Dear Open Carry Activists: Your Entire Ideology is an Absolute Joke

open-carry-in-restaurantI usually have a pretty decent amount of patience for people when it comes to debates. As long as people are behaving rationally, not denying facts and have the ability to make some sort of valid points, I’m willing to entertain someone who has a differing opinion on any number of topics.


But when it comes to open carry activists, I have little (if any) patience. These people are just radical right-wing anti-government idiots.

This whole premise that “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” is absurd in and of itself.

I’ve still yet to have any of these open carry activists tell me how to properly separate a “bad guy with a gun” from a “good guy with a gun,” prior to the bad guy opening fire, in a society where everyone is openly carrying guns.

After all, in a society where everyone can openly carry a gun, wasn’t Adam Lanza (the Sandy Hook shooter) legally allowed to openly flaunt guns in public? Granted, there would be different laws for carrying guns on school property, but then what about this guy? He grabbed a rifle, strapped on a bullet proof vest and legally marched in front of a school (off school property) scaring the hell out of parents, many of whom called 911 – all in the name of “gun advocacy.”

What if he had been another Adam Lanza? How would we have been able to tell? Because what he was doing was legal.

Then there’s this guy. He went around flaunting his gun in a park full of parents and children, taunting them by saying, “You want to see my gun? Look, I got a gun and there’s nothing you can do about it.” And he was right. What he was doing (scaring the hell out of parents and children) was perfectly legal.

What if he had been the next James Holmes (the Aurora, Colorado shooter)? If this individual in the park had unloaded a 30-round clip into a crowd of children, up until that point, he would have just been “a legal citizen openly carrying a gun.”

And let’s not act as if openly carrying guns doesn’t have a lot of prejudice and racism behind it as well. Because I just can’t see a group of 4 or 5 young African-American males strolling through a predominantly white subdivision strapped with loaded AK-47’s setting the residents of that neighborhood at ease. In fact, I can almost guarantee that there would be more than a few calls to police if that were to happen.


Or you’re telling me if a group of American Muslim men dressed in traditional Islamic garb were to strap a few AK-47’s to their backs and stroll through a very Christian area of Mississippi, the right-wing Christian conservatives of that area would feel “safer” with these armed men present?

But what if just any group of individuals, of any race, walked into a crowded store wearing fatigues and bullet proof vests with AR-15’s strapped to their backs. You’re telling me the people shopping in that store would suddenly feel “safer”?

It’s just all mindless idiocy.

And I still go back to the one question none of these gun nuts can answer: How can we tell the difference between a “bad guy with a gun” and a “good guy with a gun” before the “bad guy” shoots or kills someone?

Then let’s look at another glaringly obvious point. If a criminal has a gun, and is intent on committing a crime, who do you think they’re going to target first? The people not openly showing whether or not their armed, or the unsuspecting citizen who’s announcing to all of the world “Hey, shoot me first! I’m freely showing you that I’m armed and the biggest threat to you committing this crime!”

But then there’s another issue that seemingly no “gun enthusiast” who’s eager to get into some kind of Wild West-style shootout with a “bad guy” knows how to answer: What if someone with a gun (openly carrying or concealed) decides to shoot at a criminal opening fire on a crowd of people and this “good guy” ends up killing an innocent civilian? Wouldn’t they then be a killer of an innocent life themselves? Will these “gun enthusiasts” then be on the side of sending this individual who tried to be the “good guy with a gun” to prison for years because they struck and killed an innocent target in a hail of gunfire?

Besides, when mental health is clearly a driving force that leads people to commit many of these heinous acts, couldn’t it be argued that someone who feels the need to openly carry a gun with them every single place they go is suffering from some kind of mental instability? Irrational insecurity, paranoia, delusions of grandeur – you name it. It just doesn’t seem very stable if you ask me.

At the end of the day, the vast majority of Americans do not want a society where any idiot can freely walk around openly carrying a gun.

This isn’t the 1800’s and the Wild West died for a reason. It’s 2015 and we’re living in a modern society. Someone might want to send these open carry activists that memo.



Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Travis Hamilton

    The Wild West and Wyatt Earp had excellent gun control laws. FOR A REASON. Too many idiots shooting in public because “he looked at me funny”.

    The most famous gun battle in history at the OK Corral was about gun control.

    • Brian Bayley

      Dude, it was a feud…You guys can call people names and be snarky all you want. That’s how the ignorant defend their arguments.

      • swaves

        Yeah it was a feud, but check your facts. There was a “No Carry” in the town.

      • Pete Sikes

        And that law prevented all gun violence, right?

  • craigr

    Okay, here’s the thing: While I don’t disagree with the sentiments in this article, the author chose the most insulting, patronizing tone to present them in. This isn’t going to convince anybody to change their views. It’s just going to make gun nuts dig in and hold onto their views more stubbornly while letting anti-gun nuts sneer down their noses at (what they perceive as) the trigger-happy fools.

    • npeben

      Im just guessing, but I am making the assumption of that those in favor of open carry are not reading “foward progressives.”

      • craigr

        Granted, but it would be nice to be able to harvest some valid arguing points from the article, or better yet be able to send a link to a conservative friend when I notice a moment of weakness/thoughtfulness/whatever that I can jump on. But this article is only suited to the liberal echo chamber.

      • Rob Bailey

        Jeebus, every point the OP made was valid, and if the dumbass ammosexuals don’t get it, then too bad. They’re as dumb as rocks anyway, and no quantity of reasonable argument is going to change their collective little minds. The need is for the rational people in the country to respond, making sure processes are put in place that deter these right-wing nutjobs from being the vocal minority that gets their way via the NRA and paid-off, cowardly pols. End of story.

      • SoCalCop

        Nothing of what Allen wrote is valid. Your use of the term “Ammosexual” shows that you have no original though and simply regurgitate what you are told to spew.

      • TeaScum

        Shut up, asshole

      • TeaScum

        Freaking neo-Nazi goosestepper taking about people regurgitating ideas…..HAHAHAHAHA!

      • TeaScum

        Love your MP costume. Trick or Treat! LOSER

      • SoCalCop

        Oh, love it! The cave dwellers are coming unglued.

        Are you geniuses familiar with, “The Allegory of the Cave”?

      • Akula765

        >every point the OP made was valid

        A bunch of wildly speculative “what if” statements, and a couple of demonstrably false assertions that don’t hold up to 5 seconds of googling. You must have the most nebulous definition of “valid” on the internet.

