The Stupidity of Gun Fanatics: When Stand Your Ground Collides With Open Carry

open-carry-in-restaurantWhenever there’s some kind of tragedy involving guns, it’s inevitable that the “gun debate” will dominate the news.  I’m not really sure what it is, but there’s something about guns that renders people who are otherwise sane to act completely irrational.  We have this belief in this country that guns are what keep us safe and free.  Except we’re not the only free country on the planet (there are many others) and we lead the world in gun violence.  So I’ve still never understood how guns “make us safer.”

If anything it seems our love for guns has made them a necessity in our society.  Since we’ve allowed millions of guns to saturate our neighborhoods and flow easily into the hands of millions of criminals, to “defend ourselves” we now need more guns to protect us from guns.

And I’m not saying all gun owners are “gun nuts,” but there’s a clear difference in my opinion between a gun owner and a gun nut.

Let’s look at two laws gun nuts absolutely love, “stand your ground” and “open carry.”  Stand your ground laws essentially state that a citizen has the right to defend themselves with deadly force if they feel threatened.  Open carry advocates believe that citizens should be allowed to carry their guns practically anywhere, in full sight of every single human being they encounter.  Because nothing says “I’m sane” quite like carrying military style assault weapons into local restaurants like Chipolte.

Or there was the case in Georgia where a man went around in a public park, where children were participating in sporting events, flashing his gun at people who walked by and telling them that there was nothing they could do about it.

My question is, what if “stand your ground” collides with “open carry”?

What if, as a gun owner, I’m out with my family and I see someone wearing a kevlar vest carrying a loaded AR-15 stalking around a park filled with children?  If I lived in a state with “stand your ground” laws, couldn’t I conceivably shoot this individual and claim that I felt threatened?  I had no choice but to stand my ground and defend myself and my family.

In a world of open carry, what this person was doing wouldn’t be illegal.  Should we first wait to see if they shoot a child or two before we become the right-wing cliché of “a good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun”?

Because in a world where open carry is legal, you know what a potential mass shooter is called right before they unload 20 rounds into a crowd of children?  An American citizen exercising their legal right to carry their assault rifle out in the open.

Take for instance this recent shooting.  What if Elliot Rodger was just walking around carrying a loaded weapon in plain view of the public?  Up until the shooting, if he were in an area that allowed for open carry, he would have been legally able to do so.  So is it really illogical that someone might feel threatened by someone who feels the need to carry around a military style semi-automatic weapon?  Personally if I see someone walking around a local store with a loaded AR-15 strapped to their back, the first thing that comes to mind is “this person isn’t mentally stable.”

And don’t give me this, “Well if people were openly carrying, Rodger would have probably not have done what he did.”  Actually there’s a distinct possibility that he could have targeted the person, or people, who were openly carrying first.  It makes more sense to have concealed carry laws because then a potential shooter doesn’t know who has a gun.  But again, a “good guy with a gun” can’t stop a “bad guy with a gun” until that bad guy opens fire – unless “stand your ground” collides with “open carry.”

That’s why I’ve always mocked the “only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” propaganda gun nuts like to use.  It essentially says we need to let a few die in the initial attack so that we can allow the “good guy” to identify the target and take them out.  Wouldn’t it make sense to do more to keep the bad guy from getting the gun to start with?

Because until the “bad guy” starts shooting at people, they’re technically not breaking the law.  And in places that allow for open carry they can blatantly roam and stalk their future victims right out in the open – legally.

Mark my words, it won’t be long until some state that allows for both “stand your ground” and “open carry” will see the two collide in some kind of public shootout that could have been avoided had guns nuts used even the slightest bit of common sense.  But I guess common sense is just too much to ask for when it comes to anything involving guns these days.


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

  • Brooke Michelle

    “a “good guy with a gun” can’t stop a “bad guy with a gun” until that bad guy opens fire”

    I’ve never seen it put quite like that. Very true.

    • AntiLies

      BS. If your ‘bad guy’ cocks that gun and points it at you, YOU CAN SHOOT HIM FIRST. It’s called self defense, look it up.

      • cgallaway2000

        A good guy would not have his gun cocked and pointed, A bad guy would. Assuming these are the only two people with a gun in the area (no third party involvement), the good guy with the gun would not be able to move the weapon from the safe carrying position into a shooting position, cock and pull the trigger prior to the bad guy firing. It’s called physics, look it up.

      • AntiLies

        what the hell kind of argument is that?? If you don’t have the opportunity to draw, you become a victim of crime, simple. If you are surprised by a gunman out of the blue, tough luck, you’re dead. If you are aware of your surrounding or able to duck and hide whilst drawing, you are now on EQUAL FOOTING. Physical size dictates who wins when guns are not allowed. If a good guy is small, he’s gonna get a whipping. But GUNS MAKE ALL MEN EQUAL. Think about that before you bash guns. Imagine this: a gun loving political party wins the election and says they are going to shoot everyone who don’t like guns. How are you going to prefer to protect yourself? That’s right: with AT LEAST the same lever of firepower, that way you will at least have a equal chance of survival. AND THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT. You should SUPPORT it because one day it could be the only thing saving you from the next Hitler… Think about it.

      • Frosty72

        I’m invoking Godwin’s law. You’re out.

      • AntiLies

        why?

      • John Ash

        You’re invoking cowardice is what you’re doing.

      • Cemetery Girl

        Actually, size isn’t a deciding factor. Bruce Lee was a very powerful man, yet not very large. Someone small, but skilled in martial arts or hand to hand combat, would do better than a large body builder w no fighting skill.
        In weapons, skill can be a factor, but the likelihood of a person being able to draw and fire on the chance that someone openly carrying a rifle decides to go on a shooting spree isn’t high. Any shooter of a reasonable intelligence will go in ready to fire. A person can be taking their rifle off their shoulder for a number of reasons, so unless you’re jumping the gun you can’t assume that any movement of the rifle is a sign of preparing to kill. Most gun owners have no hope of pulling their concealed gun when they see a rifle being brought up to aim just cannot shoot the person first. That is a level of skill that is just not found in the general population. It is ridiculous to think that most of the population can draw and exicute a shot that will stop a shooter when suddenly confronted with a shooter already prepared to kill. That level of response is not automatic. Men and women are trained to have that kind of reflex (which even with training isn’t always enough), and not a skill set that Joe Shmoe has because he went to a range a few times and got a concealed carry.

      • Janet Price

        If what they are saying is true, then no policemen would ever be killed in the line of duty.

      • cgallaway2000

        I was responding about your own scenario where the bad guy already has his gun loaded, pointed, and cocked. In that instance, the person staring down the barrel does not have time to get his gun in the same position. I am not bashing guns, I was responding to a specific scenario. I am actually for concealed carry laws. In the scenario you mentioned, where the bad guy has his gun ready to kill, only a good guy who is not the intended target has the time to be able to draw and shoot.

      • AntiLies

        of course i agree, but if nobody has a gun, nobody will stop that bad guy…

      • John Carter

        Guns make all men equal? We should always remember that lots of bullying goes on and every so often our nation of psychopathic bullies will bully the wrong psychopath and have it blow up in their faces. That’s what this is about, isn’t it?

      • KutTheKrap

        Guns don’t make you equal, they give you power, for better or worse. That’s not necessarily equal. I’m not discussing permitted concealed weapons holders, who don’t flaunt their weapons (especially assault weapons), but persons with open carry, where it is a power play. Are these persons really concerned about responsible gun ownership? Their actions don’t show it. It shown immaturity, bullying, and insecurity. Nothing more.

      • Me

        “GUNS MAKE ALL MEN EQUAL.” Oh my god. Please, please, give that statement a little more consideration. That is one of the most irresponsible arguments I’ve ever heard in favor of looser gun regulations.

      • Leslie Martinez

        The point is though, that a “good guy” with a gun can prevent the bad guy from shooting others.
        Example, Sandy Hook, the principal tha lost her life delaying the shooter with words, could have come out of her office and just shot him to prevent more people from losing their lives.
        The argument in the mass shooting case is not PREVENTING the situation, but limiting the damage.

      • cgallaway2000

        I agree that a third person, out of view of the shooter would be able to help the situation. My comment was in response to someone who gave the scenario of the lawfully armed person staring down the barrel of a gun that is already loaded and cocked and is being held by the perpetrator. In that scenario, the person who is the target of the perpetrator will not physically be able to put his gun in shooting position, cock and shoot before the perp pulls the trigger.

      • Randall Whitt

        Once the bad guy has drawn down on you, you’re not going to be able to get your gun out quick enough. If he’s got the gun cocked and pointed at you all that’s left is for him to pull the trigger. Do you really think he’s going to stand and wait while you pull your weapon? If it gets to that point, YOU’RE DEAD!!!

      • AntiLies

        says who?? you make a ridiculous assumption that has only a 50% chance of being right! As a concealed carrier you are ALWAYS aware of your gun, and, using YOU logic, you have a 50/50 chance of seeing danger coming (like a gun toting nutcase sweeping his barrel all over the place) which means you have a pretty good chance you will ANTICIPATE trouble and act accordingly, so you actually have a pretty good chance of success. In fact, since the bad guy doesn’t know you have a gun, you have the advantage!! which means the element of SURPRISE on your side, which makes your chances of a favorable outcome EVEN HIGHER than 50%! That means you are almost guaranteed to win.

      • Sumer54

        OK CORRALL!!!!

        Back to 1883….here we go.

        Magnify Wyatt Earp as our role model..as we wonder why the economy doesn’t just ‘turn itself’ around in the meantime.

        A big thanks to the rising tide of suckers for hot button, emotional, red state survival issues…the red threat in the 60’s, ‘law and order’ or busing in the 70’s, abortion in the 80’s, Willie Horton in the 90’s, WMD’s in the 2000’s, and now, defense of marriage and gun rights. ANYTHING to make you pull the lever for the candidates in the minority party while distracting yourself from the bigger picture of failing infrastructure, tax inequality, rising debt or issues that take decades, and cooperation, to work through.

