public" mean that they should leave because they're *gasp* doing same-sex public display of affection, which could distract from the purity of the protest?


Frankly, the way that Wall Street has screwed over the rural, gun-owning conservatives means that they should be there with urban liberals waving anti-Wall-Stree signs as well.


Having said that, I don't think it's a particularly good idea to open-carry at an OWS protest in the same way that the aforementioned gay people don't need to be having gay sex in public to make the point that gay people are part of the 99%.

What's the point? Do you have to have your gun on you at all times, even when joining in on a OWS protest of Wall Street?

The moment you start excluding people from the 99%, it's not 99% any more.

Any super-majority is going to include some people you don't like, or who behave in ways that you don't approve of. Tolerance and acceptance are essential to maintaining solidarity.

It's the guns that we're talking about excluding. If people can't separate themselves from their guns, it's their own damn fault. They are openly welcome without their guns.

is when you assume it's an urban-vs.-rural thing.

I urge you to re-think that.

He's/She's the one who mentioned rural gun owners. I was just going with his "meme".

People can bring drums, guitars, shitty pieces of artwork that they think are great, and if legal in the area, they can bring guns.

If the protest is on public grounds, then no amount of whining is going to change it. If a GA actually said they weren't welcome, the GA woudl be shit out of luck unless it somehow became owners of the "public" grounds.

...to make it about economic justice. If the purpose of the protest is economic justice, then the "armed" status isn't an issue. Neither is a bunch of other stuff, like race and sexuality.


If several gay people show up to the protest waving anti-Wall Street signs, does the fact that they're "gay in public" mean that they should leave because they're *gasp* doing same-sex public display of affection, which could distract from the purity of the protest?


Frankly, the way that Wall Street has screwed over the rural, gun-owning conservatives means that they should be there with urban liberals waving anti-Wall-Stree signs as well.


Having said that, I don't think it's a particularly good idea to open-carry at an OWS protest in the same way that the aforementioned gay people don't need to be having gay sex in public to make the point that gay people are part of the 99%.

Or better yet, hope they go away.

If it was illegal, the cops would have pinched them before they got there.

assholes

Second and Third go hand in hand...

Third Amendment subordinates military authority to civilian control and safeguards against abuses that can be perpetrated by standing armies and professional soldiers.

:patriot:

If the cops do not arrest the person, presumptively they are doing it legally. Let it go and continue protesting. It is a non-event

More of an event then say totally unarmed protests?

What if Atlanta was about to be treated by the LE like Oakland was? Would it be an event then?

Violence is actions, not objects. All of the encampments have had minor scuffles or more associated with them. Nothing major (from the protesters), but when you gather that many people without any screening and are unstructured, a few rough spots are to be expected. No one, not even the M$M is calling the movement "violent".

If the police were about to rush the encampment, they would make sure that anyone identified as having a firearm was sidelined ahead of time, even if they were carrying it legally.

You guys are funny.

Very calm environment

Please give me an example of a metric we can use. This is fascinating.

The open carry types have as much right to be there as anyone else. They can come and go as they please.

The prior post claimed the encampments are a high emotion and therefore tense environment. They certainly are not.

At moments OWS has been very highly-charged. You're claiming at those times it's no more dangerous with guns around?

you are making much to much out of this. Multiple encampments have had open carry supporters present. Nothing has happened.

Some encampments surely have had occupants who were carrying concealed legally as well, and yet the movement lives on.

People are getting the undies in a twist for nothing.

being as 'gentle' as they were if some of the protestors mixing it up with cops were visible armed, IF legal...or if it was discovered after arrests that some detained had been carrying concealed, IF legal. I would definitely think about the results as being a LOT more then 'worrying about nothing'.

Maybe I am wrong overall, but quite certain the cops would treat the situations MUCH differently.

Noting that not all weapons are firearms

It will not be the same. No way. no how.

Like most people, cops have too much to lose to mess around when there a VERY good, VERY visible chance they could get shot.

They didn't do anything different while arresting & controlling protestors where all were unarmed as they did when some were armed?

The protesters did nothing to be arrested, and the cops kept their distance. The pols then changed the laws to make it much harder to do, but it still happens, as we are seeing at multiple OWS encampments

or NY Time Square interaction between cops and gun- armed protestors.