        >They’re as dumb as rocks anyway, and no quantity of reasonable argument is going to change their collective little minds.

        Ah, yes, call your opponents stupid, that’s the best way to show the superiority of your opinions.

      • blue

        Concealed carry laws coincide with fewer murders, aggravated assaults, and rapes. There’s your reasonable argument.
        And by the way, the OP made very few valid points. A lot of fallacies, yes.

      • Quagmire86

        Mr. Bailey, I am going to have to disagree with your assertion that the OP (Mr. Allen Clifton) made valid points and I’ll explain why I feel that way. You see, Mr. Clifton (and subsequently yourself) negate any sense of objective rationality by your obvious bias and disdain for gun owners. A bias that is so pronounced when the author uses pejoritive terms to describe the opposition even before a comparitive view of the opposing ideologies. For example: Clifton, at the beginning of his piece here, referred to the open carry group as, “Right-wing, anti-government idiots”. That set the premise of his article and his obvious bias throughout. It is no different than you saying, “Dumbass ammosexuals”. Not to mention the over used pejoratives such as “Gun-nuts”, “Gun extremists”, “Radical so-and-so” that can be found at sites such as MDA, CSGV or Everytown. When one begins their argument by painting one side, immediately, with scorn and disdain before citations are given, examples, facts or empirical data; there is only one way to go. Down. But I get it. This article is presented to a group with similar ideology, in essence, preaching to the choir. But it by no means should be viewed as a serious journalistic piece. If, on the other hand, Clifton refered to the open carry group as gun rights advocates, 2nd Amendment advocates, firearm fans or any other way of a description without the obvious condemnation he seems to hold them to, them maybe the story could achieve some validity. These types of opinion pieces immediately deem the activists as simple-minded ogres, nutjobs, irrational, unreasonable, bullies, cowards or what have you. Clifton even proclaims his irrationality and unreasonableness at the start of his article. When he claims that he can have a debate or discussion with a decent amount of patience unless it is about the open carry of guns. Right away his patience and ability to compartmentalize or engage in a mature debate over differing view points is off the table, barr none. Would he be inclined to stomp his feet, put his fingers in his ears and sing, “La-la-la-la-la” at the offering of a discussion of guns by an open carrier? It appears Mr. Clifton has already made up his mind about the issue and no one can approach the subject with him. I’m sorry that I read his story because it is just more of the predisposed assumptions touted by the gun-control activists. They cannot and will not have an honest discussion about the issue. I know. I have tried to debate and correct unfactual information at some of their sites. I was always respectful, provide citations and never was abusive in my tone or language and was never rude. What did I get for my maturity and reasonableness? My comments were subsequently deleted and blocked from further comments. Not that it bothers me, mind you. I was simply trying to educate others on misinformation yet that is counter to their agenda, so I must be silenced.

      • slappymagoo

        Ah, but you have a bias as well, because you assume his disdain for open carry activists carries over to a disdain to “gun owners” in general. There are plenty of gun owners who are sane and sober people, who take their ownership of devices whose sole purpose is to shoot chunks of flesh out of living things seriously. They care for their weapons and practice routinely so if the need to use it arises they will hopefully use it responsibly and prevail. They’re not taking it to f***ing Arby’s for Second Amendment Show and Tell Day. They’re not assuming they’re the last line of defense against a government run amok. They’re not screaming about how the government can’t take away their guns because they’ll need their guns to fire at the government the day the government comes to take their guns. They don’t assume they’re better at their weapons than the police so they don’t walk around with their gun so they can take the law in their own hands. And they don’t walk around with their guns because that’s somehow supposed to make you feel safer. And they don’t insist More Guns Are The Answer, they believe THEIR gun is the answer for THEM. And here’s hoping they’re not wrong because the news is filled with too many sad stories due to people who thought they were responsible gun owners until the moment they were proven not to be.

        Personally, I don’t think most people need guns and I’m shocked and appalled at how many people who ought not to have guns own more than one and love to show ’em off. But I’ll stop fighting the “do we need so many guns” argument, I’ll gladly cede that argument, if everyone – EVERYONE – who owns guns start acting with a litt more gravitas about it. It’s a killing device first, a symbol of our freedom or your manliness or anything else it’s meant to represent a way way way distant third. The douche nozzles who tend to populate the open carry hootenannies feel otherwise, and they deserve nothing less than the scorn and derision on web sites like this.

      • Quagmire86

        Slappymagoo: I don’t see how you can claim that I have a bias by simply pointing out the journalistic malfeasance that the OP injected into his piece. Maybe you should re-read my comment and look up the definition of “Bias”. Furthermore, I don’t assume anything in regards to the OP’s disdain for open carriers and gun owners in general. Because, for the OP’s piece does not address his piece in a neutral manner. No. He flagrantly throws out pejorative adjectives upon the group he is trying to vilify. If one was truly neutral and objective they would present the story (neutrally) and then submit each side’s contentions in a fair manner. The piece is so full of personal ideology that it cannot be taken seriously. Honestly, if the author had taken a stance opposite of what it was and used the ad hominem name-calling, would you still feel the same way? Now, when you said that the author’s disdain for “Open Carriers” doesn’t necessarily equate to gun owners in general, I feel you are selling yourself short. Because are not open carriers, also, gun owners in general? I could take any activity, hobby or endeavor and show you where there are some that don’t do it the way the others do it. Who are you to determine what is sane or sober activity? Is it because a group or a person doesn’t do something in a manner that you agree with becomes unhinged or wrong? If you read the Federalist Papers, specifically James Madison’s correspondence, you will find the true meaning of personal liberty as the Framer’s saw it. I won’t tell you what it says because I want you to investigate and read it for yourself. (It is quite enlightening). Finally, I don’t care what you “Feel” personally about guns and how others should submit to other’s phobias or what have you. Because the choice to carry a weapon to protect themselves or their family is a philosophically and spiritually personal one that is not up to a collective’s emotional repulsion to do so. The Constitution and the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right to open carry (without infringement). Concealed carry was seen as a device to hide nefarious intentions and should be limited. Basically, it is not up to you or anyone else to limit another’s liberty because of a feeling, opinion, emotion or ideology. We are all free men and women and shall not submit to the paranoia of others in which we live our lives as we see fit.

      • slappymagoo

        I see, you revisited a 4 month old comment from a 7 month old article to write 4 paragraphs about how much you don’t care what I think.