        Go ahead and strap on a weapon and see where you end up in 15 years, buying all of your products from Asia, wondering why the US auto industry can’t sell anything except trucks and why the rest of the world has moved on from the delusion of the US as the world leader in places that really matter.

        Folks can’t think straight once they divide themselves into ‘conservatives’ and everyone who disagrees with them as ‘liberals’.

      • AntiLies

        don’t for a MOMENT think your beloved democrat party is not to blame for this. If they stopped pandering to foreigners and instilled patriotism in their low information voters, more people will be like tea party patriots: in the fight to save the republic But instead, your beloved Dear Leader bows before terrorists whilst selling out US troops and in the end all you lot can say is ‘what difference does it make’. PATHETIC!

      • JW

        How in the WORLD are tea party ‘patriots’ doing anything to fight gun violence or ill effects of hyper-masculinity and possible mental illness?

      • AntiLies

        NRA Conservatives are gun owners who are better trained than POLICE in the use of guns to protect yourself. Cops can get away with MURDER, and do, on a daily basis, because the Gestapo State will protect them. Go look at how many innocent, albeit agitated, people got MURDERED by trigger happy cops out there. Your assumption that fun lovers are violent killers are 100% wrong, but you won’t realize that until you get you head out of the cool aid trough. Answer me this: how many school shooters were NRA members…?

      • Marilyn Olsen Scheffler

        I don’t know! Do you?

      • YouKnowMe

        Got any facts to back that up? Last incident I read about a Citizen McGun botched up an attempt to arrest and the guy got away because Mister Impotent caused crossfire that endangered others.

      • republic84

        Wait… Democrat’s are low informed voters? Firstly, have you ever watched fox news for any reason other than to laugh, if so, your already less intelligent than most? Secondly, republican voters are far more likely to be Christian conservatives, which are some of the most unintelligent people on the planet “a giant boat carried 2 of every animal during a flood” my personal favorite “during said flood, the animals outside the boat rode logs like rafts”… Obama caters to foreigners? He has deported more than your beloved coke head ever did, all the while taking a few HUNDRED less vacation days. How dare the president give people the option to become US citizens, after all our country wasn’t formed from immigration or anything… Tea party patriots… I just can’t with that one.. Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, those two have IQs lower than their dress sizes, those are your hero’s?? The tea party is nothing more than a group of racist trash, modern day Nazis. When you open your mouth, do you frequently hear baaaaahhhhhh come out by chance?

      • KarmaCycle

        Hey Einstein, next time use grammar and spell check before making derogatory comments about the ignorance of people with a different point of view than yours.

      • Retrodude

        There were no errors in that statement.

      • StSean

        it’s “When you open YOU’RE mouth..”

        duh!

      • Marilyn Olsen Scheffler

        wrong!!

      • StSean

        yes, i know. i was being sarcastic.

      • gian keys LOVES shemale porn

      • Marilyn Olsen Scheffler

        Is that the best you can do as a reply? Rather sad I think and only proves republic84’s point!

      • rich

        Your a pure idiot, you are a democrat liberal/ the party of lies and death,the democrat model used today is identical to Nazi Germany down to the demonizing of female conservative leaders, the tea party is a mix of races and party’s, because they have become disenchanted with liars and thieves, the usurper in the white house has abused you and me, and you still support the usurpation of our republic, your kind has become a problem, and voting will not fix your mind set, only the complete destruction of our country will open your eyes, then it will be to late.and fox news tells most truths, while CNN ABC CBS and NBC all tow the communist lineline.

      • republic84

        I gladly demonize any idiot male or female in politics regardless of political affiliation, and have done so. It just so happens there’s a concentration of carbon waste in the GOP. The tea party is the Nazi party, it’s members openly hate Gays, Black’s, Hispanics, excuse me “brown people”, women, and children. Argue all you want, democrats don’t go on TV vomiting hate all over the American people, going on how our country is being overwhelmed by brown people, going on how someone shouldn’t have rights because their lives do not conform to the Christian Bible. Let’s provide tax credits to the wealthiest of Americans and the most prosperous of companies but let’s go up in arms about a child getting healthcare or a free lunch while at school. Better yet, let’s get rid of educational funding all together. They openly promote the dumbing down of America with their Bible babble. The president, is forced to usurp because the GOP has a standing rule that anything Obama regardless of what it is; is bad and must be stopped at all cost, even if it causes our government to shut down. Let’s ask the parents, spouses, children, and friends of every American soldier who died in papa and baby Bush’s little 2 TRILLION dollar pet project who’s the death party. How many of those nasty WMDs were found, I’d like a count please? Voting will fix plenty, voting each and every one of the anti American scum known as Republicans out of office.

      • Marilyn Olsen Scheffler

        Or how if you are not a Christian of the “correct” church affiliation you are not worthy of even being on this earth. If you don’t believe every word written in the bible is absolutely true you are looked down upon!

      • Frdmftr

        Another low-information voter who needs to find out what she’s talking about before she shoots off her mouth (or keyboard?). You’ve been drinking some socialist Kool-Aid, Marilyn. For your information, nearly every Christian denomination is represented in the Tea Party, as well as some Jews, and many of us wear “Stand with Israel” buttons on our shirts. There’s also (probably) a few Pagans, though I don’t know any. And I doubt there are too many Atheists; people who don’t believe in God obviously don’t believe in God-given rights. I am a Tea Party member and I don’t believe every word written in the Bible is absolutely true, and I have said so in open Tea Party meetings, and no one has thrown me out. So I recommend you lighten up a little bit and find out what the Tea Party is really all about — which, primarily, is the restoration of our Constitutional form of government and Rule of Law, and the rejection of any rogue occupation government not deriving every scintilla of its authority from that document and Consent of the Governed.

      • Chickie Blackmon

        Excellent!

      • Frdmftr

        Hardly. His assertions were very ignorant.

      • Frdmftr

        Wow. Someone mentioned “low-information voter;” I think I just found one. Okay, from the top: “…there’s a concentration of carbon waste in the GOP.” I don’t know what that’s supposed to mean, but okay — I haven’t been too impressed by MOST of the GOP, especially the leadership, but there are exceptional exceptions. Something of which the Dems seem destitute.

        “The tea party is the Nazi party, it’s members openly hate Gays, Black’s, Hispanics, excuse me “brown people”, women, and children.” Bulldust, Republic84. You haven’t a freaking clue about the Tea Party. You may be right about the Gays allegation, but that makes them Biblical conservatives, not Nazis. And while the Bible regards homosexuality as an abomination, the story of Lot and Sodom and Gomorrah doesn’t say anything like what anti-Gays claim.
        We don’t hate blacks; in fact we would vote for Allen West or Alan King for President in a New York Second, and they are both blacker than Zerobama by half. We do, however, reject with extreme prejudice the view of many blacks that because they are black they are not required to obey the law, and being punished for violating the law constitutes mistreatment of their very black essence. And we are advocating that any black mob that gangs up on innocent whites and beats the hell out of them ought to be shot down on the spot by the victims. (Ditto for any whites who gang up on blacks, but they never do.)
        Hispanics? We have Hispanic members, Republic84. But they are Hispanics who are here legally by birth or by legal immigration, not criminals who think because they are Hispanics they should be given a pass to ignore our laws.
        Women? I would estimate that half our members are women. But we don’t believe women have the right to murder their own unborn children and called it “reproductive rights,” and we sure as hell reject the idea that the taxpayers should have to pay for it. Nor do we believe taxpayers, or employers, should be required to pay for their contraceptives so they can have fun without a care in the world and then expect us to pay for their STDs. If women want to be promiscuous, they can pay for it themselves and reap both the rewards and the penalties for lack of personal responsibility.
        Children? What on Earth could make you believe the Tea Party hates children? That has to be one of the dumbest assertions I have ever encountered from a liberal, right up there with the claim that “No Guns Allowed” signs prevent school massacres.
        No, Republic84; you clearly know nothing about the Tea Party, nor about our main political goal, which is simply to restore Constitutional government at the federal and State level, and with it the Rule of Law.

      • Marilyn Olsen Scheffler

        OMG!! Way way too much fox going on here!

      • YouKnowMe

        Gee, you should wipe your toothless mouth after all that drivel.

      • greg

        And that was Rich everyone!!! Please exit stage right… sorry folks, it seems Rich has had a bit too much to drink. And our next guest…

      • gian keys LOVES shemale porn

        Im enjoying your overt stupidity

      • Colleen A Shea

        Wow, “democrat model used today is identical to Nazi Germany.” I really did not understand how stupid you people are, I used to just feel sorry for you but in the information age, this level of ignorance is a choice.

      • Chickie Blackmon

        A mix of races?!!! Bwhahahaha!! I love that one! Please show me one Black person in that party! The party that formed because we elected a President that’s not White! They are the most divisive, racists assholes in politics. And with people like Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin, I would never admit to being aligned with them! I’ve never, ever seen a President so disrespected before than from the people of that Party! They are on their way out….just wait

      • Chickie Blackmon

        Bravo!!!!

      • Derpington_The_Third

        Patriotism sent those jobs overseas chump. Ever wonder why super hardcore capitalists are right leaning? “Oh I just want a lower than low tax burden, poor me!”

        Gag me.

      • AntiLies

        I, as a conservative, make a point of buying Made in America, in my effort to punish your super hardcore capitalists for having all their crap made in china. What are you doing?

      • Derpington_The_Third

        Then don’t bitch and moan when American made junk costs more to pay for our ridiculous standard of living, then whine about the minimum wage should be abolished, etc etc.

        You nationalists disgust me.

      • AntiLies

        who said I bitched about paying more?? another ridiculous assumption by you lot. I DO pay more for MiA products, and I do it with a SMILE on my face.

      • politicalsanity

        Where are you finding stuff that is truly made in America? There’s some stuff that is ASSEMBLED in America, but there’s very little that is 100% made in America.