And it is a very good thing...because if there is, it will be REAL ugly.

Not usually too good a result as far as shoot-outs go.

Interesting, that....

Have they been "walking police barricaded" along and controlled, pepper-sprayed?

Which means it is legal and the cops know they are there.

were visibly armed?

I believe the presence of armed Americans legally carrying will prevent an Oakland type event. In Oakland, the cops actively attacked people who were helping a person who had fallen, and a woman in a wheelchair.

Every single time a veteran stands up to them, they back down. They abuse the protesters because they can get away with it, and they get on a power trip. Armed citizens, and veterans who are unafraid of them force them to take the people seriously. I'm not saying that anyone should fight back - to the contrary, it's important to remain peaceful. You can be peaceful, however, and still legally carry. Police aren't going to threaten, tear gas and beat an armed citizen without good reason, because it would put them in harms way. Bullies don't attack people who can defend themselves.

But then again, they might not have. It's completely different to be facing someone that is capable of defending themselves than it is to throw flash grenades at people that can't defend themselves. That's bullying behavior. They weren't doing "police work". They were openly bullying people.

I have to ask the question a different way. I'm not inciting, I'm looking at people exercising their legal rights, and I'm not frightened by it.

We are the American people.

If you want to have a armed confrontation with the state, please do so on your own, and do not impose your nonsense on the rest of us.

You seem to think firearms = armed confrontation. It doesn't. It's human beings standing up for their second amendment rights. I can't even believe I'm arguing this on DU. People have been intimidated, threatened and had their FIRST amendment rights thrown out the window, and you get scared when they exercise their second amendment rights?

It's preposterous.

"I believe the presence of armed Americans legally carrying will prevent an Oakland type event. In Oakland, the cops actively attacked people who were helping a person who had fallen, and a woman in a wheelchair."

and

"You seem to think firearms = armed confrontation. "

Well yes, when the police come to forcibly evict the armed demonstrators what you will then have is an armed confrontation. Firearms by themselves are of course not "an armed confrontation". That requires humans to be carrying those weapons in a confrontational situation. Firearms deployed by demonstrators in Oakland prior to the eviction would have resulted in exactly that: an armed confrontation. That would have been the worst possible thing this movement could have done.

You may have a firearm, but you don't have to use it.

But our Constitution guarantees legal rights to those who do, and exercise their inherent rights. That's why they were there to begin with, and why it is so dangerous to have them become eroded.

and sidearms & MP-5s are more readily used as 'crowd control' along with flash grenades & nightsticks.

I don't apologize for it starting somewhere. It may get messy, but you need to understand, that there are people willing to put their own bodies on the line.

Do you fight that type of conviction with rhetoric, or do you stand up and say, "Oh, they are right".

I advocate nothing, but I will stand up for everything.

especially not forever.

If some want to get shot, I would have no issue standing up for their right to do so (from as far away as possible).

If others want to take stupid actions that can likely cause OTHERS to get shot - well, fuck them!

Somebody has to stand shoulder to shoulder.

weapons noted, tracked and dealt with first. In fact, in a situation like Oakland, they would have a sniper or 2 ready with rubber bullets if it even looked like Mr. AK was drawing or readying his weapon. They would be the first targeted.

While I think bringing an obvious assault weapon like an AK is a mistake for messaging reasons, to worry about it should shit happen initiated by the police is not reasonable. It could be argued that by presenting themselves as targets they are making the rest of the protestors safer.

However i think what some worry about is not someone like me carrying but rather some unstable toting bagger or christofascist with an attitude, an ax to grind, a martyr complex, and an itchy trigger finger. However, by participating in a protest I think one must accept that one is placing oneself in danger already.

Bottom line, either the 99% means something or it is a meaningless slogan. If they are there and you have an issue then call a GA and hash it out. We have more in common that the neocon culture has attempted to make us think. Yes even me and my dumbass ignorant teabag brother in law. If nothing else we both love his kids. Start with that commonality and go from there.

They are exercising their 1st and 2nd amendment rights. *I* wouldn't do it - show up with a gun - but that's their right as American citizens. You can't just pick and choose what rights you think other people should have.