        Derp.

        I don’t think the author of this piece pretended to be neutral on the issue, so your insistence he ought to be is absurd. It’s a progressive blog, it has a progressive agenda. Double derp.

        Yes, open carriers are gun owners “in general.” “In general” they tend to be the dumber gun owners. That’s why I laugh at them, in the hopes they’ll be embarrassed enough to at least pretend to think like a grownup would and put that thing they don’t handle nearly as well as they should away before they hurt themselves or others. Triple derp.

        I know you can’t comprehend reading well enough to interpret the Federalist papers, so thanks for the laugh. Believe me, your deflection was quite enlightening.

        Now I’m going to laugh for a while at how stupid you are…then I’m gonna get all sad because dummies are still allowed to own allll the guns they want in ‘Murka.

        HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
        HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
        HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA…ha…crap…

      • Quagmire86

        Mr. Magoo,
        For the record, I only re-visit “Disqus” entries from time to time and was compelled to reply to your pedantic ranting. Sure, I commented. And I feel I poised a logical and intellectual response yet all you could do was try to diminish my stance with vitriol and sarcasm. Fine. You can insult me with your comment yet we both know that I did so in an honest manner. I get it, you don’t agree. You said, “I don’t think the author of this…” etc.. Well, now that is quite the revelation you’ve made here. You’ve admitted that you don’t THINK. You either base all of your arguments on pure emotion or you are a troll (which would negate anything I try to debate with you). Either way, your reply was very childish and honestly, jejune. You say that you laugh at gun owners (open carriers to be specific) but I find that statement to ring hollow. Because your disdain for gun owners implies that you do not own any guns (personally) yet you feel brazen enough to cast judgment upon a whole section of society with nothing but hatred and scorn. As far as your insulting comments towards me and my intelligence, I will consider that as a compliment. You seem to be a hateful misanthrope who exists just to dole out angst and discord. But, good luck with that. (I hope the special uncle that molested you, in the past, is serving time for his malfeasance). Just in case it is not clear to you, I’m telling you to go pound sand….I tried to express an honest and logical opposing side to this article. Yet you resorted to childish retorts with such an intransigent demeanor, I was compelled to reply (although I know it will bear no intellectual prose). You have a glorious and remarkable evening. God Bless.

      • Larry Lowell

        Did you learn a new word today?

      • Quagmire86

        Which one did you have to look up? It would help, me, to know which word you are referring to. Ooooh….you were trying to be snarky. If you want to debate what I have said above (without vulgarities and personal attack) I would be happy to oblige you. But if you merely posted your reply to dismiss my thoughts, I would suggest that you try, in the future, to not be so shallow and pedantic or even jejune. Otherwise, you just come across as being intransigent and full of temerity. Don’t lower yourself to the quagmire of drive-by insults without an understanding of the other speaker’s values.

      • Quagmire86

        Would you like to discuss something, Mr. Lowell, or do you prefer to resort to a drive-by-snarking? Because I can debate anything I stated above with you.

      • Chris Leaver

        False! Most of the author’s points are based upon misconceptions or misrepresenting information. If you want to have an honest discussion, you have to start by being honest to begin with.

        Couple of examples:

        “Adam Lanza openly flaunt…” This language is dishonest and is meant to inflame an emotional response. It is not meant to inspire reasoned debate. The reason being, the author is completely ignoring BRANDISHING LAWS and assuming they either do not exist or are not enforced. In both cases the author is dead wrong. Anyone flaunting a gun is brandishing. This is a criminal action that can be reported to the police and the bad actor will be punished. Period.

        “He grabbed a rifle, strapped on a bullet proof vest and legally marched in front of a school (off school property) scaring the hell out of parents, many of whom called 911 – all in the name of “gun advocacy.” Patently false information. There is no such thing as a bulletproof vest. Period. Different types of vests provide various levels of protection, but none are bullet proof. Even the highest level of armor plate cannot withstand large hunting rifle/military rifle rounds. Interestingly enough, the report it links to another article by the same website that has even WORSE reporting. That article claims he had on an assault rifle and has a picture of the guy from the local news source. Clicking on the picture to enlarge shows that he has a rifle on his back with wooden stock and a bolt action. It’s not even black, let alone a “scary” semi-auto. There also is no such thing as an assault rifle. It’s a made term to evoke an emotional response.

        That’s two examples from within one paragraph at the beginning of the article. I have clearly demonstrated the dishonesty on the part of this author. I can continue and shred the rest of the article if you’d like.

      • Edward Fancon

        craigr, you are spot on. I am an avid gun enthusiast. NOT a gun nut. I am all for concealed carry, and the right to open carry. HOWEVER, I agree that open carry is a little over the top. It see how it can be very unnerving to those who just aren’t part of responsible gun culture. There are as the author says “nuts” on both sides. The biggest reason I see the over the top open carry folks pushing the envelope is the over the top anti’s pushing for elimination of gun ownership. Contrary to those who jump on the pile of name calling and bashing, you are correct when the snarky starts anyone with reason rolls their eyes and ignores any possible conversation.

      • MorganLvr

        I have never advocated that people’s guns should be confiscated. However, I’ve never managed to have a civil conversation with a gun nut who seems to think that there shouldn’t be ANY regulations of ANY kind.

        In fact, I don’t even know any anti who is pushing for elimination of gun ownership. I’ve never seen it posted anywhere. However, that’s what I get called every time I come out for common sense regulations. Perhaps it’s that gun nuts equate regulation with elimination of ownership, which seems to be what they are thinking no matter how much you TRY to reason with them.

        I freely admit I don’t see the attraction. I’m 70 years old. I’ve never owned a gun, and see no need for owning one now. BUT i certainly do NOT advocate eliminating gun ownership for American citizens provided they know how to handle the guns and keep their responsibility upper most in their minds all the time.

      • Chris Leaver

        Craigr – I am an avid gun rights advocate. As such, I find your responses quite refreshing. You are actually thinking and reasoning. THAT is the basis for a meaningful conversation. Hand wringing and emotional appeals are simply not worth dignifying with a response. I would happily have a chat with you about gun ownership and responsibility anytime!

    • Rob Bailey

      So?

  • TaxPaying American Voter

    They need to do this in OAKCLIFF.

  • robert w

    I would seem to me a good guy with a gun is any white guy packing and a bad guy with a gun is any black 12 year old with a water pistol. Its really quite simple so whats the problem

  • Eg Kbbs

    Saw video other day of cop approaching three black guys on a call about one of them having a gun. Ends up it was a BB gun that looked like a Baretta.