      • Marilyn Olsen Scheffler

        Hobby Lobby has all of their crap made in China (the country that promotes abortion they HL hates so much) so it seems as if they might be talking out of both sides of their mouths.

      • YouKnowMe

        You think that makes a difference? It’s a feel-good, nothing more.

      • Meira Perelstein

        Whoa it’s not for any party to instill patriotism. As far as i can tell the reps just use more patriotic rhetoric, but they are actually doing less for low income people which is the majority of people these days. I am patriotic. I am a liberal. You know what would instill more patriotism in me. Better healthcare, treating our vets right, taxing multimillion corporations, anti monopoly bills, politicians who voted for what’s right and not what corporate lobbyists have written, raising the minimum wage, getting us out of these unwinnable wars, using some of our immense defense budget on infrastructure and social programs, going back to the rule of law so that law breaking financiers go to jail, investing in solar energy, paid maternity leave for women and men, 4 weeks paid vacation, bills that protect workers from working 34 hrs so companies ( like Walmart) aren’t liable for health insurance, immigration reform cause lets face it, we all come from immigrants unless you’re native American,

      • where is reagan

        You are confused about big and small business. Minimum wage hikes will kill the small business man. 85 % of America is employed by small business. Dems and rep are BOTH to blame for this fing economic mess we are in. This health care system that was rammed down our throats is going to hurt me than help. ALL these problems co hold be solved by a better tax system. IT IS CORRUPT. It benefits the elites both R and D. Move to the fair tax and we can once again be the economic engine that drives the world.

      • MrLightRail

        The minimum wage has been raised before, and there were no significant job losses, nor price hikes due to them. This is a proven fact. Let’s raise the minimum wage to a living wage for a single person, and index it to inflation, so we do not have to address it again.

      • YouKnowMe

        Got any FACTS to back those spooches up?

      • Me

        I’m not sure but AntiLies, you may be on the verge of demonstrating the validity of my earlier statement in reply to you. And I didn’t even have to read very far.

      • tim

        whoa is right, really?

      • MrLightRail

        I thought that the Tea Party was mad at Wall Street for all of the shenanigans they pulled that almost destroyed our economy. I agreed with them at that time. But, they started attracting racists, and Ayn Rand supporters, and morphed into a monster that if unchecked, will destroy the United States as we know it. And that, I will not support.

      • YouKnowMe

        You’re pretty hilarious, Michelle.

      • Responsible carry

        If you really think there is a difference between the “two parties” you are really not paying attention to the big picture. Whether it’s a R or D representing the people we have the same pro war, big government, higher taxes, pro fed reserve banksters, pro corporatism, less liberty, and fewer rights agenda. These little differences are designed to distract and divide the populace while a select few control our country.

      • Brad Rogers

        If that’s the case, pick the one that doesn’t hate minorities, women and gays.

      • gian keys LOVES shemale porn

        aaaa-men 2 that

      • Frdmftr

        Better yet, pick one that doesn’t hate or ignore the U.S. Constitution (if you can find one). That would solve the minorities, women and gays problem (as much as they can be solved without depriving everyone else of their rights) and would restore our nation to the status of the most prosperous nation on Earth owing nothing to the international bankers, and anyone willing to work would be prosperous enough to send their kids to a better academically-higher school than they went to. Of course, that would also stop the Socialism (Marxism-Lite) currently infesting the “useful idiots” of our nation and require them to work for a living.

      • Sumer54

        Is this your pitch for apathy and isolation?

        Both parties have their mutual faults. Both parties have their mutual dependencies. That hardly makes them ‘the same’, except to those who are too burned out to become a part of any change.

        But, seriously, to say that both parties are the same is just as disingenuous as to say that five people coming out of a house with the same last name are the same, without bothering to take the time to really THINK about your premise. It’s too hard, isn’t it?

        Just give up. Call me back when you’re done.

      • tim

        yes we are burying ourselves… in all the ways you have stated… If guns are your priority, carrying them to the fast food joint and walmart… ask yourself why those are the only places you can still get a job. sad

      • Cathryn Sykes

        What I love is that these idiots, I swear, base all their ideas on movies. The Old West did NOT feature gunfights every hour on the hour! Most people coming into town checked their handguns with the sheriff and retrieved them on the way out, and left their rifles in their saddle scabbards or in their wagons before they went into a shop or a saloon. The Texas Rangers, perhaps one of the finest law and order organizations around, rarely drew their guns. They prided themselves on quelling riots, fights etc. via TALKING to people.

      • Randall Whitt

        I believe the article refers to OPEN CARRY. Does it not?

        AND…

        Your post to which I first responded was describing a scenario where the assailant already had the gun “COCKED & POINTED” at you.

        FINALLY…

        If you’re carrying a concealed weapon it’s even harder to ready it as quickly because it’s being carried under your jacket. This means you have to first get your hand inside your jacket before you can ready your weapon. By that time, the person your trying to defend yourself from has already pumped an entire clip into your sorry ass

      • AntiLies

        all assumptions. If you walk around a corner and a crook already has a gun pointed at you, you are toast. Shit happens. But if you DON’T have a gun on you, you’re screwed also, whereas if you DO carry a gun and you arrive at the scene without a cocked gun pointed at you already, or a distracted bad guy, you might be able to shoot him first. But you can only do that IF YOU HAVE A GUN. So, please, don’t carry a gun, because the world certainly has too many foolish people already. Just go ahead and let murphy’s law take care of your ass, all in the name of selective breeding.

      • Elizakay

        Take it easy, AntiLies. Damn. Your posts are a bit too erratic and emotional to be taken seriously. What are you defending anyway? The author makes a great point. I say lets keep the guns where they belong, out of the hands of the erratic and emotional. ….Scary.

      • AntiLies

        you people are trying to ban guns for your political opposition. You are no better than your Dear Leader who uses the AG, the IRS and the NSA to go after political opposition. Traitors.

      • Dakota Lee

        Shut up before something bad happens to you.

      • AntiLies

        lol is that a threat? cause that’s what liberals do when someone bulldozes them with facts: they bitch and moan, cry RACIST! and pretend they have the higher ground. I bet you lot of ill informed anti-americans here are not used to someone actually calling you out on all your bullshit.

      • Butch Darling

        You can’t have it both ways:
        If liberals hasten to threaten
        Then they can’t be indecisive wimps.

        My experience has taught me that blowhard bullies like you are dime-a-dozen that dozen work – much less work for a living.
        Give me a good old-fashioned union man that votes for Democrats and I’ll run your lilly livered ass right out of town
        If I knew where you live, but I don’t so my promise devolves into an empty dream on my part.

        And udder silence on yours!

      • Quantumsolstice

        Here’s a pro-tip AntiLies, When someone correctly points out that your emotional and erratic arguments are flawed, don’t continue to argue the point by making yet more emotional, erratic, and flawed arguments that even at times border on broad generalizations that have no basis in fact.

      • AntiLies

        you’re talking out of your ass. My points are not merely valid, but logical, and true. I do not, like you lot, rely on your sippy cup of cool-aid from the white house for talking points. You saying that it is erratic and flawed is merely YOUR OWN opinion, and what makes you think YOUR points are not erratic and flawed? What makes YOU right?

      • Derpington_The_Third

        “My points are not merely valid, but logical, and true.”

        this is how we know you’re full of shit: You’ve used the same word redundantly 3 times.

        All arguments are logic based (fuck, everything is logic based). Saying you’re arguments are logical is redundant.

        True and valid arguments are generally the exact same thing.

        Once again, your erratic behavior is noted, and hilariously so.

        “You saying that it is erratic and flawed is merely YOUR OWN opinion, and
        what makes you think YOUR points are not erratic and flawed?”

        Please don’t ask me to bust your chops with actual philosophy, I’m a bit tired to argue with chumps at the moment.

        “What makes YOU right?”

        Oh, I don’t know, sourced data from actual scientific studies that you and I can completely reproduce?

      • KutTheKrap

        What was your separation date from the military?

      • Me

        Okay, you just proved my point. You have gotten erratic, emotional, and are lumping everyone who doesn’t agree with you in total lockstep as your enemy. I am distinctly uncomfortable with the idea that you might be able to carry a gun and one day start losing an argument that will prompt you to “stand your ground.”

      • Cthulhu0818

        You’re full of shit. How do I know this? Almost twenty years as a soldier and a cop. But by all means, keep spewing your nonsense.

      • Dave6

        It’s “Kool-Aid”, not “Cool-aid.”

      • Elizakay

        So again. Take it easy and stop attacking the world. You may have some valid points but again they are too emotionally charged and erratic too be taken seriously. Try approaching this a different way…. by asking some guiding questions of your audience. You may or may not like the answers, but you will provoke thought. We are all in this together, man. Chill.

      • MmmKay

        Isn’t it ironic the country bumpkins with the guns are always the ones using flawed logic and talking about selective breeding? This is what happens when we don’t take education seriously in this country.

      • bigD

        So you would rather be unarmed. If not carrying a weapon is the safest way to go into a dangerous situation then would you reccomend that our soldiers and marines go into combat armed only with a gift of gab using their golden tongues to talk their way out of firefights?

      • Randall Whitt

        The fact that you’d actually compare being in a combat situation to walking down a street in your hometown or visiting a supermarket just further demonstrates your incredible stupidity. I’d advise you to choose your words more carefully in the future to avoid making yourself appear even more obtuse than you already do.

      • bigD

        I’ll make you a deal. Come to my neighborhood and stay for a week. If you don’t scram out of here on the first night then you are braver than you sound on your responses.I have new next door neighbors because the previous tenants were the victims of a drive by shooting last year. A month ago my bank,was robbed. it is only about ten blocks from my home. The robbers had a running gunfight with the police. There were over 100 parked cars shot up by the robbers AK -47s. Two robbers and two hostages died. I hear semi and fully auto gunfire coming from one or more directions nearly every night. My city is now and has been on several occasions been the murder capital of the country. Two months before the robbery there was another robbery in which the bad guys took the same escape route. Two innocent people were killed when the get away car ran a red light. Yes I live in a war zone of sorts that I am too poor to move out of,so before you jump to conclusions you need to think before you open your mouth and reveal just how ignorant you are!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • Jon Grover

        And you think more people with guns will improve your town?

