Supposedly a real gun was found in the toy section of a Target store that had recently had open carry demonstrators parading through the place with all weapons “exposed.”
INDIANAPOLIS, June 5, 2014 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — Responding to new reports that a loaded gun was found in the toy aisle of a Target in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America is today reiterating its call on Target Corp. CEO John Mulligan to prohibit the open carry of guns in its stores. Yesterday
source=prno_target&utm_source=pr_n_&utm_medium=_o&utm_campaign=target”>Moms Demand Action launched a petition to Target that has already been signed by 25,000 Americans who support the prohibition of open carry in response to a gun extremist group that held demonstrations with loaded assault weapons in Target stores (photos here). The petition to Target comes on the heels of similar demonstrations at Chipotle, Sonic, Chili’s and Jack in the Box that led these companies to take swift action to stand with Moms and enforce or adopt policies that prohibit open carry to protect the safety of their employees and customers.
“Assault rifles and guns don’t belong in the baby aisle, they don’t belong in the toy aisle – and they don’t belong in any aisle of the stores that American moms frequent like Target,” said Shannon Watts, Founder of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. “We are grateful that a store employee found this loaded gun and reported it to the authorities – but we have to acknowledge that this situation could have had a much more tragic outcome. This event underscores why it is so important for Target to stand with moms and support the safety and security of our children when we shop in their stores. It’s time for Target, a store that American moms flock to, to follow the lead of Chipotle and Starbucks and prohibit the open carry of firearms.”
Gun extremists have been demonstrating at Target stores to promote their agenda of intimidation in Texas, Alabama, Ohio, North Carolina, Washington, Wisconsin, and Virginia. Despite ongoing demonstrations, Target has still not instituted policies prohibiting open carry. Yet according to Target, mothers and women are an important part of the company’s customer base – 80 to 90 percent of Target’s customers are female and 38 percent of guests have children, a share the company says is higher than other discount stores.
Regardless, this is unacceptable behavior. Walking around armed to the teeth in a retail store is just no way to behave. There apparently is no sure for stupidity and bad judgement. These clowns are just throwing their weight around and basically being in-your-face bullies.
My sympathy is rapidly waning for any open carry that isn’t out in the country or hunting.
The WashPost had a article today about TSA getting annoyed at the number of travelers who “mistakenly” pack loaded guns in their luggage.
How can one NOT know that one has gun in the baggage?
Can anyone be so casual about weapons?
I seriously disapprove of this behavior. I believe it is bullying brought to a new art form.
“Texas, Alabama, Ohio, North Carolina, Washington, Wisconsin, and Virginia.”
I don’t think so.
Texas…yes. Those OCT guys. I just googled TARGET and GUN ACTIVISM. Only Texas showed up. Virginians don’t need to advocate for open carry. We already have it.
The gun found in the store, however, is not part of the activists. They have film of the guy that probably did it.
Shannon Watts likes to conflate things that are not related to pump up her statements.
@punchak
This part I agree with. I know where all my guns are.
I know where my keys and wallet are at all times too. But I’ve had times when I’ve misplaced them. One cannot carry something around on a daily basis without getting sloppy. This is where smart guns fix the problem of misplaced and mishandled guns. Carry laws should require minimum standards of safety to prevent unauthorized gun use. Child-proof triggers. Liability insurance. We have child-proof ignition switches on cars that prevent children from driving so we can do the same for guns …if the activists will allow it.
These people are so scared that they can’t go to a Target without a gun. They would wet their pants if they didn’t have a gun, haha!
Yes, there is something unstable or a weakness behind too much insistence. Guns and Depends!
Guns are a Viagra substitute for those without medical insurance or who are too embarrassed to see a doctor about E.D. I just wish they were all shooting blanks.
The Daily Show had a good segment on gun etiquette. There was some good advice in that segment, but they didn’t mention that you shouldn’t leave your loaded gun in the toy section. Shame on Jon Stewart for not including that important advice.