    On the question on what if a bunch of blacks decided to open carry. Guess we have an answer.

    • DeShawn Williams

      “On the question on what if a bunch of blacks decided to open carry. Guess we have an answer. As if the guy being shot in the Walmart for picking up a toy gun and the kid shot in ?Ohio? in a park.”

      If a bunch of folks are together and open carrying, no one is going to mess with them, and definitely not the police.

      • SoCalCop

        Just a heads up, anti-gun extremists got the guy killed at WalMart. They actually phoned in a bogus “Man with a gun” call, and stated that he was threatening people. In other words, anti-gun extremists did what is referred to as “SWATTING”.
        Anti-gun extremists have promoted this kind of behavior, and the result is innocent people being killed.

    • Tony

      People of color already carry openly. Jeez, are you really that much of a left wing nut anti-police racist?

  • BobLoblaw

    Recently I asked a group of pro-open carry people how can you recognize a good guy with a gun over a bad guy with a gun. After a few racist jokes the answer came down to “I can just tell”. One even said it is just like “fags”. “I can tell he is gay just by the look in his eye”. SMH

    • DeShawn Williams

      One time i asked a guy why he was against gun ownership, he said “because the less guns those damn n****rs have, the safer we all are.”
      And knowing the history of gun control, it is no surprise that an anti-gunner would be racist.

      • BobLoblaw

        Sadly that guy is ignorant about facts. There are lots of people like him out there. The dumbing down of America seems to be growing.

      • therain

        Agreed, liberals are about as stupid as you can get.

      • James Bertram

        Then why do the red states all have lower IQs than the Blue states?

      • Jared

        You keep telling yourself that.

    • Akula765

      “Things that totally happened”

  • Rick Clines

    Not hard to distinguish between the 2. The bad guy comes in the store with the firearm in his hands ready to shoot(illegal to be holding the firearm). The good guy doesn’t(properly slung over his back, or in a holster if in a state with open carry handgun). It’s not rocket science.

    • NotThatGreg

      What about: Bad guy comes in the store, but he’s a rocket scientist bad guy so he ingeniously slings the weapon over his back, thus utterly impersonating a good guy. A few minutes later he suddenly decides to be holding it in his hands. How many seconds does that transformation take?

      • Akula765

        Then feel free to call the police at that point.

        Regardless of telling the difference between “a good guy and a bad guy” I’m not sure why you thinking punishing the former does anything to deter the latter.

      • Alierias

        Riiiiight. With how many bullet holes in you?

      • Akula765

        What makes you think this would be prevented by prohibiting open carry? It wouldn’t, that’s just dumb.

      • Alierias

        No legal open carry means if you see the gun, you have NO doubt it’s a “bad guy”, hense no hesitation. Anyone who sees the carrier would be calling police far before they may have a chace to do harm.

      • Akula765

        If you can already see the guy its too late to call police to stop them from doing something. Calling the police gets you help in 5 minutes.

        I suggest an alternative. YOU stop being ignorant, learn that there is a difference between someone brandishing a weapon and someone carrying a weapon, and stop making unfounded assumptions about the character of total strangers.

      • Rob Banks

        “Then feel free to call the police at that point.’

        You are missing the point. You aren’t free any longer. There is no free with guns around. There is take a chance and you might be alive.
        By the time you get pull a phone, call the police, have the police actually respond etc? That’s way too much opportunity for bad guys.
        Even the good guy with the gun has been out drawn.

        “Regardless of telling the difference between “a good guy and a bad guy” I’m not sure why you thinking punishing the former does anything to deter the latter.”

        First of all I disagree with your frame of punishment. It’s not punishment if it applies equally to everyone and at the same time it’s for a beneficial reason.
        Not having to distinguish between who is good with a gun and bad with a gun, is a real advantage for safety reasons, cultural reasons and most of all economic reasons.

        All things we need to have a thriving country.

      • Akula765

        And preventing someone from open-carrying does what to prevent this scenario? Absolutely nothing, that’s what. If someone wants to come shoot up your grocery store, they’re going to, and no stupid law is going to prevent it. The one thing that might mitigate that scenario is if they encounter armed resistance sooner rather than later.

      • Cathryn Sykes

        How about we pass laws that ban walking around with a gun in plain sight? Then we will know instantly that a guy with a gun in his hand is a bad guy.

      • Akula765

        Or you could just stop making ignorant assumptions about strangers.

      • 2A_Advocate

        Never has happened in the history of the Real World. Go back to sleep in your Fantasy World.

      • Infomaniac

        what about: good guy #1 comes into store looking for bad guy who robbed his wife while he wasn’t looking. good guy #2 sees bad guy run into the store but assumes hes ‘good’. good guy #2 sees good guy #1 approach with gun drawn and shoots him.

    • Rob Bailey

      Moron. I can go from sling to fire or holster to fire in a second. If I were paranoid enough to carry.

      • Topbloke

        But can you do that and hit the desired target only.

    • Louis Mingüey

      Don’t EVER become a cop. You would suck at it. A lot.

      • Rick Clines

        Find me 1 story discrediting my argument. I rest my case.

  • Luis Cruz

    Well i see your point on how openly carrying weapons can be seen as a bad thing but end result is all about responding to a sudden threat that the police might take more than 15 minutes to respond, by then the damage is dealt and lives are lost. We employee people with many mental health issues all the time, look at half the police force. In the end if i openly saw men or women open carrying in a store i would feel threatened just as much as i feel threatened when i am around the police.

  • wendy

    Anyone paranoid enough to need a gun as others need their cell phones shouldn’t be driving cars. There are way more car accidents than shootings.

    • blue

      It’s called being proactive, not parinoid.

  • wendy

    I’d be scared shitless going into a store or public place if everyone was walking around with guns. How could that possibly be safe? If its meant for ‘protection’, one better hope they are quicker than the bad guy. 50/50 chance that a gun would act as ‘protection’.

    • blue

      Actually, the bad guy is less likely to follow through with their intended crime if they see someone who is open carrying.

      • wendy

        And often the bad guy couldn’t care if they live or die.

    • therain

      Uneducated folk like you should stay in your ghettos.

    • Benjamin Joseph Whitlock

      You would prefer being unarmed with a 0% chance, to a 50% chance, as your statement is saying?