        That isn’t just stupid, it’s frightenly stupid.

      • William Ridge Casey

        It didn’t exactly work for the soldiers at Fort Hood. If anyone is able to anticipate trouble, shouldn’t it have been people in the military?

      • Duce

        You do realize you cannot carry a weapon on a military base correct?

      • AntiLies

        unless you are a deranged jihadist….

      • AntiLies

        Your base is a place of sanctuary. That’s where soldiers are supposed to be able to let their guard down. It’s not supposed to be a war zone. But then Uncle Barry forces your SWORN ENEMY to ‘serve’ in your ranks, those same guys that shout DEATH TO AMERICA in their sleep, and they kill those who protect you whilst you sleep, and to add insult to injury, your Dear Leader calls it ‘workplace violence’, even after Hassan himself professed his love for Islam and his hate for the infidel (that means you, too). Your leaders in the democrat party have sold those dead soldiers out, and than want to wash their paws in innocence. Pathetic.

      • Edward Krebbs

        Auntie, nice to see you admit your racism. Even GWB while pushing for Iraq stressed that the Muslims and/or Arabs weren’t our enemies.

      • Roy Batty

        That law about guns on military bases was put in place by George H. W. Bush in 1992. Get your facts straight. Based on that, lets just substitute GOP and Bush for dem and Obama in your post, then it will be more reality based.

      • Charles Vincent

        Wrong it was Bill Clinton.

      • Roy Batty

        The original directive (5210.56) came from the DoD in Feb of 1992, and the Army implemented it in March of 1993. Technically it went in under Clinton, but the original directive upon which the Army based theirs came from the DoD during GHW Bush’s term.

      • Charles Vincent

        Citations please.

      • Charles Vincent

        Roy you have to modify the links or your post will be deleted. I looked up the reference you gave but it had three DoD hits none of which listed who issued the order and two of the three were issued after 2000, these may have been revisions of earlier issuances. Also like the name but you need the pic to go with it.

      • Responsible carry

        The department of the Army and DOD changed policy and stopped military personnel from carrying their weapons on military installations in the 90’s. While our soldiers are trained to operate firearms, they are not allowed to carry on base/post which has been declared a “gun free zone”.

      • ChomskyNoam007

        Right. I have to anticipate the bad guy with a gun, by drawing and cocking my gun. Which gives him the right to shoot me legally. This is why we call you “gun nuts.”

      • KutTheKrap

        Are you really that frightened of society to be that hypervigilant?

      • LawMom3

        Living law vida fantasy-land are you? How can ANYONE be “ON” the whole time they’re carrying a weapon? You talk as if people who carry are maintaining a high degree of readiness and alertness, when the stories are legion of people carrying (concealed or open) forgetting that they have the gun and doing things like leaving it in a bathroom or dropping it on the floor or accidentally shooting themselves when it gets tangled in their clothing. That’s the problem. No one can be alert ALL the time and aware of their weapon ALL the time.

      • Cemetery Girl

        No. No. No. If the shooter is going into a place with the intent of a mass shooting, especially in a “stand your ground state”, he will go in ready to fire. I’m sorry, but these guys have thought about this act for weeks, possibly months. The ones that do these things, it is not a spur of the moment “let’s take the safety off, cock the gun, take aim, an see how many we mow down” kind of deal. If they do, they are morons. No, if you plan on mass carnage you go in with guns ready to fire. And I’m sorry, but not a single average citizen is going to be able to outdraw (an hopefully take his/her gun off of safety) in the time that they see someone prepared for mass carnage has already put their gun into firing position. I question the ability of trained soldiers, trained snipers, anything, to spot a person about to pull the trigger and take their weapon from being carried peacefully and safefully to stopping the assailant in the time it takes him/her to pull the trigger. The amount of ability it takes to see someone ready to take a shot, and in the few seconds it takes for them to pull a trigger to cause any physical harm at all, pull your weapon, have it ready to fire (because I’m sorry, but having a weapon always ready to fire amount civilians is crazy), and shooting the assailant before they can even get a single shot off is unrealistic. It is unrealistic for trained professionals, let alone people that spent a weekend getting a concealed carry!

      • BD

        Nonsense! You’ve watched way too much TV.

        I can tell that carrying a gun makes you THINK that just by virtue of being armed you’re suddenly transformed into Jack Bauer! Here’s what will really happen… the bad guy decides to start shooting, he chooses those who are carrying OPENLY (which in case you can’t read is the subject of this article)… so good guy with a gun #1 is dead before he can even drop his Big Mac. Then MAYBE someone else who is carrying (concealed this time just for the sake of argument) manages to get his gun out but good guy #2 has buck fever and can’t hit the broadside of a barn… he takes out 2 or 3 innocent people in the process of trying to shoot the bad guy… good guy #3 is a veteran, who actually has some combat experience and doesn’t freak out BUT he sees good guy #2 shooting and thinks he’s bad guy #1….good #2 is now dead…. then the police arrive and luckily they don’t shoot good guy #3 but while they are in the process of disarming him and making sure he’s not bad guy #1, the completely miss bad guy #1 as he starts shooting at them and he manages to take out a few cops before he finally goes down.

        If you think this isn’t the most likely scenario then stop and think about how common it is, as your driving in traffic, to think every other driver on the road is a complete idiot! THESE are the people who will be “playing THE ROLE OF good guy with a gun”! You may all think you’re Jack Bauer but you’re far more likely to just be an IDIOT with a gun!

        P.S. I’m pro-Second Amendment and don’t support gun bans though I do support universal registration and background checks. I believe that the right to bear arms ends at your door. Stand Your Ground and universal carry laws (open or concealed) are FUCKING STUPID! I’m a Marine Corps veteran who has trained with rifle, shotgun and pistol for both military and law enforcement and I’m not so blind or stupid as to believe that I’m going to somehow Matrix dodge the bullet that was fired at me from behind in a crowded public place, draw my weapon and take out the bad guy.

        I’m not sure if you remember the recent mall shooting by a man and woman with ties to white supremacists… the first two people they shot were ON-DUTY, ARMED COPS WITH BODY ARMOR!

      • YouKnowMe

        “Always”? Nice fantasy life you’ve got going for yourself. Tell me: what’s your favorite ice-cool line that you made up to tell the perp right before you cap him? “Go ahead–make my day” is so DONE.

      • Hunter Herr

        You are making a lot of statistical statements here and I would really like to review your sources and your math that led you to these conclusions.

      • John Michael Hutton

        His gun is out, aimed and he is ready to fire. Are you fucking serious? YOU’RE DEAD.

      • Cathryn Sykes

        How is a 60% chance a guarantee of winning? And why do you assume the “bad guy” won’t know you have a gun? He is, after all, “sweeping his barrel al over the place.” Which means, if he has a semi-automatic, that you, as a bystander, have an ‘EVEN HIGHER than 50%!” chance of already being on the ground watching your guts ooze from between your fingers.

      • John Ash

        If you are within 10, even 20′, you have a very high chance of being able to take the gun from him if you actually were trained. Aside from this, many thugs who run around with a gun spend zero time doing target practice and assume they can actually hit something. They often can’t.

      • Meira Perelstein

        The third time I used a gun, (every time was at a range) I hit 1 out of 5 shots at 25 yards. I don’t consider myself an especially good shot.
        I think most people could hit almost anything at 10-20 feet.

      • Me

        If you google a video using the term Chevy Kehoe and come up with the shootout he had with police in Wilmington, Ohio in 1995 you may rethink that. I don’t recall how many shots were fired but the Kehoes and the police unloaded their weapons on one another at distances as close as seven feet and no one was injured. I’m not dissing you but it bears some consideration that even people who are trained to address hostile fire situations can behave erratically when bullets are moving in both directions.

      • Oldman….

        Targets Can’t Shoot Back… LOL….

      • Cathryn Sykes

        You “think.” Willing to bet your life on that, pal?

      • Frdmftr

        I know of a case in which a woman, left home with her 13-year-old son, had a husband who had to go on a business trip and left her a 9mm semi-auto for home defense. A violent convict escaped custody in the neighborhood and the residents were all warned by the cops to stay inside. The woman, all excited, retrieved the pistol and then called her girlfriend on the phone to relay the news. The 13-y.o. boy, listening to her excitedly telling the story on the phone, decided to play a trick (not knowing his mother had the pistol). He pulled on a balaclava to cover his face, climbed out the window, went around front and barged in the front door scaring his mother half to death. She opened up on him with the 9mm pistol at a range of nine feet, firing seven rounds as fast as she could.
        And missed. Made a mess out of her upper doorsill, however. The boy was treated for powder burns.

      • Eddie M

        “if you actually were trained” How many people are trained to disarm someone who has a loaded gun pointed at them. You’re living in the movies, buddy.

      • John Ash

        Not enough, but it is possible. As I recall, the services train in this. The reaction combined with the shock of seeing someone doing the totally unexpected allows you to cover the distance and disarm they before they have the ability to pull the trigger. Though I wouldn’t recommend it in every circumstance.

      • John Michael Hutton

        reaction time would have to be way slow if I have gun pointed and cocked. I don’t care what kind of training you have unless it involves magic, I’ve shot you and you are D-E-A-D.

      • Frdmftr

        Pointed and cocked is only half the fight. Have you practiced shooting with dirt thrown in your eyes by a moving target with a gun or knife or quarter-staff after you have pointed and cocked? Suggest you do so. You might not be quite so arrogant.

      • bigD

        There are thousands of weapons courses in America taught by ex law enforcement,ex military and former special forces members. You are living in an alternate universe.