Thanks El Guapo. He really should have mentioned that omission.
And here I thought you guys wanted a serious discussion instead of just spouting childish projection and insults. I would have discussed the serious problems with Ed’s proposals.
Now I realize that talking with you about gun control, gun control dishonesty, idiotic OCT activity, solutions to crime and safety is useless since its all about insulting millions of people.
Well done.
And you wonder why we say NO to the things that you propose. Its obvious that you aren’t serious.
Cargo, believe trooping around in a retail store with weapons is childish and immature. What on earth is the reason for this behavior? It hurts store business and it frightens customers.
I think this behavior does deserve serious discussion.
Millions of people do not walk around with semi automatic weapons displayed in retail stores. I am not buying that. Let’s start with that. And sorry, I am not even going to worry about hurting anyone’s feelings on this one.
I don’t know if there was a gun left in the toy department or not. I believe I qualified that. However, we do see people in Target, Chipotle and Starbucks with rifles and what us commoners call assault rifles. There is no reason for that behavior and I feel it is unacceptable. If that insults you, sorry. It also means you really aren’t who I thought you were.
I remain completely baffled as to why anyone living in anyplace familiar to any of us around here would think he/she needs to go about their daily business armed to kill, whether with sidearms, long guns, knives, or hand grenades. There is no empirical basis for that sort of behavior. I assume there are a variety of psychological explanations. The unifying theme appears to be an inability to rationally assess risk, a problem that is not confined to gun carriers, but extends into a lot of personal and business activities these days. As I mentioned elsewhere on this site, the problem is that as we push state laws that permit more subjectivity in the assessment of life-threatening risk as defenses to killing or maiming with guns, we build in an incentive for further proliferation of gun use. I rationally assess the risk to my life (from causes that I could remedy with a firearm) when I go to the grocery store as minuscule, but as more and more people, without meaningful screening arm themselves against the same threats that I calculate to be of no statistical consequence, I have to start asking myself if my risk calculation continues to be accurate just because more and more people who might not be judgmentally, emotionally, or physically competent to handle deadly force have access to it in daily activities.
Bravo!
Well written Scout. While I completely support CC, and hope that more than just a few sane, law abiding folks around town do so for their own safety and the safety of others, I too have pause for open carry. I suggest to you that if those anti-gun types would calm down and stop using fake statistics and agressive legislative efforts to restrict ownership much less the right to carry and self protection- to include the demonizing of those who get involved in or use the right to stand their ground, you might actually see fewer people asserting their contitutional rights in your face. It really does not help, for example, if you were serious, to mix the legal carry discussion with carrying a live hand grenade.
I agree with you that while a rational assessment of risk is in play here – lets not forget the Billions spent of surveilance, private security and home security – a commitment to public service in CC is also at play here. And while the cops cannot be everywhere all the time, I am willing to bet that most people don’t realize how many local, State and Federal officers there are in our area that are armed all the time. That is not so true in other regions of VA or the country. Perhaps a place to start would be to permit– require – the DOJ to collect data a crimes prevented and mitigated by CC or open carry in order to bergin a more rational assessment of the risk.
@Moon-howler
Notice that I stated that the OCT habit of open carrying long arms was stupid and counterproductive. It is a political stunt that is backfiring. Myers is talking about ANY carry…not just long arm.
Pistol carry is done by millions across the nation.
As for the pistol found in Target…that was left there. The perp has been identified.
Your statements are not insulting. The others were.
@Scout
“There is no empirical basis for that sort of behavior. ”
Except for all the times that people HAVE used firearms in self defense, you would be right.
Except for that statement, well written.
@blue
Well said.