If I'm with my family, I leave... no point consciously placing them in an environment in which the risk of accidents increase due to the arrival of a demographic. If alone however, I merely do my best to avoid them whilst still acting/working within the parameters of the event.

:crazy:

Indeed. This particular demographic...

"A few zealous 2nd Amendment types show up obviously carrying semi-auto rifles..."

To me, this demonstrates one of the issues with folks who tote -- they don't care what impact they have on society, a protest, a peaceful day in the park, or whatever. Just because something is legal, doesn't mean anyone should engage in it, especially in a large city.

Damn, I thought I was one of the few reasonable thinking people on DU. I don't feel so lonely now the 2A bullies are seriously outnumbered.

As is paying taxes on time and in the correct amount, not deserting from the army during an unjust war, and an entire host of other free choices with unenviable consequences.

We asses a situation not of our making, weigh the consequence with the end result being a choice we'd rather not have been compelled to make in the fist place.

whom do they feel the need to protect themselves against?

When the object of the protest is big banks and corporations.

OWS is an open movement without membership restrictions. There are all sorts of outliers and they are as legitimate as anyone else.

If you find you can not accept that, go start your own more limited movement.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The protest is against the banks. The banks control the government. The government controls the military and law enforcement. Oakland demonstrated that the banks have no qualm in using violent force to disperse these protests.

It's not a bad thing to remind TPTB that we're fully capable of fighting back if they get too oppressive.

toters should have their own camp

What would Jesus pack?



(or would it be a 6 pack?)

Thats a good lesson for teathuglians to learn as well.

I would get some pics of the person though, just in case he or she is an agent provocateur.

small piece on me somewhere at all times
i have all needed permits for concealed carry so i might be one of the "toters"

why advertise?

are dying for a reason to riot and open carry would give them what they want so they could open fire

for my "UNION NOW" , "Healthcare is a Right" and Obama 2008 stickers. And it's an outdoor range with folks not on the line congregating by the cars 50 yards or so away to chat, eat, BS.

There are a HELL of a lot of gun owners who are mostly or entirely progressive; never EVER forget that the Brady's are Republicans.

I have found from personal experience that it really embarasses toters when everyone points and laughs. Open carry has the exact same goals as gangbanger signifying. They expect you to either respect them or fear them. Making fun of them really confuses the hell out of them. You completely destroy their silly game.

Admittedly, I do not usually do that with gangbangers. For one thing it has gotten difficult to tell the difference between gangbangers and everybody else as the exterior acoutrements have been co-opted by pop culture. Now I just assume they are *not* gangbangers and treat them like kids (which is to say, a somewhat goofy human being).

Be it gangbangers with their He Man Woman Hating Society secret handshakes, the Ku Klux Klan and their Grand Klubah, or a man walking around with a gun just because they can.

I remember when they passed concealed carry in Indiana seeing all those idiots strutting around with guns on their hips. My dad and I used to ridicule them mercilessly for the simple fact that it was ALWAYS legal to open carry. There just wasn't any reason to. Before or after.

Heck, I don't recall ever being in the truck without their being a loaded gun in the thing. It was a handy tool. But then so is my pecker. I don't see any particular reason to go showing that off in public either.

Though it is rather a nice one.

If they were carrying concealed, you didn't "see" anything.

I said we were making fun of them because they were carrying it openly which was always legal. If your response to passing a concealed carry law is to go everywhere in public carrying a weapon openly because apparently you fail to understand something yet feel very passionately about it, then you deserve to be mocked.

The Right to Laugh at Inadequacy-Maskers.

You support that right, don't you?

the RKBA is a constitutionally guaranteed civil liberty, something many gun control advocates seem to need constant reminding of... I see no problem with anyone exercising that right..

Seems like a co-opt to me.

then he has just as much right to be there as anyone else. You can speculate as to his reasons, but as long his carrying is legal, then I don't see a problem..

Unless, that is, gun owners can't leave their homes without their guns.

Its legitimate and legal.

Those who open carry to a protest are doing it to make a statement. Its not something they do every day.

For those with CCW paperwork and do it daily concealed carry would not be a statement.

Except for such demonstrations, I prefer concealed carry since it causes no alarm. There are those who get the vapors when the see a legal firearm...