  • John1966

    Sophomoric babble. Get a job.

  • SoCalCop

    “Allen Clifton is from the Dallas-Fort Worth area and has a degree in Political Science. He is a co-founder of Forward Progressives, and author of the popular Right Off A Cliff column. He is also the founder of the Right Off A Cliff facebook page, on which he routinely voices his opinions and stirs the pot for the Progressive movement.”
    Translation: Allen gets a degree in political science, that could mean an Associates degree from a community college, creates a blog, and uses it to stir up shit among people who only listen to dullards like Allen, and are incapable of independent thought. He then throws out a Red Herring as some form of legitimate scenario, and displays it as some form of reality.
    Allen is the typical liberal who, like the Bradys and other anti-gun extremists present scenarios that have no basis in reality. He also attempts to place law abiding gun owners in the same category with the criminals and insane to marginalize the law abiding gunowners actions.
    So here’s the reality of the world. A majority of the time, a good guy with a gun does stop a bad guy with a gun. If it weren’t the case, there would be no need for police to have guns. In fact, when interviewed, criminals have said that if they know someone has a gun in a place they intend to rob, they move on to another target in which it is unlikely that the victim is armed. Furthermore, FSU criminology professor Dr. Gary Kleck conducted a research survey and determined that 1% of the U.S. population use firearms annually to defend themselves from attack. For those of you that won’t do the math, that equates to approxiamately 3 MILLION people per year.
    In 1977, Washington state was one of only a few states that had “Shall Issue” concealed carry. The fact that private citizens could carry a firearm in public was a non issue. Now fast forward to 1987. Florida decides to become a shall issue state, and the Bradys began yelling like Chicken Little about “Blood in the streets”. Because it was a new concept to Florida, law enforcement chose to create special task forces to document abuses of firearms by concealed carry holders. I was such a non issue that Florida law enforcement ended those task forces because it was a waste of resources. And that’s the same pattern of events everytime a state chooses to go shall issue. In fact private citizens carrying firearms is a non issue.
    Alaska, Arizona, Vermont, and Wyoming do not require its citizens to obtain a license to carry concealed, and with the exception of the draconian states like California, New York, and New Jersey, all of the other states are shall issue. Guess what? Not one has seen the “Blood in the streets” scenario come to pass. Recently, Illinois law enforcement reported that shall issue in their state was a non issue but the liberals like Allen here continue to mindlessly yell and scream about the dangers of firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens.
    So lets talk about the open carry movement. Does it make sense to openly carry a firearm around a store, bring attention to yourself, and then shoot the place up? No! In fact, that’s not the pattern of bad guys with a gun. Typically, they enter an establishment or grounds, with their firearm at the ready, barking orders, or actually firing the weapon. Allen asks, how do you know the difference between a bad guy with a gun and a good guy? My answer is the bad guy is the one threatening or shooting innocent people. Pretty simple. And the good guy is the one that shot the bad guy that was shooting innocent people.
    From 1973 to 2001, my professional career was spent carrying a firearm for a living. I was in the military, and then law enforcement in Southern California. The one thing I have an issue with about the open carry movement is that they carry long guns into public places. Unfortunately it scares people like some of you here, and that’s no way to introduce the uneducated and uninitiated to a new concept. Sadly, some of you here only have a concept of firearms from what you watch on TV, so you don’t know any better. That’s too bad. Being afraid of an inanimate object is no way to live.
    The only time I carried a long gun anywhere was when I knew I was actually going to a shooting, or to the range. Routinely, I carried my handgun openly while on duty, and concealed when off duty. Now that I’m retired, I don’t always carry on me, but I always have a firearm close by. Having said that, I understand the Texas open carry people. They prefer to open carry versus concealed carry, and that’s their choice. Since Texas only allows concealed carry, or open carry of longuns, I see their point in that it’s ridiculous that handguns can’t be openly carried. I may not agree with their methods, but I respect that. For those of you who stand with Allen, what’s the difference if a person open carries or concealed carries? Do you believe in the false concept of “Out of sight, out of mind”? Do you feel better not knowing that you may be surrounded by numerous concealed carry holders? If that’s the case, then the problem lies with you and your willful fear and ignorance of firearms.
    Are there stupid people out there that have firearms? Yes. To deny or ignore that would be unrealistic. Criminals will get guns, and criminals will use them to hurt and control their victims. Taking guns out of the equation, criminals will still use another means to hurt and control their victims. Guns actually level the balance of power between the criminal and their intended weaker victim. The 3 million people that use a firearm to protect themselves proves that out. An intended victim doesn’t necessarily have to use the weapon. Merely displaying a firearm sends most criminals running for their lives.
    In closing, while you may not feel comfortable carrying a firearm, don’t condemn those that do. Because one other side to Garry Klecks study is that “Shall Issue” concealed carry has an umbrella effect. Since the bad guys don’t know who’s carrying, they are less likely to commit violent crimes. And that’s good for you.

    • Jon Racioppi

      Facts, and the absolute truth. This saved me a reply, and for anyone else reading the information above would be the answer to this article. The number one thing people don’t understand is that bad people will get guns no matter what the law. Statistics have proven over and over in places where guns are either banned or more harshly regulated there is MORE crime against innocents, just as you said.

      Great reply.

      • Lucas Carlson

        I’m sure you’re familiar with the old adage “Don’t pull it unless you intend to use it”, as far as I’m concerned with open carry, the gun is already drawn (people can see it/are aware of it) and you’re willing to use it (why else would you carry it?). You can conceal carry all day long and I don’t give a fuck, that’s your choice and right to do so. But think if someone came into a store you’re shopping in, intending to shoot the place up, if they have any sense they’ll case the joint real quick and find potential threats (cops, security, etc) and you’re gonna stick out as a prime target with that gun on your back. Lot of good you’re gonna be able to do when you get shot in the back before anyone else.

      • Tony

        In the 50 states that already has open carry, your scenario just hasn’t happened. No reports of open carriers being murdered before a crime spree. Thanks for playing.

  • TeaScum

    So seriously, what do expect from bunch of hillbilly morons?

    • SoCalCop

      Are you capable of making any intelligent contributions?

      • Tony

        Apparently only name calling and condescending remarks are the only tools available when you lack logic and facts.

    • DL

      Agreed. When I see pictures of these idiots standing in line at a McDonald’s with their penis extension strapped to their backs I just wonder if they know how ignorant back woods they look. Morons.