@blue
And how do you do that? That’s fairly subjective – even when the info is submitted by a police department’s report. Some Granny who thinks she’s seen the boogeyman in the yard decides to fire a warning shot. Legitimate firearm use? Or some neighbors get in a spat and one follows the other up to his front door. Is he in danger? Does he need to prepare to shoot the offender? Two drunks in a house argue and fight over a gun and in the struggle, it goes off injuring neither. Who’s the defender or are they both idiots playing with a deadly weapon.
It’s funny how pro-gun types want statistics kept on defensive uses of guns but wanted to hamstring the CDC over hospital emergency room data dealing with guns.
What most of you who want nearly all gun use unregulated don’t realize is that most of us are gun owners too. We just don’t feel threatened enough going about our daily lives to have our guns accompany us to Home Depot, Chipotle’s, the hair salon, or the winery.
I’m still convinced that the latest fad of carrying one’s gun everywhere is brought about not so much by a sudden desire to defend the second amendment as it is by fear- fear of change in our society, a fear that will subside as the fearful become more used to multiculturalism and the once scary becomes more mundane. I liken it to one of by siblings, a conservative, who is always about ten years behind any decorating fad. She recently installed that scary stainless steel in her kitchen just as it’s becoming passé.
I would love statistics on the number of CC “saves” but I bet, since it is a crime to brandish, that gun owners don’t want to admit to committing all those brandishing crimes so unless they have a kill there won’t be any data.
@Censored bybvbl
The police report data, which exists, will do just fine to start a more reasoned discussion.
I don’t think it’s motivated by fear of Big Scary Black People as much as it is them just being assholes. They’re being assholes to make a political point, and shoving it in everyone else’s face, so I somewhat agree with Moon’s position that it’s bullying behavior.
I think the free market is correcting this behavior, though. We’ve seen several establishments put out statements that this sort of thing is not acceptable on their premises, which is 100% their right. I know if I managed a property/retail/eating establishment I wouldn’t want this shit going on.
I’m not going to agree with any of the shrill bleating about how we need more laws, but these people need to check themselves.
Bravo, Cato. totally agree. You called it like it is.
@Cato the Elder
I agree that the free market will take care of it. Establishments aren’t going to like the liability or negative publicity – or patrons fleeing out the doors without paying their tabs.
@Censored bybvbl
The CDC is NOT hamstrung in gathering data about guns, gun injuries, emergency room data, etc.
The only thing that they cannot do is conduct “research” in order to advocate against the 2nd Amendment…..as the CDC director ADMITTED was the purpose of the studies.
In fact, Obama had the CDC produce a report just last year. In that, they discovered that restrictive gun laws had little affect on crime and that their low estimate of defensive gun use was about 108,000 times per year.
@Cato the Elder
You are right.
Just because you can do something, does not mean that you SHOULD do something.
All of this was brought about Open Carry Texas protesting Texas gun laws. They acted ineptly and stupidly.
Actual open and concealed carry, 99%+ of which is handguns, has been going on, where allowed, for decades with no problems.
@Censored bybvbl
None of the things that you fear….patrons running off….happen.
But should people open carry hand guns? Why do it? It is just a matter of degrees. Long gun, short gun, both make people who don’t know you ill at ease.
@Cargosquid
See how many patrons will wait for their tabs when a bunch of asshats enter a family style restaurant carrying long arms – just because they can.
What do you fear if the CDC conducts research?
I see no difference between people carrying long or “short” weapons. If it’s OK to carry sidearms openly, why is it not OK to carry long guns openly. The Texas ban on open carry of sidearms IS irrational in a world where the same state permits concealed carry of the same weapons. That policy is precisely backwards. Require open carry so all citizens know just how far this has gone. One of the reasons concealed carry advocates like it is that the know how disturbing it is for the general population to see firearms being carried in non-sensical situations. They are concerned that there might be and adverse public reaction if we knew just how many frightened people were dealing with their insecurities by arming themselves with deadly force.