Who is handing out membership cards and doing ideological purity tests?

What does that mean? Anarchy? Because if it's not anarchy, then it's not unstructured.

Who speaks for OWS nationwide or worldwide?
Who controls membership?
Who controls access to the sites?
Who enforces GA decisions?

Some of us who were active in the 60s have seen this before.

And when does it stop being a protest, and start being a circus?

Public location, non-exclusive use.

Did you read the posts about the issues with the drummers?

and peacefully exercising it is not against the law by any means, and is in fact, one of the things we founded our nation upon. They saw just this kind of thing coming.

History repeats itself.

That particular rifle may or may not be depending on a variety of factors in CA AWB

Assuming you live in Laguna Beach (as your profile says). The open carrying of unloaded rifles is perfectly legal in California, and the recent tightening of open carry laws applies ONLY to handguns. California law also limits a city or counties ability to further restrict those rights, so it should be perfectly legal to open carry a long gun anywhere in Orange County.

Once again, this is how the 1% has stayed in power: by using wedge issues to divide us and turn us against each other. We need to be united now.

Please read the OP and article WillyT posted about the 99% and unity without sacrificing principles.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2167260

the warning, but if you were to actually use that thing, I don't want to be anywhere in range.

In fact I would be more inclined to go if I knew the cops were going to have to think twice about mass arrests or a violent confrontation. We all deserve to be able to exercise our constitutional rights without fear of police reprisals and if we need to use the second amendment to back up the first amendment so be it.

More people would benefit from us exercising our rights as American citizens. If you carry legally, in my mind, you are protecting all of us.

Options 4 and 5 have a combined total of 49% of responses as of this post.

Almost half of DUers who've participated have a rational attitude toward OC. That's awesome.

that's the good thing about DU - the wide range of views.

...can show up to an Occupy rally and just stand there eating a sandwich... and the number of protesters will drop by 13%?

I'm sure the Cock brothers find this information useful.

Sheesh. Irrational fear, anyone?

I think they are Americans exercising their right to free assembly, open carry, and stopping the police from shutting them down.

Teabaggers are the 99%, too. I'm pretty scornful of them at times, but not all of them are racist haters with an impure motive. Many are just like the 99% - fed up with Wall Street greed, partisan politics designed to make sure there is no one in office that can do anything, and people that are willing to stand up for what is right.

Because, yanno, the OWS are all dirty commie hippie peacenik socialist lazy-asses begging for free handouts. ;-)

Oh! And we can't forget that the protesters want lots of job-killing regulation that keeps bootstrappy people from achieving and scares away the job creators

The teabaggers don't want to admit that they share any common ground with the OWSers beyond putting ketchup on french fries, despite being screwed just as much. Remember, these people vote for Republics. They put Cantor and Boehner and Walker in power.

I'm a big fan of that :D

:D

Perfect response :D

Shanti Sena means "Peace Scenes". Over the years, this has also been interpreted as "Peace Centers". The idea is that once must help focus an individual or a group of individuals that has collected around an incident towards a peaceful resolution. There is no truly organized group called Shanti-Sena that responds to all incidents. We are all Shanti-Sena. There are individuals with a lot of experience at peacefully helping resolve the more difficult problem, but anyone truly can and should respond to a call of "Shanti-Sena".

At some point after the Peace Scenes idea was firmly entrenched at Gatherings, it was discovered that the words Shanti-Sena (which were literally made up cause they sounded good) also had deeper meanings, hipstorically. Shanti Sena is also a Sanskrit word that means "Peace Doers". (sometimes the word Sena is incorrectly translated as "army") It was originally created by Ghandi in 1922 during the Indian Independence movement.

The idea is that anyone can call out "Shanti-Sena" at a Rainbow Gathering and people should come to help. This can be anything from a medical emergency, or a more serious criminal type of activity. (like theft, rape, assault) While many incidents can be handled by anyone willing to help, like looking for a lost child, some problems require more experienced help.