      • Cathryn Sykes

        God, so true, Eddie. I’ve seen the pictures of some of the “open carry” guys down here in Texas hauling their semi-auto weapons around with them in Target. Chubby, scrawny, no chins, ears sticking out, bottle-thick glasses….they are exactly the kind of guys who would think that shouldering a rifle would suddenly turn them into Rambo. And I’m sure that they all think that in an actual emergency or gunfight, they’d act like the hero in their favorite Steven Seagal movie……well, the movies are faked, boys, and the violence in them isn’t real, and when the bad guys get shot in movies, they only stay down until the director says “Cut!” and then they get up and go to lunch. In real life, the bad guy with a gun is quite likely to shot YOU! The blood spilled will quite likely be yours. And there’ll be no director around to yell….”Cut!”

      • Frdmftr

        Cathryn Sykes: Which is exactly (one reason among many) why we have the right to keep and bear arms: To discourage the bad guy from getting into a gunfight in the first place. (That being said, the discouragement works much better if the bad guy doesn’t know who is armed and who isn’t. I share your view of 300-lb. Rambos with their gut hanging out, though I think it pretty arrogant of you to presume you can read their minds.)

      • Chris Linville

        Quite a few their called American military and law enforcement, you’d be surprised how many veterans there are out there around you all the time. But you probably wouldn’t want to get to know them because most are those crazy gun fanatics that will end up saving your butt when if you get into a situation where it’s needed.

      • James

        THEY HIT INNOCENT PEOPLE –

      • Hunter Herr

        This is the other problem. The “Good guy with a gun” is a vigilante when all is said and done. They are not law enforcement officers and are not trained as such.

        You are just as likely to hit an innocent bystander as you are the “bad guy”.

      • John Michael Hutton

        Logic, it separates the dumbasses from the sane

      • Frdmftr

        John Michael Hutton: If you know what logic is, can identify logical fallacies, and don’t fall into any of the several logical traps — such as “logically” assuming that the birthrate in India and the number of new sidewalk squares in New York are cause and effect just because they appear to be related. Learning to use “Occam’s Razor” (sometimes spelled “Ockham’s”) is also helpful.

      • Frdmftr

        Hunter Herr: Deficient mindset, Hunter. The “Good guy with a gun” is not a vigilante; he is the First Responder. He knows what is happening; he doesn’t need to assess the situation like a cop arriving ten minutes later has to. The only real difference between the law enforcement officer and the “good guy with a gun” is that the officer can act on probable cause. The citizen had better be right. That being the case, any citizen exercising his right to keep and bear arms for defensive purposes needs to take a course in self-defense law and given our litigious society, needs to sign up for one of the good legal programs that pay the legal costs after a righteous self-defense event. That does not mean that government should mandate either one, and government should not: The exercise of a right does not require government permission or government-mandated training, though voluntary training is recommended.

      • Jon Horton

        Google Police Shooting Accuracy.

      • John Michael Hutton

        You’re a bigger idiot than the guy who is going to shoot the bad guy. YOu ain’t getting that close and he’s ready to shoot you. Morons like you have a 10 second report on your death when you tried to put your plan into affect. I don’t practice with a gun in fact I don’t own a gun but if I have one and you are 10/20 ft away from me and I’m ready to shoot you, pal, you’re shot and probably dead. stupid

      • Frdmftr

        If you don’t practice with a gun and don’t own a gun, you don’t know what you are talking about.

      • Cathryn Sykes

        And you, sir, are absolutely sure that when it’s NOT a matter of shooting at a target, it’s a matter of another guy, someone who might even be more “trained” than you, with a gun, and that gun is now pointing at YOU, that you are going to shoot first….and shoot straight. And win this little game. Right. The graveyards are full of people who thought they’d be the ones to be “left standing” after the smoke cleared.

      • Frdmftr

        Cathryn Sykes: “The graveyards are full of people who thought they’d be the ones to be “left standing” after the smoke cleared.”
        Perhaps. But they are also full of people who listened to your admonition to remain defenseless in the interests of safety, and died.

      • Oldman….

        Well Said Randall … Some These Gun Nuts Hasn’t Got No Common Sense… LMAO…

      • bigD

        So your answer is to only let criminals carry guns? Genius!!

      • Randall Whitt

        My answer would be to let NOBODY carry guns but I’m not going to debate that with someone who compares our President to Adolf Hitler.

        With regards to your avatar, I’d like to say that people of your ilk absolutely sicken me. The fact that you’d compare Obama to a person who exterminated 6 million people greatly offends me. It’s obvious to me that you could benefit from a long stay at a psychiatric facility and a daily intravenous drip of Thorazine.

        BTW… Don’t bother sending a reply as it will NEVER be looked at. I’ve no interest in ANYTHING a hate mongering racist like you has to say. Go hang out at the KKK website with all your pals and leave the political discourse to people who actually have a functional brain.

      • bigD

        You have had your say. Now I am having mine. I don’t really care if you are too closed minded to even reply to me. This post is for others with more open minds to see. If you had read {ANY} of my previous posts then you would see that I am anything but a racist. I have defended minorities on many posts and had long, heated arguments with real KKK members on disqus. You don’t know me from Adam yet you Call me a racist and KKK member for my avatar. There are several similarities between Obama and Hitler weather you like it or not. It has nothing to do with racism and has everything to do with his policies. My choice for president in the last election was Herman Cain. He happens to be all black. Obama is half white.Did you support Cain in the last election? No, you didn’t…..You racist!!

      • Randall Whitt

        Every racist denies being a racist. you’re no exception. You chose to put up an avatar that compares Obama to Adolf Hitler and you say that there are similarities. NAME ONE???

        I would point out that it’s the GOP who passed legislation which guts the 6th amendment by allowing the incarceration of ANYONE who the President believes is an enemy combatant for indefinite period of time without even being charged with a crime… YOUR PRESIDENT Bush did that, not Obama.

        I would further point out that YOUR PRESIDENT Bush signed into law a provision in the patriot act with sets aside our 4th amendment protections against unlawful searches and seizures by allowing the NSA to listen in on phone conversations and intercepting our emails. Obama didn’t start that YOUR PEOPLE did.

        SO… Tell me Big D, which party is closer in philosophy and belief to the the NAZIS???

        Lastly I would direct your attention to a man named Cliven Bundy who has for years evaded his taxes by grazing his cattle on lands owned by the American people for free. This man put together a militia and pointed weapons at federal agents. Just the other day this man said God told him to start a civil war was is an act of TREASON!!!

        These are the people with whom you associate yourself when you post an avatar which places Obama and Hitler in the same catagory.

        Finally… I didn’t support Herman Cain in the last election, did you? I didn’t support him because I knew hw was a philanderer and had sexually harrased women in his employ. I didn’t support him because I knew he stole his 9,9,9, tax plan from a computer game called “The Sims”. I didn’t support him because he quoted The Pokeman Movie in a speech. I didn’t support him because he didn’t even know where the Republic of Georgia was or who President Margvelashvili was. He didn’t know this and the Russian invasion of Georgia was one of the biggest issues in the 2008 election. Even Sarah Palin knew that and she’s a moron.

      • Jeff Camire

        What if you can’t see the other guy with a gun? How do you determine threat? If he has a gun cocked and loaded at someone who isn’t in sight and some other nut just shoots him claiming he was a threat and the unseen nut then shoots? Not to mention do really want our malls to turn into the ok coral?

      • AntiLies

        yeah, DON’T think for yourself, because to a liberal, you are 100% unable to assess a situation and see who’s in the right and who not. That’s your big government’s job, right? A simple answer is this: if you shoot a man who has a raised gun at something you can’t see, it’s murder on your head, and hopefully for you, you shot the right guy, but either way, if you just shoot a random person who has a gun raised, you are not fit to have a gun in the first place. Secondly (and also logically) if you draw your gun and the other gun holder turns his gun to you, it now becomes self defense, and you can shoot him and get away with it. If he DIDN’T have bad intentions, he would not turn the gun on a stranger that has another gun! DUH!

      • Confused

        You cant claim self defense when you yourself was the aggressor in the situation. The person you pulled your gun on is the one who claims self defense.

      • eeee

        “if he didn’t have bad intentions he would not turn the gun on a stranger that has another gun! DUH!”

        But in your fictional scenario, isn’t “turning the gun on a stranger with another gun” what the putative good guy has done, just before the “bad guy” turns? Can you not see how circular this is?

      • Meredith MacVittie

        Normal people aren’t going to see someone who is doing little more than pointing a weapon and shoot that person dead, unless that person has actually started harming people already. If you see someone with a gun, you are probably going to attempt to figure out the situation first, unless you are just as crazy as the mass shooter and looking for an excuse to kill someone.

      • AntiLies

        agreed! people will assess a situation, and not be like liberals who blame the damn NRA every time someone shoots a gun.

      • ruthmcveigh

        But isn’t it then your word against his (if he survives to tesitfy).

      • AntiLies

        innocent until proven guilty. Otherwise, INNOCENT. Shit happens sometimes, didn’t forrest gump teach you that?

      • Me

        I’m curious about one thing. To avoid having the bad guy get the drop on you it would assume that you already would have your legally openly carried weapon out and at the ready so that you can shoot him first. However, if the bad guy does shoot you and then claims he was threatened by your weapon being out and ready does he then cease to be the bad guy because of SYG? It seems to me that a rather glaring fallacy of SYG is the possibility of it being invoked with the only witness being shot dead and therefore unable to refute the self-defense claim. Pair that with open carry and I’m not sure just exactly how anyone can know how many shootings are justified and how many are little more than murder with no way to prove it. Also, considering how heated the debate over anything to do with guns gets, I’m not a big fan of open carry, concealed carry, or stand your ground because, quite simply, I’m not prepared to trust that someone will control themselves with ready access to a firearm who is unable to show the same level of restraint with a keyboard. I think that is definitely a concern. I haven’t even read through the whole comment thread yet but I’ll be very surprised if someone hasn’t already lost their temper. Luckily, all of us are sitting behind computer monitors instead of eyeballing one another over gun sights.