By way of data collection, we could do a small sample poll of our colleagues on this site: How many of us (whether we carry or not) have been in situations where we either have had to employ deadly force to protect lives or where, if we had had a deadly weapon on our persons, would have lawfully deployed deadly force to stop a situation that threatened life? Of course, the context of the question is one when we are going about out daily civilian business in our communities. I’m not talking about law enforcement work or military experiences.
In own personal civilian experience of walking around as an adult for the last half century, the number of such occasions is zero. I have had one situation in where I unknowingly walked in on a burglary and hostage-taking in progress in the district of columbia (where I could not have been lawfully carrying in any event). Hypothetically, however, I am very glad I was not armed. No one ended up being hurt. If I had had a firearm, I would have been unable to use it, the bad guys probably would have ended up with it, and people would have been hurt.
I guess a variant on that question is how many of us have been in situations where carrying concealed enabled us to prevent loss of innocent life in a situation where carrying open would not have had the same benefit. I used to occasionally carry open between residence and range. I have never understood, however, why carrying concealed has any advantage over carrying open other than that not as many people think you’re nuts.
Scout, My experiences are the same as yours. I’ve never wanted a gun for protection. I’d add to your inquiry the question of how many people have been damaged by someone else’s gun used improperly. Several people I know have been killed by a gun — suicide. One was killed accidently by gun. I’ve been shot at by hunters not careful with their guns. A bullet from unknown source has damaged our house. More guns in public increases the probably I’ll be a victim of a gun accident without reducing my risk of becoming a victim of violent death which is near 0.
We know that there are a lot of gun deaths in the country. I’m trying to isolate the issue of whether there is any empirical justification for people living in suburban Northern Virginia (or suburban Rest of Virginia, for that matter) are encountering, as they go about their daily business, instances in which the lawful use of deadly force was necessary. I realize we have a small sample here, but we do have people here who carry concealed, carry openly, don’t carry, or, like me, in my effort to visibly assert my Second Amendment right to bear arms, never leave home without wearing a cavalry sabre (obviously, I carry it openly). I assume the only reason to carry a firearm in these parts is the expectation that one will have to use it to preserve one’s life or the life of another innocent person. No other use would be lawful or, at a minimum, no other use would make it a necessity to carry deadly force. So my question is – how many of those situation have we experienced collectively? I started the bidding with zero, in my case. The follow up question for those who are encountering these situations is whether, in your experiences of employing deadly force to save one’s life or the life of another, it made a difference whether you were carrying open or concealed.
none
@Scout
@Scout
None.
@ed myers
I’ve had a window in my shed shot by a bb gun- probably shot by one of the three boys we (the neighbors) reported to the police a few years ago. It was probably done accidentally while trying to shoot squirrels. I’ve also run a neighbor off my property recently when he had a long gun aimed at my squirrel feeder. And I’ve had a neighbor run to my house late one night claiming that his roommate was trying to shoot him. (He apparently was satisfied with shooting the tires on the guy’s van instead.) But I’ve never felt compelled to carry a weapon outside of my house while gardening or walking my dogs.
@Censored bybvbl
The carry of long guns is a political statement in Texas by an activist group.
Most open carry is not even seen or is ignored. There is no mass rush away from those open carrying. I’ve open carried and had no problems at restaurants, the grocery, etc. I open carried then because I didn’t have a conceal permit and it is allowed in Virgina. It was an experiment for me since I had never done it. My experience is that most people don’t even see the gun…depending on how its being carried.
I don’t fear CDC research. I object to political activity that is disguised as research. Those involved ADMITTED that they were building studies in order to promote a preconceived gun control agenda. That is what the ban on funding actually bans…..tax money being used to advocate against 2nd Amendment freedoms. Funny how ALL “research” stopped…almost as if they didn’t actually want objective data. Of course, that amount that is banned is about 1% of the budget.
@Moon-howler
Open carry laws allow inadvertent exposure of a concealed firearm to be legal.