    • therain

      you and your sister make a great couple

  • Ian Smith

    Dear Allen,
    I would like to point out that because you are a writer for your particular magazine you should know the difference between a clip and a magazine. In writing this article you have proven to me that both you and your editors have no clue about the actual nature of firearms. I must say that, I was actually embracing your argument and keeping an open mind as you put in the beginning of your argument. But the fact is, you blew it with your lack of knowledge. If you plan on keeping your job as a writer, I would suggest you do some research before writing. It will help you when writing about something you obviously have no strength in. Just because it is an opinion does not mean you can’t support it with facts.
    Sincerely,
    Ian Smith.

  • teriobrien

    An armed society is a polite society.

    • Creeayshun Sighuntist

      an armed society ensures that every argument will escalate into “who can shoot the fastest.” You must really love living in fear of everything.

      • blue

        You’re comment is pure nonsense.

      • Tony

        That has NOT proven itself to be true in the 50 states that have open carry. Thanks for playing.

      • slappymagoo

        It doesn’t seem to happen because a lot of people who could open carry choose not to because there’s no need to. It’s only the paranoid nutjobs who feel the need to prance down the streets with their weapons on display for all to see (OOOOOOO! A GUN! PREEEEEEEETTY!), and they don’t need to have shootouts at high noon because they’re the ones who shoot themselves during target practice, or leave their gun around where a toddler can get it, or various other “domestic incidents” that result in “Small Prices To Pay For Our Freedoms.”

        One day someone’s going to drop some lit firecrackers in the middle of one of these Second Amendment Show And Tells, all you dimwits won’t be able to tell where the sound came from, you’ll all draw your weapons, someone won’t be able to tell who The Good Guys With Guns Are and who the Bad Guys With Guns Are and one epic firefight later, the national IQ will go up a couple of ticks.

      • Bryan

        slappy, that’s pretty funny and stupid at the same time.

    • DL

      An armed society is a society that just can’t grow the hell up already.

  • John from Texas

    Not only is their ideology a joke, so are they!! I’ve always said, however, that if open carry does pass, at least we’ll know who the real men are in Texas!!

    • Tony

      Your wife?

  • Earl Hand

    Hello, I would like to address a “rhetorical question” in your article. *****After all, in a society where everyone can openly carry
    a gun, wasn’t Adam Lanza (the Sandy Hook shooter) legally allowed to openly
    flaunt guns in public? *****

    No he was NOT allowed to do any of that. Here’s why, he was underage. He was mentally unstable (he tried and failed to by a gun on his own just days before the Sandy Hook shooting)
    Now here’s the true details about that shooting:
    He shot and killed is over indulgent mother.
    stole her guns.
    stole her car’
    Illegally drove said car (no drivers licence) so in your eyes you should be against cars also….
    He drove the car to a “Gun Free Zone” (Sandy Hook School)
    He carried stolen guns into the gun free zone. That he had to break into …..
    That is not a gun issue, it is a lack of proper upbringing and the lack of proper mental health treatment ….

  • Shane Atchison

    A bad guy with a gun is pretty easy to spot. He’s doing bad things. With a gun.

    • slappymagoo

      Or he’s about to, but hasn’t started yet. I guess we’ll find out when we find out.

  • ZoomZoomDiva

    The main question is irrelevant. One does not need the ability to predict who the bad person with a gun might be before that person attempts to do something bad with the gun.

  • Ashleigh Wagner

    I think maybe someone needs to send you a copy of the constitution. Do you really think a “bad guy” is going to commit a crime if they see someone with a gun on their hip? Doubt it. Criminals always target people who cannot fight back, i.e. James Holmes opening fire in a “no gun zone” movie theater. And maybe if teachers or other school personnel were allowed to open carry at Sandy Hook Adam Lanza wouldn’t have gotten so far. Just because those “radical right-wingers” as you like to call them actually use their right to carry (which is on the Constitution), doesn’t mean they have a mental illness. I would take my chances being around the guy who has a gun on him in public when a “bad guy” strikes. But maybe that’s just me and my silly right-wing beliefs.

  • kernelpickle

    It’s funny because this is actually a topic where you and Ted Nugent can agree! Even “Uncle Ted” has said in the past that Open Carry is stupid, because you lose any tactical advantage that you’d have if you were Carrying Concealed.

    I live in Michigan, which is an Open Carry state–but even though I would never do it (for tactical reasons and out of courtesy) I do support it to a certain extent. The ONLY reason to support Open Carry is to avoid the issues that arise when someone’s attempt to Conceal goes awry. In a state that doesn’t allow Open Carry, if someone has a wardrobe malfunction and unintentionally exposes a portion of their firearm, they could face a weapon charge.

    I know just about everybody has gotten a parking or speeding ticket because they ran into a cop who decided they were going to say “gotcha” on that particular day, which is enough of a hassle to deal with–but fighting a gun charge is a whole other level.

    I realize that I’m probably in the minority, because I’m generally on the liberal side of most arguments and tend to agree wholeheartedly with everything else on here–but I do plan to enjoy whatever personal freedoms I’m allowed to their fullest. As long as we have politicians making new laws, the trend is for them to be more restrictive–I’m sure that whenever we get around to granting Gays their civil rights and legalizing marijuana in all 50 states, I’m sure that we’ll have plenty of other laws passed that increase the number of restrictions on our daily lives. (I’m not saying they’re correlated or that giving Gays then civil rights will create laws that wouldn’t have existed otherwise, I’m just pointing out that our Government has gotten to a point where even the most minor step forward results in at least 2 steps back.)

    I’d also like to point out that I find it terribly a frightening world where the ONLY people with guns are either employed by the Government and their corporate masters OR right-wing, anti-government types that aren’t aware that Earth revolves around the sun! I think that we could use a few more progressive and/or intellectual gun owners, just to help balance things out a bit. As a fellow gun owner, I’m around these folks and I hear them talking and I feel like a major reason most of them tune out when there is heated debate about gun regulations, is that the person challenging their current views obviously “doesn’t know anything about guns!” If the people that were pushing for some pretty reasonable regulations actually knew the major difference between semi and fully automatic weapons or the subtle differences between assault rifles and hunting rifles–their arguments wouldn’t be as easy for most of their opponents to write off without consideration.