      • Alex Warhead

        ah, another john mclain/dirty harry wanna be jerk-off.
        you’re the same kind of simple minded, self delusional wad that was.
        the only way to anticipate trouble is if you’re the one starting it.

      • John E. Conway

        You dont understand modern firearms. There is no cocking a gun anymore. You pull the trigger when it is in fire mode and it cocks as you pull the trigger. after firing the escaping gas is used to send the slide back up, load the next round, and cock the weapon for the next shot. For an AR 15, you put the magazine in place, release the bolt assembly, and you are loaded and ready to fire.

      • tim

        yes if you have time….

      • Retrodude

        And what if the ‘bad guy’ sneaks into your home and you wake up with a loaded gun pointed at your forehead? Not gonna have time to reach over, grab that pistol, aim, and fire. BAM. You’re dead!

      • Oldman….

        How You Going To Know… You Got Eyes In The Back of Your Head Also… Dumb Ass….

      • Oldman….

        A Bad Guy Shooter Not Going Set There And Let You See him Cock His Gun… He’s Going To Start Shooting Before You Get Your First Shot Out… Man What An Idiot…

      • bigD

        How would a gun hater like you know any of this? Are you really Elliot Ness reincarnated. Tell me Elliot have you ever held a gun or would you faint when it went off?

      • Marilyn Olsen Scheffler

        Sure would be a fun family time at a restaurant with that going on! Geeeze!

      • Hunter Herr

        Well yes, if you already have your gun loaded and pointed at him, in which case, you are the aggressor.

        Or do you expect him to allow you to unholster your gun, disarm the safety, and draw on him? That seems unrealistically sporting of the “bad guy”.

        You probably should have thought that brilliant defense out just a little more before publicly presenting it.

      • John Michael Hutton

        Hey genius, he points a loaded and cocked gun at you, do you think he is going to wait until you pull your gun out of your pants, raise it and shoot. Pal, you are dead meat by that time. This is what I mean when I say you are a fucking moron. Because you can’t think any further than the end of your nose. YOU’RE DEAD, PAL.

    • Freezinghot

      You still don’t address the fact that guns are here to stay. They can’t even keep them out of the prisons.

    • tag

      wrong, A gun pointed at someone is act enough

    • John Michael Hutton

      It’s called logic

  • Edward Krebbs

    I’ve always asked, what if you and I are both carrying and meet on the sidewalk. Normal, polite action would be for each of us to move to the side and slightly rotate our bodies so we can pass each other. But what if neither of us do that ?

    We have a right to walk down the sidewalk and you’re impeding me from my lawful activity (and mutually, I’m doing the same to you). So isn’t the only response to shoot each other ?

    • AntiLies

      why would you even make such a ridiculous assumption. Does China and Japan throw nuclear bombs on each other for ‘not giving way’ in the disputed sea? No they don’t. If you have a gun, and the other guy doesn’t, you win the fight. If both have a gun, you have a 50% chance of dying on the spot, which cause you to reconsider, unless you are trying to get shot as a suicide. If you want to fight and the other guy has a gun, you are a FOOL if you don’t back off.

      • cgallaway2000

        A lot of people don’t care if they die and are already prepared for it. Just about all the loonies that are out to cause mass murder expect to not come out alive and are trying to inflict as much pain and suffering as they can before they themselves get brought down. Perhaps you should go to a run down part of any big city and see if a bad guy hesitates when you draw your gun or if they just shoot you down without a second thought. Life is not like what you see in the movies, where hesitation on the part of the bad guy is inserted for dramatic effect.

      • AntiLies

        you make my point by referring to the killers as ‘loonies’

        there’s no denying those loonies shouldn’t have guns, but that does NOT mean I shouldn’t be able to have and carry one!

      • Jeff Friesen

        So you don’t support the NRAs position on gun ownership: every terrorist with a heartbeat, a gun? Good to know.

      • AntiLies

        the NRA SUPPORTED legislation to ban guns from mentally ill people. Get your info right.

      • cgallaway2000

        I didn’t mention anything about the NRA or their position on the issue. My point was simply, just like sane gang bangers, if you aren’t afraid to die, someone else pulling a gun isn’t going to make you pause.

      • cgallaway2000

        I suppose we can start discussing who is qualified to perform the mental evaluations?

      • Pat Frederickson

        I bet if you were to be evaluated by the most respected mental health professionals in the world, each one of those professionals would label you an looney and recommend that you stay as far away from weapons as possible.

      • JW

        You’re ASSUMING rational action and that each person can almost read the other’s mind–the real world doesn’t work like that.

      • Jeff Friesen

        It does if you hear voices in your head….

      • Pat Frederickson

        Something tells me that AntiLies hears those voices…

  • Edward Krebbs

    “a “good guy with a gun” can’t stop a “bad guy with a gun” until that bad guy opens fire”

    I’d like to believe in the legality of proportionate force. But in SYG states, it is apparently OK to blast someone away for playing their music too loud or wearing a hoodie on a cool night.

    • Deacon_Sam1

      You can goad an unarmed man into a fight, shoot him and get acquitted.

      • AttilatheBlond

        Zimmerman proved your point.

      • AntiLies

        so a community gets a neighborhood watchman, who walks around and follows people and tries to PROTECT THE COMMUNITY, and then gets attacked by a thug trying to crack his head open on the pavement, and then the thug gets shot, and you can’t see that it’s the thugs’ fault?? Why didn’t Treyvon call 911 or ask Zimmerman why he’s following him? If he had, or Trayvon said ‘I live over here’ instead of ambushing Zimmerman, he would still be alive. His death was his OWN fault.

      • cgallaway2000

        perhaps Martin felt threatened by someone stalking him and decided to stand his ground, but not using lethal force?

      • AntiLies

        why would you attack a person that’s bulkier than you, at night, when you are already at a disadvantage (feeling threatened is a DISADVANTAGE)…? Unless you thought you could whip his ass and get away with it… That’s called the ‘thug mentality’. Go look it up in Chicago.

      • Frosty72

        Actually, the first question you ask is why the picture painted by you doesn’t hold water.

        Also, the “when you are already at a disadvantage…” and “you thought you could whip his ass and get away with it” argument is what makes the Stand Your Ground law work in the first place.
        And yes, the Stand Your Ground law is thug mentality.

      • AntiLies

        so what do you suggest? empowering crooks and thugs by always running away? if you let that happen through banning guns and laws like stand your ground, NOBODY will be safe outside at any time of the day. Then you will be the fist to cry for more gun carrying police…You’ll have to get guns on the street to protect yourself from those thugs in who’s favor your anti gun rants are… How ironic it will be. Case and point? Fat cat idiot anti gun politicians who surround themselves with gun carrying bodyguards, like your beloved feinstein wretch.

      • Andrew

        You say that “feeling threatened” is a disadvantage. Well, at the time, Zimmerman also felt threatened. It’s why he was following Trayvon in the first place and it’s why he called the cops. They were on equal footing there, according to you.

      • AntiLies

        no it’s not! he was following treyvon because he was a NEIGHBORHOOD WATCHMAN, and if they see suspicious behavior, they call the cops, which is exactly what zimmerman did, except ol treyvon decided to jump his ass and deliver a beating, and THAT got him shot. zimmerman was never at an advantage up until treyvon ambushed him and started beating him to death.

      • JW

        Wouldn’t you be afraid for your life were you in Treyvon’s shoes? (I SWEAR I am the only Caucasian-appearing male who seems to have felt that way!)

      • politicalsanity

        I’d feel afraid. I had done absolutely nothing wrong, and some guy was following me and acting VERY weird… and after I walked away, he started running after me? I’d be VERY AFRAID.

      • Jeff Friesen

        To death? Lmao. Oh my, we’ve all seen the video and photos of Zimm right after he pulled the trigger like a good gun humping barrel boffer, and he wasn’t even owe to death. Heck, he wasn’t close to a paper cut.

      • AntiLies

        yeah, riiiiight… If he didn’t have a gun, your chicago style run of the mill thug would have beaten zimmerman to a pulp.

      • T.R. Rollins

        So true, Bro! Cause your typical paper cut causes FAR greater injuries than the hospital-verified broken nose and cuts that required stitches to close..!

      • politicalsanity

        Wrong. Zimmerman wasn’t acting as a Neighborhood Watch guy when he started following Martin. He wasn’t on duty, and he violated several of their procedures during the events of the night. Secondly, according to Zimmerman’s own testimony, he followed Martin for quite a while in his truck before Martin became aware of him. Martin then approached Zimmerman and started asking him what was going on. Zimmerman rolled up the windows of his truck and locked his doors, and refused to speak to Martin. Martin then walked away, going between buildings.

        That is when Zimmerman got out of his truck, got his gun from the glove compartment, and followed Martin… and still according to his testimony, running to get Martin back in his sight… against the express orders of the cops that HE had called.

      • Jeff Camire

        And the police told Zimmerman to back off and let them handle it, twice. Why did Zimmerman even approach Trevon after that if he felt so threatened by him? Further more why didn’t Zimmer then point his gun Identify himself as neighborhood watch inform Trevon that he had a gun and tell him not to move(like they train you to do in most security jobs)?

      • AntiLies

        he followed him, he didn’t confront him! treyvon hid and then JUMPED ZIMMERMAN with ill intent. If he had just left, or outran that fat slob, the cops would eventually have showed up, shined their lights between the houses, found nobody, and told zimmerman ‘good job’ before leaving, and neither of us would EVER have heard the names Treyvon and Zimmerman. Like the cop had said: live like a thug, die like a thug.

      • cgallaway2000

        interesting you bring politics into this and assume someone’s loyalty to a politician when they said nothing political to begin with.

      • Janet Price

        What does case and point mean?

      • AntiLies

        it’s an expression indicating factual proof supplied either directly or indirectly to prove your argument.

      • Janet Price

        For your consideration………….it’s supposed to be “case in point”……………not case and point.