Also, remember, open carry was MANDATORY just a couple of years ago, in places that serve alcohol. Then the new law allowed concealed carry.
@Scout
“concealed carry advocates like it is that the know how disturbing it is for the general population to see firearms being carried in non-sensical situations. ”
Not true. No evidence that normal open carry of pistols disturbs the general populace
As for deadly force..no I haven’t had to use my pistol for defense. There are times that I am glad that I had it available.
@Cargosquid
The NY Daily News is a bit “too too” for my taste, but it nails it with this article:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/funds-studies-gun-violence-article-1.1809263
Is the NRA not politically motivated as well?
I’ve seen a lot of evidence that open carry by non-police officers disturbs the civilian population, Cargo. What kind of evidence are you looking for? I’ve probably had a hundred conversations with people over the years either sniggering or horrified at the idea that some person who has no particular reason to be carrying a gun has walked into a public place of business with one strapped on. The first assumption is that these guys are police officers. When it is apparent that they are not, people either roll their eyes at what kind of fool would want to go around with a gun, or are outraged about it, or both. When I see someone carrying a gun (either open or carelessly concealed) my first operating assumption is that there’s something amiss with that person. If it turns out that they are law enforcement, I relax a bit. If not, I keep my distance and enlarge it as quickly as I reasonably can. I don’t think that is an atypical reaction.
@ Cargo again: today was an absolutely beautiful day for this time of year. I sure was glad I had my antiquated German roadster available for a quick trip down the GW parkway to get some things I needed from the office. I was glad earlier in the day that I had my bicycle for a trip down to Mt. Vernon and back. But I don’t really need either the old roadster or the bicycle. The purpose of this informal survey is not to figure out who gets happy vibes from carrying guns, but whether there has ever been an instance where people have had to employ deadly force to protect innocent life. That’s the lawful reason for a civilian to use a gun. I’m trying to get a feel for how much that happens around suburban Virginia. So far, the returns are trending toward zero, albeit from an admittedly small sample.
@Scout
Don’t forget…defensive gun use does not always equate to deadly force.
That is a good point, Cargo. The anecdote Steve shared here is an example of defensive gun use. No one ever said gun or saw gun, from what I could tell from his story.
@Cargosquid
But does it threaten the use of deadly force – a hand moving toward a waistband or slightly touching a vest? The implication of the potential for deadly force would be there.
@Censored bybvbl
Since I’m not a lawyer…..I cannot tell you if that would constitute a threat of deadly force.
If I was a criminal and saw the gun presented in any way, I would take the statement as, ” Don’t mess with me….I’m prepared to defend myself.”
Sounds like a standoff. Someone packing would see another armed individual reach for his gun as aggression and an imminent threat. Both erroneously think the other is a criminal out to do them serious harm. They would then have to either retreat or shoot first. We’ve all seen this in the movies; we don’t need this in real life. That slight movement towards the waistband has been enough of a threat for police to be cleared of misconduct when they kill the victim even though he was unarmed.
I don’t recall Steve’s anecdote, so I can’t comment on that. But a loaded gun in working order is always a deadly weapon, Cargo. That’s the point. Anyone going out to the Home Depot with a loaded gun must have gone through the thought process that a life-threatening force may be awaiting him/her somewhere between residence and the gas grills by the parking lot, or in the store itself. My survey is seeking to determine how many times everyday folk around here have had to kill or wound a malefactor, or otherwise lawfully produce a firearm to prevent the loss of innocent life, their own or someone else’s.
I cant find it now either.
Thank God our rights aren’t conferred upon us on the basis of whether or not people like Scout believe that we need them.
@Cato, the 2A does not trump the inalienable rights of others to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. If you don’t need a gun to protect yourself and carrying a gun harms others, then your right to carry a gun has to yield to other people’s fundamental rights.
The right is there, Cato. Not arguing about that. It’s your right, my right. I’m talking about judgment, good sense, and how humans act in a civilized democratic society.