    Think about how little weight you give to the arguments against the ACA (or Obamacare as they call it), when the person spouting off obviously doesn’t even know the basics?! It goes both ways and we need to meet in the middle where people are on the fence to have a calm discussion. If you imagine two kids on opposite sides of an actual privacy fence having a disagreement about which yard to play in and third in between them literally perched up on the fence trying to pick a side, it’s easy to see why the further away they get the more it devolves into a shouting match. That leaves the kid on the fence feeling alienated because they’re the only one’s who can see both sides of the fence and to them both sides are acting crazy. If everyone comes closer to the middle, everyone can be heard without shouting–which means arguments can be more nuanced and it’s possible they might actually see each other’s side through the cracks in fence. That sort of reasonable discussion is the only way that results in the kid hopping off the fence and one of the other two climbing over to be a part of the group. If only one side comes to the middle, that’s the side that wins because the kid on the fence can comfortably discuss the fun they might have on that side, which makes it easier to ignore the kid shouting about how much of a doody head the other side is. Granted, most political debates aren’t quite as simple as the backyard disputes children have, but the result is the same–deadlock or compromise, and unfortunately in the case of politics we need to solve everything amongst ourselves because nobody’s Mother is going to hear the ruckus and step in to put a stop to the fighting. (Which is probably for the best, because anytime someone’s Mom intervened the fighting would stop but it usually ended with everyone having much less fun, getting grounded or playing alone indoors.)

    If anybody read this far–thanks! Hopefully, you found it interesting and can appreciate or understand where I’m coming from. We ALL need to find a way to fix the political discourse in this country, because it’s completely devolved into something more akin to professional wrestling promos and mindless sports talk. Regardless of which direction things ultimately end up going, NOTHING seems to be getting done anymore and the longer we remain stagnant the more out of control our problems are going to become and the harder they’ll be it fix!

  • Maria DelCoco

    I have been saying this for years since the asinine comment was made in the aftermath of a terrible, preventable mass shooting. I’ve got no patience with it, either. And, I can’t think of even one time a GG/G thwarted a BG/G, can you? We’d never hear the end of it, if it did. IMO, it calls into question the logic of unfettered gun advocates’ argument entirely, especially this recent ‘guns everywhere’ mindset.

    • Quagmire86

      Maria, you can’t think of a single time when a GG/G thwarted a BG/G. That’s because the media doesn’t report it for it is contrary to their ideology. But I bet that you haven’t even tried to research such incidents. You can always read the CDC study (that Obama ordered on gun violence) to find out this: “…defensive use of guns “is a common occurrence,” according to the study…”. But don’t take my word for it, read it for yourself and the frequency of defensive gun use. http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/crime/item/15941-cdc-study-ordered-by-obama-contradicts-white-house-anti-gun-narrative

  • Michelle Wells

    Hear, hear!

  • Cathryn Sykes

    I swear, these OC people get their concept of the world from Hollywood movies. They think that the second they sling a gun over their shoulder, they suddenly turn into an instantly recognizable “good guy”….Rambo? Chuck Norris? Steven Seagal? And Allen makes a very valid point. Letting people walk around with guns, without licenses or background checks, is like not having any drunk driver laws. Yes, not everyone who gets into a car drunk is going to cause a deadly accident; but making driving while drunk ILLEGAL has saved thousands of lives–I wish it had been in place when my mother was killed by a drunk driver–and requiring gun owners to have licenses and background checks would save a lot of lives too. What I really love though, is the assumption that that in a shootout, the “good guy with a gun” would win. Really? Can you guarantee that, NRA? Can you guarantee that, OCers?

    • Quagmire86

      Cathryn, I’m sorry to hear about the loss of your mother to a drunk driver, that amount of anguish had to be devastating. With that said, I would like to challenge your statements above. You stated those that openly carry have a concept of being a good guy due to Hollywood movies. Now, is that merely your perception of open carry advocates or have you had a discussion with any of those people? If not, you are simply assigning to them a mindset established within your own mind and may be biased due to your own personal belief system. You said, “Letting people walk around with guns…”. Who is letting these people walk around with guns? Is there some deliberative body, moral authority, spiritual entity or consortium that decrees all things holy, valid, reasonable, rightous or benign? You see, by making such a remark [“Letting them”] implies that you do believe other’s liberties or lives should be dictated or proscribed by another group. That, by definition, is a Democracy (where the majority can dictate to the minority). Alas, we, Americans live under a Constitutional Republic where the liberties of even 1% of the population is protected against an oppresive majority. Should we, as a nation, decree that people should attain a license or a background check to have the freedom of speech or attend a specific denominational church? Shall an entity create legislation for licensing and background checks for the right to assemble or redressing their collective grievances against the government? You see, Cathryn, this mindset of barring free people arms is no different than the throws against alcohol in the 1920’s due to the moralistic convictions of pietistic Protestants (Prohibition). When you conflate the act of legally open carrying of a firearm with drinking and driving, you seem to be assigning a motive to actions that have not been committed. You see, openly carrying a firearm is a legal act (as codified by the Bill of Rights). Driving is also a legal act. Even drinking alcohol (now) is a legal act. But if one engages in driving after they have been drinking it becomes hazardous for themselves and others due to reduced coordination and cognitive skills to drive safely (no different than texting and driving). Due to the risks and past incidents, there are laws deeming such actions not only irresponsible and dangerous but ultimately illegal. The simple act of carrying a firearm, is not illegal or unsafe nor irresponsible. But if the person, who is armed, pulls that weapon and threatens others for no apparent reason, well that second action would be assault and is illegal. So, making law abiding gun owners, who have no intention of causing harm or taking another’s life have to submit their Right to keep and bear arms would have an impact on them because the licensing would involve a fee/tax. Should you have to pay a fee to vote because that is a right too. Infringing on the Rights of gun owners because it makes you/others squeemish, scared or nervous to see a gun is in direct violition of the Constitution. Remember, the Constitution was written and ratified to ensure the citizens had liberty, not safety. In closing, the assumption that a good guy with a gun would win a gun battle is your own assumption. No one that carries a gun have no illusion that the mere act of being armed guarantees the outcome of an encounter with a bad guy. If that were the case, then police would not have to wear bullet resistant vest, now would they?