      • JW

        People BECOME apparently ‘crooks and thugs’ when they have open carry! That’s the point of the article! Then, someone else is justified in standing his or her ground against him! When the gun nut right comes up with something other than MORE GUNS, MORE GUNS, then they’ll be worth listening to!

      • AntiLies

        people don’t become crooks for carrying guns. That is the bullshittiest statement I’ve seen here. People might become DEFENSIVE because every leftwing dim-whit like those here attack them for their RIGHT to open carry, or call the cops on them, or mistreat them for showing their support for the 2nd. Your attack on them shows your ignorance about LAW. They have the RIGHT to carry. Why would you NOT defend their rights thats protected under the law?? YOU live under laws, too, but you only bitch about your rights when it suits you. Why can’t you afford the equal protection under the law for ALL, even if you don’t agree with it?

        I will agree to one thing, though: COPS are the biggest thugs with guns.

      • cgallaway2000

        I think he meant that from the point of view of the gun holder, other people begin to look like crooks….but that is just my interpretation of what was written….i could be wrong.

      • T.R. Rollins

        The so-called “Stand Your Ground” law merely removes the REQUIREMENT TO TURN TAIL against a criminal’s assault, nothing more, nothing less. But there I go trying to use facts and logic to correct an opinion that is EMOTION, not factually based… At least it makes for good typing practice if nothing else…

      • Jeff Friesen

        Next up. Chatter about those urban types.

      • AntiLies

        you see what I’m up against? baiters like you.

      • Neil Osborne

        So now I know what a piece of shit sounds like in writting

      • Jack Frost

        Your facts are a little off.

      • AntiLies

        sounds more like the ‘facts’ spread around here are a little off, my friend…

      • Jeff Friesen

        Oh Christ, a rushroom, my friends.

      • T.R. Rollins

        “Your facts are a little off….of the Official fantasy-land narrative of the Zimmerman case that the La-La land press shilled out to the Kool-aid drinking lefty sheeple whom either lack sufficient intelligence to think for themselves, or choose to *willfully and childishly* ignore all logic, reason, and eyewitness testimony related to the case..”

      • AttilatheBlond

        Knew I should have set the timer to see how long before some enabler would come along to defend Zimmerman and whine about Trayvon Martin being the one at fault.

      • AntiLies

        so treyvon was NOT at fault? Lemme ask you this: who was bashing who’s head on the pavement?

      • Sumer54

        With only one persona alive to tell the story, how do you know your version to be true?

      • AntiLies

        there was a god damn witness that saw trayvon straddling zimmerman, raining down blows. Why can’t you accept that account? Because it doesn’t fit your narrative??

      • Sumer54

        You’ve made one thing very clear that on this topic. You prefer to pay heavy emphasis to the portions of the events that fit your perception of who was wronged, and, who was violating the rights of another, and in your own twisted way.

        What is not going to take place is some kind of one-sided debate, familiar with tea-party types, which emphasizes the parts of any narrative which favor your positions, as you repeatedly ignore significant portions of this event that have been pointed out to you, by numerous posters, points which conflict with your desire to fit this sordid event to your version of preference.

        The way you have mischaracterized the ‘tussle’, as the actual witness described it, as something that fits more closely with your desire to paint Zimmerman as the victim is very clear. Misstating the statement by the witness is within your bounds of story-telling, as you pretend to quote facts, which they are not.

        Now, go and gather ten million of your fellow tea party faithful, and get your misspelled signs, your hyperbolic rhetoric, march on the mall and create your own version of events in yet another venue.

      • AttilatheBlond

        Who was armed and stalking a kid? George went out looking to hurt someone. George had a gun. George refused to stay in his car like police told him. George got confronted for stalking a kid who was doing nothing wrong. Sadly, for the kid, George was armed. Sadly for society, George got away with murder.

        How come a black kid had no right to defend himself from an armed stalker? Poor George. Frankly his sidewalk story NEVER made sense. If they had been in that configuration when he shot Trayvon, George would have been covered in the young man’s blood.

      • AntiLies

        OMG you’re just a regular ol citizen in la-la-land, aren’t you? George was the damn COMMUNITY WATCHMAN. Do you even know what that means??? He patrolls the very neighboshood treyvon lived in to protect those very people! A suspicious character strolls through and instead of making conversation or running away when a CREEPY DUDE start tailing him, or CALLING 911 for help, he hides and ambushed zimmerman with the intentions to HURT the man. Your story of ‘stand your ground’ is utter bullshit. Treyvon was out to hurt that man. Thank GOD zimmerman was armed otherwise he’d be dead or a vegetable, but in that case, the likes of you wouldn’t give a shit, right? You’d STILL be saying ‘poor treyvon, that he had to go through that trauma to kill a man’. You people are SO out of touch. Go feed you unicorn.

      • politicalsanity

        No, he wasn’t part of the Neighborhood Watch that night. Martin attempted to make conversation when he noticed Zimmerman following him; Zimmerman rolled up the windows of his truck, locked his doors and refused to talk to Martin. And Martin DID run away when Zimmerman still came after him; he was cornered close to the condo he was staying in. The ‘ambush’ was when Zimmerman came running into the fenced off area that had no other exit.

      • Jeff Friesen

        Hey Anti Lair, give it up. Even other white supremacists are abandoning that ship.

      • AntiLies

        see how you lefties always assume everything is about race. Pathetic, you loser.

      • T.R. Rollins

        Yeah…if that evil George Zimmerman hadn’t tried to break poor innocent Trayvon’s knuckles with his face while Trayvon was on top of George (according to eyewitness testimony at the trail), this whole thing never would have made the news!!!

      • JW

        Had Zimmerman NOT gotten out of his car, Trayvon wouldn’t have had to stand his own ground to defend himself!

      • AntiLies

        HE DIDN’T STAND HIS GROUND. He ambushed zimmerman and tried to kill him. If he DID stand his ground, zimmerman would have realized this kid belongs here and let him off. Nowhere did Zimmerman attack treyvon. All he did was what a neighborhood watchman does: call the cops and keep an eye on the suspicious character. Treyvon ATTACKED zimmerman, and got shot for it. Treyvon is MUCH MORE to blame for his own death than zimmerman. The ONLY reason zimmerman got charged is because you left wing race baiters jumped on the bandwagon, without knowing the facts, and influenced that awful floridian system to charge zimmerman. HE WASN’T EVEN ARRESTED ON THE NIGHT OF THE SHOOTING because it would have been an open and shut case weren’t it for you bunch of leftwing racists.

      • Derpington_The_Third

        Tray on did stand his ground, there is no “honor” in your fantasy world you shit head.

        People with guns kill and maim other people, either deliberately or by stupidity.

      • AntiLies

        what a joke. why do you justify thuggish behavior? if it was a frontal confrontation, then yes, you could say he stood his ground, but is wasn’t. He ran away to ambush zimmerman and hopefully kick his ass into a pulp, and he got what he deserved.

      • mrichardson84

        Please stop calling yourself a Christian. You clearly are not one. You believe “an eye for an eye, ,a tooth for a tooth,” which Jesus countered. You are an embarrassment to all of us. You love violence and are no more than another thug yourself. Stop trolling, and get a life.

      • Neil Osborne

        First NO one hired Zimerman He was a self selected dirt bag, you asshole Who ambushed who? Asshat dickwad

      • AntiLies

        there’s a 50/50 chance you go to jail for murder, though…

  • kim dyer

    I keep saying this exact thing. What happens when an open carry nut is blown away by a stand your ground nut with a concealed carry permit?

    • AntiLies

      if an open carry ‘nut’ does something that requires him being shot, EVEN A GUN LOVING CONSERVATIVE WILL SHOOT HIM.
      why would you assume otherwise?

      • cgallaway2000

        The idea with “Stand your ground” is that the shooter only has to feel threatened. Since we all have different levels of when we feel threatened, there is no baseline for legality. Some people feel threatened just by being in a crowd with other people who look scary, they try to be proactive.

      • AntiLies

        if treyvon came running up to zimmerman in a manner that is obvious to lay down some hurt, and zimmerman had the opportunity to produce his gun and yell for tray to stop, and trey stopped, and zimmerman still shot him, then I as a conservative gun lover will be singing the same tune as you: throw his ass in jail for life. Just because I love guns does NOT mean I will defend a murderer. Unfortunately, treyvon ambushed zimmerman and tried to smear his brains on the pavement, and because of this, zimmerman had EVERY RIGHT to shoot him, and you know what? Given the same circumstances YOU WOULD HAVE SHOT HIM TOO.

      • Andrew

        If some weird, old guy was following me in the darkness of night when I was just trying to get home from the store, I would be on edge, too. Especially in my neighborhood. And if he stalked me for several minutes before approaching me? You better believe I would Stand My Ground and attack the guy. Trayvon felt threatened so he attacked Zimmerman. Stand Your Ground, man.

      • AntiLies

        i doubt it. You’d have run like a little bitch. Besides, Treyvon ambushed zimmerman with the intention of beating the crap outta him, which is what he started to do. What is so hard for you to understand about that? Treyvon was the instigator of VIOLENCE, whilst zimmerman was the instigator of creepiness. Zimmerman didn’t attack treyvon! It was the other way around, and once he attacked like a coward from the back, his fate was sealed.

      • Dale Gribble

        When someone kills someone in self defense, they still have to prove to DA / cops or even jury there was a legitimate threat. Shooting someone for seeing a gun holster or slung across the back isn’t a threat. Brandishing a weapon is a threat.

    • Dale Gribble

      That’s what you get for brandishing a weapon (i.e. holding in a manner that is life threatening). Slung across your back or in a holster is no different than what cops already do.

      • cgallaway2000

        what happens if someone runs up behind you and grabs the weapon slung across the back? Especially if it is loaded, I would assume the person carrying the gun would be taken by surprise.

      • Dale Gribble

        A holster on the hip like a cop uses is easier to grab than a rifle slung across the body. How many people grab a cops gun from their holster?