Taking it just a bit further, the right is subject to reasonable regulation by the state. I’m all for the right, but would highly favor regulation that includes competence testing, screening for mental illness and past criminal activity, and mandating that those who carry around weapons do so visibly (my idea is day-glo pink outer holsters) so the rest of us can avoid them. All such measures are perfectly consistent with Second Amendment rights.
The US is the 3rd highest in the world in the number of murders per 1,000. Think about that in the context of what is going on in the world and it should scare the hell out of all of us. However,
If you take out the murders committed in Chicago, Detroit, DC and New Orleans, the number per 1,000 falls to 4th from last. That too is scary, but these are the cities with the toughest gun control regulations.
Just sayin.
@ed myers
You are dreaming. This keeps NOT happening. But please continue with the improbable scenarios. You are a very good example of the paranoid gun control bigot. As for the police, they need to be held accountable to the same standard.
The 2nd does not infringe upon any other right. You are putting forth a straw argument. Your statement, “if you don’t need a gun to defend yourself” is irrational. First, you don’t get to decide what I need. Second, no one knows whether they might need the gun. Carrying makes it available if the need arises.
@Scout
“reasonable regulation”
The problem is that your definition of reasonable is not mine.
@blue
“The US is the 3rd highest in the world in the number of murders per 1,000.”
No we aren’t. We’re not in the top 40.
Even in “gun murders” according to Wiki… we’re 15th per 1000. Based on 2011 numbers.
The cities and countryside with lax gun regulations provide the guns for criminals. If one’s gun is used to kill someone the owner should be held responsible in the same way that car owners are held responsible if some steals their car and kills someone. Civil, not criminal, but still responsible for negligence.
@Cargo, In reality the odds are that the gun you carry around will kill you or an innocent person rather than save someone’s life. I realize you block these stats out of your mind to protect your fantasy. Your inability to accept reasonable regulation proves that you are not a supporter of the vision for a peaceful, non-violent civil society. Every time you strap on your gun and walk to the mall you are thinking whether today will be your opportunity to kill someone.
@ed myers
What a crock.
I don’t need a gun, I have never needed a gun and I hope I never need a gun. However, should I ever need a gun – be it due to a Katrina like disaster with orchastrated looting or your the government gone bad, I had better have the gun and the ammo necessary– so I have both. What gun control idiots do not understand is that they are creating — hmm expanding — the environment for more violence. Violence where criminals take advantage of an unarmed citizen and violence caused by a government that seeks to disarm its citizens. And if the Government ever says you cannot have a gun, history tells us that that is when you need one the most, before its too late.
Actually I think it is attitudes like yours that increase violence.
The government comment is just …creepy. Why would you say that?
You must not sleep well at night.
Care to expand on this? Isn’t this the fantasy of some of the militias in this country – to be able to violently overthrow the elected government because it doesn’t jive with their fantasies about what the 21st. century U.S.A should be?
@blue
@Cargo: I guess I don’t expect you to agree on my examples (not definitions) of reasonable regulation. But, frankly, it doesn’t matter. These types of regulations would have to be legislatively imposed. I’m not naive enough to think that there are many places where there are conscientious enough legislators to form a majority to enact mandatory open carry or to impose meaningful qualifications for gaining permits. Nonetheless, the Constitution states clearly that the gun-carrying population should be well-regulated and the Supreme Court has strongly suggested in the last two major decisions it has issued (as well as its silence in rejecting some recent challenges to local regulations) that the right to bear arms is not absolute in the sense that it evades regulation by the state. As time passes and we have more incidents, some legislatures some place will start acting sensibly. At some point within the next twenty years, the Court will take up a challenge and we’ll learn more about where reasonable regulation starts and ends.
@blue, your argument is that violence is the solution to social problems? Threat of death is not an acceptable response to theft of private property in a civil society. Armed resistance to government is civil war and can only be justified if government is exterminating its citizens…a group version of the rules for self defense. Civil war over property isssues such as taxes or health care policy is not an acceptable use of violence. You are getting too close to the philosophy of the Millers in Arizona.