Over the many years the Rainbow Family has been gathering, several techniques have developed that work reasonably well within a consensus based tribal culture. As we have no leaders, and aren't even truly a definable group at all, and all security related incidents must be handled by the whomever is available, and this has lead to some interesting techniques. At a Rainbow Gathering, Shanti-Sena are considered to be more mediators and focalizers, than anything else.

http://www.welcomehome.org/rainbow/tech/shantisena/
.
In the case of a gun toting wingnut, Shanti Sena would probably call the police as well as closely follow the wingnut as a group in order to quickly recognize intent to harm, and hopefully restrain the wingnut before s/he had a chance to shoot anyone. Duct tape as needed.

Obviously, anyone that is deranged enough to bring a weapon into a crowded area to make some kind of sick point is unstable and dangerous.

In the multiple cases of people at encampments open carrying, the police had already checked them for compliance with the law.

In none of the cases has there been a shooting or even a threat.

False imprisonment or restraint gets those doing the restraining arrested and charged with felonies.

Open carry law is an affirmation of our 2nd amendment right. If you aren't threatening someone with your gun, and you have legal right to carry, you are legally exposing your right to bear arms.

People with right to legally carry don't run around shooting people. They retain their right to carry by obeying the law.

You should hold police officers more accountable than they have shown themselves, then you wouldn't have citizens scared to death and thinking they need to protect themselves with 2nd amendment open carry.

I'll take my chances if there is a good chance I will save someone's life, and they can throw my ass in jail.


This is what I wrote:

"In the case of a gun toting wingnut, Shanti Sena would probably call the police as well as closely follow the wingnut as a group in order to quickly recognize intent to harm, and hopefully restrain the wingnut before s/he had a chance to shoot anyone. Duct tape as needed."

"intent to harm"

So, are you saying that, if someone is aiming a weapon at a crowd of people, and it is apparent that this person intends to shoot someone, it would be illegal for a citizen or group of citizens to restrain the potential perpetrator in a sincere attempt to prevent the person aiming the weapon at the crowd from shooting someone? Or did you just miss the last part of my post?

This is what I was clearly stating, that there would be intent to harm.

A case like this would never even get close to going to trial, especially if there was a record of contacting the police regarding a possible crime.

that people who are for the second amendment aren't also for the ability of people to subdue attackers of the innocent. It's what the law is designed to do.

I'm not advocating that *everyone* carry a gun or take self-defense training, but I am advocating that you *can* if you wish to do so. We need to defend one another. There is nothing wrong with that, and never will be.

I grew up in the country, and just about everybody had guns. I own firearms. I have always lived in the country. Guns don't scare me/us at all. Nobody I have ever known has ever injured anyone with a firearm outside of a war.

What I'm saying here is that anyone who brings an openly displayed firearm into a crowded peaceful protest to make some kind of point needs to be watched, because they are not thinking clearly.

The chances that someone like this would be quite aware that they were frightening many people, and also that it was their intention to frighten people, are pretty high.

It's just stupid, and if they are trying to make a point, the only point that they are making is that some gun owners are either ignorant, or mentally/psychologically/emotionally unstable, and dangerous.

I'm a radical liberal. But I totally believe that the second amendment clearly guarantees us the right to bear arms.

I just hate to see stupid or mentally challenged people endanger this right through irresponsible or dangerous actions.

And I'm not afraid of gun ownership. I'm more afraid of people attempting to dictate rights over the rest of us.

The last thing I want is someone deciding that I don't need a gun to protect my family from wildlife.

with a firearm.

Walking into a large crowd of peaceful protestors at a political event in an urban area with an AK 47 strapped on your back is irresponsible. The rifle in this case is not going to be used for hunting gray squirrels or pigeons in Liberty Park, or to protect women and children from muggers/rapists.

The specific intent by an individual for carrying the weapon into a crowd in this type of scenario is to frighten people, (or maybe, additionally in some cases, to unconsciously express profound insecurity about personal "manhood" performance and/or caliber challenges). The crowd in the park would be justifiably frightened, because of the astounding number of well documented cases of wingnut shooters that randomly spray bullets into crowds of innocent people in this country, killing and maiming large numbers of folks that are just minding their own business.

In any case, there is no common sense reason to bring a firearm into a large crowd of protesters in a city park in the US, especially since there is almost always bunch of cops actively watching the scene.

The first thing I would think if I saw someone carrying a firearm into a crowd of protesters is, "What a jerk, he might be crazy".