  • Rob Doyon

    Hmm, I think the author needs to do some research. 1. Criminals almost unanimously prefer to conceal carry(and no they’re not going to pay the government for a permit to do so). criminals want stuff, money, and unconsensual sex, most of them do not want to die or go to jail so they do not prefer to attack a openly armed individual. Criminals do not respect the law, nor enforcementso what is it that keeps them from openly attacking police officers more regularly? It might be the fact that they are known to be openly carrying. Now, the violent crime rate in the Wild West as you call it was actually quite mild compared to your average weekend in Chicago. And that is because good people were armed.the definition of brandishing is waving around in a threatening manner and that term is used in a lot of states to describe what would be carrying in a manner calculated to cause alarm. criminals have worn police uniforms while open carrying and their presence until they are found out to be a fake do not cause alarm which is why they do it. If I have a rifle slung or a pistol holster then they are secured my body and I’m not pointing at anyone. If you have an irrational fear of firearms then that’s your business. The fact of the matter is concealed carry is far more popular in practice right now than open carry. if you go to the hair salon or the grocery store or any other number of places in public you are already surrounded by firearms. If your real fear is the firearm then the only solution is to stay home and hope a criminal doesn’t bring one to you. I’m a fan of training and personal responsibility but I am NOT a fan of mandatory training or firearm purchase or carry restrictions.

  • TitanX

    And how many open carry folks have gunned down people down? Zero.

  • Brian Patrick O’Gorman

    While I agree that people that open carry RIFLES are nothing more than attention whores, I believe you are missing the point. There are two types of people that tend to have these types of discussions. Those that are unwilling/unable to defend themselves and those that are able/willing to defend themselves. You have taken it upon yourself to assign motivations to people that clearly do not represent the vast majority of gun owners and allowed these motivations to color your perceptions of all of us. You may call that extra block and a half to your walk prudent but avoiding that dark alley is a fear based decision. You may jump at every bulge in a coat like Lynda Waddington but I won’t. Maybe it’s because you have less faith in your fellow citizens than I. Or, maybe it’s because you have more faith in Law enforcement than I. Those same officers, I might add, that are responding with more force than necessary time and time again. These open carry guys were idiots, but don’t paint all of us with the same broad brush. It is disingenuous and makes this issue seem monochromatic. It is not. As a political science graduate, you should understand that public policy has it’s many unseen and unrealized benefits and drawbacks. Might I suggest you think of these rather than feelings. Statistics help, too.

  • Brad M

    I can only hope your right for freedom of speech is infringed upon in a manner that you would have my gun rights removed…..you would be alright with that Right? Homeland security comes over and holds you down, cuts your tongue out and then scorches your voice box with a blow torch and then finally sews your sarcastic mouth shut…That would never happen to you,right?

  • 2A_Advocate

    The writer is a “Backward Regressive” fool (tool) who is abusing his free speech rights by attempting to squash the Constitutional rights of others. His “Liberal Logic Mindset” is a mental sickness.

  • therain

    Apparently the mid-terms proved the joke’s on you!

  • rhino33

    Open carry, meet stand your ground!

  • PaulDF

    Ok, here’s a viewpoint…

    Take any “action adventure” movie that you choose; and alter the scenario such that the “bad guys” (who don’t follow laws) have any guns they choose, and the “good guys” (who do follow laws) have their weapons confiscated by the federal government.

    Tell me; How does the movie end?

  • Kim Serrahn

    So who would pay the family should someone become collateral damage killed by friendly fire? Just asking.

  • Jared

    Just look at all these ignorant hoplophobes.

  • Infomaniac

    to all the open carry activists. why the need to open carry anyway? im guessing you are an ashhole who has wronged too many people and now feel paranoid that they are out to get you. correct?

  • BHLaurie

    Nobody answered the original question, except for robert w. He seems to have nailed it. But I’m sure as long as we get to keep carrying out assault weapons around, a few casualties are worth that right. Especially if the casualties are judged more likely to be a threat, you know the black 12 year old with a water pistol will probably grow into a black thug. Gotta nip that problem in the bud,

  • Bryan

    I read your point thoroughly and while it makes sense what you’re saying, you also indirectly made the point that if someone was going to commit an act of atrocity, they are going to do it regardless of whether or not guns are legal for open/concealed carry or not. It’s not that guns are more accessible or people are carrying them in public that’s causing the atrocity, it’s the intention of the individual committing the atrocity.

  • Justin

    How will you pick out a bad guy before he shoots? Hahaha seriously? Have you not thought this through? Nobody who carries every day, like myself, pretends to be able to know who is going to be a bad guy before he starts shooting or stabbing or whatever.. You can only hope to be able to stop the bad person from continuing to hurt people, thereby hopefully lessening their success. It would be an unspeakably terrible thing to accidentally shoot a good person when trying to stop a bad person. It would be just as awful to be able do nothing but stand and watch as people are picked off like gun cans. Of a good person is killed or injured in the attempt to stop a bad person and the bad person is stopped from shooting 10 or 20 more innocent people is that not better?

  • TheWraith

    —————————
    I’ve
    still yet to have any of these open carry activists tell me how to
    properly separate a “bad guy with a gun” from a “good guy with a gun,”
    prior to the bad guy opening fire, in a society where everyone is openly
    carrying guns.
    —————————

    How
    is that any different than knowing a bad guy is a bad guy until he
    actually attacks or assaults you when he ISN’T carrying a gun openly?
    (criminals don’t typically open carry) As an example, just because it’s
    a black man, in sunglasses, wearing ‘odd’ clothing (subjective, your
    opinion) that is lurking around
    and you think is staring at you… How do the liberal idiots know it’s
    a “bad guy” until he jumps in front of you and demands your wallet?
    Maybe he is just a fan of the Matrix movies and wants to wear such
    clothing (again, an example) It’s a stupid notion we can tell bad guys
    from good guys from afar. IF we could do that, no one would ever be
    victimized because they would see the threat coming and move out of the
    way.

  • Douglas Tisdale

    A bad guy with gun becomes a BAD guy with a gun when he uses it to kill and harm others. You can’t be the thought police. ACTION is what counts not thoughts. In an emergent situation to protect your life or your family’s life would you rather I have a way to defend us or not? It’s that simple. The method of carrying that defensive tool is not the issue. The way I carry a gun does not have a personal impact on you. How I choose to use it does. If I kill innocent people I should be sent to prison. I would much rather have a chance of surviving a shooting than be a Carnival duck just waiting my turn to be shot. If you choose not to carry no problem but don’t demonize those if us who choose not to be defenseless victims. Your analogies are all dripping with racist sarcasm which does NOTHING to further your argument. By taking a small segment of people and then portraying them as the majority only proves you are the racist.