Guns for hunting is OK but frankly the sport has been ruined by military hardware. The deer should have body armor to make it fair. Guns for self defense in cases of imminent bodily harm with high probability of death is OK. Guns as a toy or a gun collection is OK. But use of guns to intimidate others, to compensate for one’s insecurities, or to make one feel sexy are not valid reasons to walk around with deadly force and risk the lives of others.
If gun owners add safety features to their guns that prevent accidental shootings and diversion into criminal use, then we can let them use guns as a Viagra substitute. For now the risk to others is too high to allow guns to be part of everyday life.
Bravo! Great points made.
I don’t think we can ignore the fact that the “tools” people are strutting around with are capable of killing the entire crowd in a restaurant or mall. I really believe it infringes on my rights to have to leave a place because of those people’s bad behavior.
@Ed Myers
You are a progressive’s progressive thats for sure with a progressive’s ability to avoid the issue.
Its not about social problems – just call everyone who disagrees with you and your agenda a racist – its easier. It is about living free, small government, self reliance and responsibility, protecting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, but I don’t expect that is meaningful to you becase like most progressives in history the equality of the ends justify the means. Clearly, Jefferson and others are not your kind of Americans, especially when they called for revolution over taxes, property rights and representation.
But more importantly, I see you take smug exception to the notion that progressives and their gun control ideology – one that that is designed to make the whole Country more like Chicago and Detroit and Washington DC have made things worse – not better. That is why the Tea Party exists and is growing – to push that ideology back.
That push back has gone into overkill and that is why they will not prevail.
You are just as offensive to Ed, by the way.
I am not sure you are giving Jefferson the proper attributes. As a native Charlottesvillian, I don’t recall his beliefs expressed exactly that way. Maybe the University of Virginia left something out.
Bwahahaha! I guess it’s best to be a Regressive with no ability to address an issue without resorting to trite bumpers sticker slogans and talking points from FAUX News.
@Censored bybvbl
That situation IS the reason the 2nd amendment exists. In the unlikely event of a tyrannical gov’t, an armed citizenry has a chance of resisting.
@Scout
“Nonetheless, the Constitution states clearly that the gun-carrying population should be well-regulated and the Supreme Court has strongly suggested in the last two major decisions it has issued (as well as its silence in rejecting some recent challenges to local regulations) that the right to bear arms is not absolute in the sense that it evades regulation by the state. ”
Actually the Constitution says exactly nothing about regulating the armed populace other than the statement that the right of the citizens cannot be infringed. The “well-regulated” part applied to the organized militia and means well trained and supplied.
As for those strong suggestions…. please..point them out. The only statement related to that was Scalia’s mention that traditional restrictions that already exist are not affected by this decision. Now we are in the process of discovering where those limits might be.
Strictly speaking, the state should not have the power to restrict a right of a law abiding citizen, per the 2nd amendment. But the constitution has not been interpreted that way. We are in the process of finding out where the states’ authority actually lies now that the 2nd has been incorporated against the states.
@Ed Myers
“Threat of death is not an acceptable response to theft of private property in a civil society. Armed resistance to government is civil war and can only be justified if government is exterminating its citizens…a group version of the rules for self defense.”
Nope. Can’t shoot someone for stealing. You can, however, shoot them if they threaten you by entering your home uninvited and illegally. You are not required to trust to their kindness.
Armed resistance to the government IS civil war. And if the gov’t should ever become tyrannical, that is the duty of all Americans to do so. The allegiance is to the country and Constitution. The government is supposed to work for you. Why would you wait until the gov’t is killing people? Would you not fight if the gov’t restricted your rights, prevented any chance of recompense, prevented a change in gov’t, and was imprisoning people?