I don't any longer. There is a concerted effort to brand anyone that owns a firearm and follows open carry laws as a nut job. What exactly did this guy do that is illegal or wrong? He followed open carry laws. Period.

This guy? He might be a conservative, and hey, he might be a nutjob, too. He's not breaking a single law, however, and frankly, he's the last person the police are going to fire teargas at.

I'm the last person to advocate violence, and certainly, not violence with firearms. The problem, however, is that peaceful people are getting their rights abused, specifically in Oakland. I wouldn't mind a concerned citizen openly, lawfully carrying if I was protesting. They are the last people to get bullied.

the police would not be at all inclined to commit acts of violence against the harmless innocent people at the protest. And it is very true, IMO, that a big reason for the founders putting the right to bear arms in the constitution was so that the citizenry could protect itself from totalitarianism if necessary.

Interesting. I actually kind of like that idea.
;-)
Whar's my rifle?!?

Peace!
:hi:

They wouldn't be so quick to attack the harmless if the harmless could protect themselves, and that's the reason for the 2nd Amendment.

Peace, cher, I think we agree on more things than we disagree upon :D :hi:

The mere presence of a firearm is not inherently dangerous.

The very URL you cited suggests NEVER apprehending anyone.

Leave that shit to the pros unless there is clear and unmistakable evidence that something is eminent.

Did I hit a nerve?

part of me is horrified and another part seriously thinks we should emulate that idea of the tea party.

We can win this thing without guns.

We may win, but not without most of the 99%. Those who are trying to "purify" the movement will end up killing it.

More facts, less platitudes.

and to say the Indian revolution and the nation of India are examples of non-violence is absurd.

as they treat guns at right-wing gatherings - whatever our reaction is and whether or not the gun toters are really supporters of OWS. They don't even treat unarmed peaceful nonviolent left-wing protest with the same reaction they show to most armed militia groups. The Tea Party movement are seen by the authorities and the media as allies of the capitalist system. Left-wing demonstrators are seen by the authorities and large parts of the media as enemies of the system and a threat to the order of things. I would be gravely concerned if this became too much of a trend. Perhaps if it is just one gun toter present in the middle of a peaceful atmosphere - perhaps it should only be ignored and quietly discouraged. No sense over reacting. But make no mistake - if they start seeing this movement as a threat to established power - the authorities will use extremely violent force and much of the media will support it. The presence of weapons may very well be their excuse. They won't have to make any explanations why it was okay for the Tea Party and not okay for the OWS,

Presenting the OWS movement as peaceful and nonviolent has done a lot to get the message across. Let's not blow it.

It's the same right to bear arms lawfully as the right has. I don't think the right will like it any less to have their own rights to open carry shut down.

Regardless, keep it peaceful, keep it legal. I have NO problem with citizens exercising their 2nd amendment rights, and more importantly, their 1st amendment ones.

Legally the authorities should not have done any number of attacks on nonviolent demonstrators while treating right-wing movements like the Tea Party with kid gloves. The question is how the authorities and the media will react. It will not be the same. The presence of nonviolent protesters has given the excuse to pepper spray people in the face and rip down tents. The presence of guns will give the excuse for much more violent measures including the probable use of lethal force if things get carried away. The Tea Party and Fox News is not going to come to the defense of left-wing demonstrators because of their commitment to second amendment rights. That's not going to happen.

Things go from dealing - eventually hands-on - with those who are mostly just annoying to those who are a viable deadly threat.

More restraint / less bullying? Maybe. Perhaps.

Extra jumpy LE and extra, more conspicious presence/use of thier own guns, along with extra (and justifiable) use of all levels of force? Oh yeah...Absolutley.

You have a choice, stand up for your rights, or have them taken away. Going home and being quiet has earned the American people nothing.

I have NO problem standing up for people exercising their first amendment rights. I have no problem when it comes to the second amendment, either, because I see what we are up against.

Legal, loud, and honest. Nothing wrong with that.

Could you remind me?

and failing to exercise their first amendment rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for_Defense_and_Justice

Armed blacks did not get the press that MLK got, but they were also there and had considerable impact in some localities

Thank you for bringing that to light, PP. A testament to the knowledge our community has is always welcome.

up. I however had family in the Deacons...