“Guns for hunting is OK but frankly the sport has been ruined by military hardware.”
Complete and utter BS. All hunters must still follow hunting laws. Most hunting rifles are MORE powerful than “military hardware.” Secondly, no one hunts with “military hardware.” AR-15’s are identical to any other semi auto rifle.
“But use of guns to intimidate others, to compensate for one’s insecurities, or to make one feel sexy are not valid reasons to walk around with deadly force and risk the lives of others. ”
Your interpretation of why someone is carrying is not a valid reason to pay attention to your attempt to disarm them. You don’t get to decide what they need. Use of a gun to intimidate someone is against the law. Merely carrying a gun legally does not fall into that category. And so far, in all my years of discussing guns…only gun control bigots like yourself keep bringing ups some weird ideas about being “sexy.”
And when you resort to idiotic insults like this: “If gun owners add safety features to their guns that prevent accidental shootings and diversion into criminal use, then we can let them use guns as a Viagra substitute.”
…we know that you have no argument, that you are merely a bigot, and you have an unhealthy fixation on the genitalia of gun owners.
So, if you decide to rejoin the conversation as an adult, I might pay attention to you.
I don’t think strutting around armed to the teeth in public is adult like at all. Its infantile behavior and it frightens people and rightfully so. If I pumped into one of those A-holes I would have no idea whether they meant me harm or not. I would assume yes.
Yes I think they are assholes and with no apology. Do they need Viagra? Who knows and I can’t think of any women I know who would want to even find out.
@Censored bybvbl
You mean…like you just did. You presented no argument. You merely jumped to the liberal bumper sticker of “FAUX News.”
@Moon-howler
Every establishment can ask people to leave or not allow arms.
The open carry of long arms is backfiring on the Open Carry Texas people.
You do what you have to do.
FAUX NEWS is not a bumper sticker. I invented FAUX NEWS.
Drum roll por favor!
Also, the open carry bullies deserve whatever comments get made about their genitalia. I thought Censored was being nice, actually. I am going to say something in code and you all can read what you want to into it. Many years ago I knew this gun nut who had some serious issues. Now…I wasn’t going to make that quantum leap but obsession with fire power does come into question here and makes a body wonder….
about people who go prancing around. It appears that they have issues. I see them as bullies.
If that is offensive, then I venture to say its not half as offensive as the behavior I am seeing out of the “Young Guns stud muffins.”
I seriously have zero love or sympathy for those idiots who walks around stores and rally with long rifles and military looking guns. If I owned a retail store and they started hanging out there, I would probably sue them. They hurt business.
“Would you not fight if the gov’t restricted your rights, prevented any chance of recompense, prevented a change in gov’t, and was imprisoning people?”
Nope, that is not an acceptable reason to resort to violence. Your argument allows anyone to start attacking us (we the people as government) because they didn’t like the results of an election or a SCOTUS ruling or the actions of the local police. The appropriate response is activism for governmental change or leave the country. Guns have no place in civil political discourse. That is what we fear from those who carry guns….that gun carriers intend to be vigilantes who will enforce their own [arbitrary and capricious] law which is in conflict with the government as established through civil means. There can not be justice if violence can be applied to political opponents.
Hunting would be a sport if it was limited to bows or single shot rifles and shotguns. With current high capacity semi-automatic guns it is just slaughter. But this is irrelevant since no one is “hunting” while shopping at Walmart.
@Cargo, if you keep up the bigot label I will keep up the guns-as-sexual-crutch meme. Does it bother you because it is more truth than joke…for you?
@blue, simplifying the issues of an urban city versus the issues of rural areas by boiling it down to gun policy isn’t a reasoned argument. It does seem reasonable that as you get to higher population densities that weapons that can kill lots of people need to be restricted because they are dangerous in that format. In rural farmland accidently firing a gun while walking down a dirt road is not anything near the same problem as when riding metro and differences in gun policies reflect that reality.