      • cgallaway2000

        the photo in the article shows a weapon slung across the owner’s back. I don’t think it would be so difficult for someone behind him to squeeze that trigger, possibly catching the owner in the leg and immobilizing him. Or, if the bullets didn’t hit the owner, chances are that the owner would still be immobilized due to temporary confusion as to what is happening. That could give the bad guy all the physical leverage he would need to knock down the owner and confiscate the weapon.

  • terribletwos

    Excellent. Hits the nail squarely on the head.

    • AntiLies

      and what would you know about hitting nails on the head? That’s called ‘work’, and what do you leftist leeches know about work??

      • cgallaway2000

        we know quite a bit about work….someone has to make the products that make the wealthy class even more so.

      • AntiLies

        just because I’m conservative doesn’t mean I don’t hate the rich. Why look at how rich your beloved Democrats in Washington got whilst ‘serving the poor’. What a farce.

      • cgallaway2000

        I agree whole heartedly with you on this. I was taking a very simplistic, overly general, very broad stereotype that blue collar workers = leftist leeches.

      • Kimberly

        regurgitated BS from another tea bagger. How can you assume anyone that considers themselves liberal knows nothing about work? Typical dumbass assumptions. I am a former republican turned democrat and I have worked ALL of my life. What do you have to say about that???

      • AntiLies

        ha ha gotcha

  • Fred

    “It essentially says we need to let a few die in the initial attack so that we can allow the ‘good guy’ to identify the target and take them out.”

    When military personnel are working under rules of engagement that allow them to fire on other people only after a demonstration of hostile intent (like shooting first), it’s the same thing.

    I agree with the author, I just wanted to point out some of the ironies of the work we ask soldiers to do for the sake of national security and our ethical commitments.

    • Randall Whitt

      Comparing a solider during combat to a civilian on the street is like comparing apples and oranges. A civilian on the street has some expectation of safety. A soldier does not. The truth is that you don’t know a person’s intentions when they’re walking around with an assault rifle slung over their shoulder. If I saw someone like that coming toward me, it’s very possible I’d fear for my life. It’s also possible that, if I were armed, I might react to a perceived threat with a preemptive attack. This is why the “stand your ground” and the “open carry” laws are a powder keg waiting for a match. If the law is allowed to stand, it won’t be long before we’re seeing firefights at Wal-Mart on black Friday because two people both want the last $129 dollar HDTV.

      • AntiLies

        If you want to see a powder keg explode, wait until BOTH stand your ground and self defense is banned…

  • Randy

    The writer of this article obviously doesn’t know the first thing about the laws he is referencing. In order to “stand your ground” you have to have a “reasonable fear for ones life due to IMMEDIATE Circumstances (I.E. Someone threatening your life with full capability and intent to do so). And even then for this law to protect you under its umbrella, the level of threat has to be substantial enough for it to warrant deadly force (I.E. the presence of more than one assailant, weapons, size & fitness disparity, ect.)

    I am a Democratic gun owner. I voted for Obama before I knew he was going to try and push an Anti-gun agenda. Stop listening to the propaganda and BULLSHIT from the FRINGE group within our party and start paying attention to the issues that ACTUALLY matter. Taking away guns won’t decrease gang activity, nor will it stop crazed lunatics from shooting up our malls or schools. But better environments for our inner city kids, better education, better counseling, better healthcare & mental health systems WILL. Strict gun control that many politicians are advocating is NOT a solution, it is a band-aid to slap on a more serious underlying issue in hopes that such an issue will simply “go away”. Think with your head, not with your television set.

    • Chris Ritzer

      Yeah guys, it only means you can use deadly force if you fear for your life. Like if the other guy has some Skittles and Arizona.

      • AntiLies

        no, try ‘like the other guy was straddling you, bashing your head into the pavement, trying his damnest to kill you with his fists’.

      • cgallaway2000

        maybe the other guy was “standing his ground” but didn’t have a weapon? I mean if someone was stalking me, I would fear for my life. What would your reaction be if the kid had a gun and killed Zimmerman? Would stand your ground apply? After all, Zimmerman was following him.

      • AntiLies

        NO, you cannot kill a person just because he’s following you. With that logic you can shoot any cop trying to pull you over. If Zimmerman attacked Treyvon for no reason, like Treyvon did to Zimmerman, I would ALSO have liked to see Zimmerman shot. But that’s not what happened. Treyvon could EASILY outrun that fat slob. He chose not to.

      • Randall Whitt

        “no, try ‘like the other guy was straddling you, bashing your head into
        the pavement, trying his damnest to kill you with his fists”.

        How do you know this? Did you witness the altercation?

        OR HOW ABOUT THIS…

        Treyvon saw a strange person tailing him and decided to avail himself of “stand your ground” because some nut with a gun was following him. Why did Treyvon not have the same benefit of the doubt accorded to him? Did he not have the same right to defend himself from a would be attacker? Treyvon was minding his own business when Zimmerman initiated a confrontation after being told specifically by the 911 dispatcher not to engage him. If Treyvon attacked him, who are we to say that he wasn’t in fear for his life? Zimmerman could have avoided the entire incident if he’d done as he was instructed. His choice to disregard those instructions make him the aggressor.

      • AntiLies

        listen, go over the facts. Treyvon was the physical attacker. HE ambushed and jumped Zimmerman. So a creep was following him around. So what? Threre are thousands of creeps following people around all the time. Think of how many teenage creeps follow hot chicks around the mall just to start at their asses. Why didn’t Treyvon call 911? Why didn’t he run away? I’ll tell you: he thought he could jump that honkey and teach him a lesson. That’s why. And look where it got him. On the slab. He should NOT have reverted to gangsta-violence.

      • B1

        According to police reports (actual transcripts) Zimmerman told the Police Dispatch that Martin was running (in the direction of his home.) Dispatch also told Zimmerman that he shouldn’t pursue. In addition, Zimmerman had Martin by 30lbs and was training in MMA. I think that gun made Zimmerman emboldened and escalated the situation. If he didn’t have that gun, he probably wouldn’t have gave chase.

      • AntiLies

        speculation. And treyvon only ran away to go and set an ambush so he can jump zimmerman and ‘teach him a lesson’. The gun didn’t embolden zimmerman, he was the damn neighborhood watchman, that’s what they do: follow suspicious looking characters.

      • B1

        He was told not too. Even in training neighborhood watch men are told not to engage. They are told to report and not engage because you don’t know what is what. You don’t have legal authority to physical detain anyone on public grounds who is not committing a crime. Zimmerman told Dispatch that Trayvon is running. Dispatch heard an audible of the car door opening that Zimmerman was in open and close and that’s when Dispatch asked what Zimmerman was doing and he said he was getting out to follow Trayvon and that Trayvon was running. Dispatch then told Zimmerman that he shouldn’t do that. AND according to Zimmerman, this was the second time that he and Trayvon crossed paths. Once earlier when he was following Trayvon in his vehicle, and then the second time when the confrontation happened. So this ambush, would it have happened if he weren’t being followed on his way home? Did Trayvon start the night planning to teach Zimmerman a lesson? Who was stalking who? I view it as a kid walking home when a guy is following him. First in a car and then on foot. All there in the transcripts. What happened during the confrontation is pure speculation. You just shot an unarmed kid that you were following. Maybe Zimmerman grabbed the kid’s jacket and said where are you going what are you doing here and Trayvon was saying let me go? Maybe Zimmerman bit off more than he could chew and the kid got the better of him. Then he had to exxagerate what happened. Is that speculation? Dead men tell no tales

      • Samson

        You’re on one today. I love how you provide the motive for Trayvon to jump Zimmerman, as if Trayvon’s M.O. was to beat up everyone in sight. What am I saying, you know internet comments have zero value except to make yourself feel better for being wrong?

      • AntiLies

        Who has a justifiable motive to jump ANYONE and beat his head into the pavement? NOBODY, including Treyvon. Regardless of what led to it, once the physical fighting began, it was each man for himself. I often wonder if any of you left wingers would have bat an eye if Treyvon had beaten Zimmerman into a vegetable… I’m betting not. And what does that tell us about YOU?

      • Sumer54

        Skittles, Arizona, and ‘that look’.

      • AntiLies

        wrong. It was treyvons actions that got him shot. HE attacked zimmerman.

      • Sumer54

        Oh, that’s right. When you’re carrying a gun, you get to violate the orders that say STAY IN THE CAR – DO NOT PURSUE. So much for vigilantes, open carry and stand your ground, huh. See how this works?
        Carry a gun….make your own rules.

      • Sumer54

        Once you ignore the FACT that Zimmerman violated orders NOT to leave his vehicle. Obey the order – no situation. So, once you add the gun he was carrying, he was bound to respond ’emotionally’, not ‘rationally’. One more reason for more cops, fewer vigilantes.

        If Trayvon had been packing, and had killed Zimmerman, who should have STAYED IN THE TRUCK, you’d be singing a different tune, such as, who was the victim and who was the murderer.

    • Scott Mann

      Except that Zimmerman was bigger, armed, and facing one lone assailant whom he followed. If anything, Zimmerman was the threat that gave the victim a perfect reason to kill Zimmerman. Instead, Zimmerman gets away with it under “stand your ground” laws. Sooooo what exactly was your point here?

      • AntiLies

        in this case, it wasn’t about size. Troyvon ambushed Zimmerman and started beating his head into the ground, leaving Zimmerman with only one way out: shoot him. What gave treyvon the right to attack Zimmerman? Because Zimmerman was wearing a jacket and walking around at night doing his JOB as a neighborhood watchman? That’s what they do: follow people and assess threats. Treyvon would be alive if he didn’t escalate the situation He could have called 911 and requested help because some ‘sleazy looking mexican’ was following him, but no,he chose to be uncivilized and attack this man, probably thinking he was going to kick his ass and then run away like a coward and nobody would know. It Zimmerman didn’t have a gun, he could very well be dead or brain damaged today. So who is right? I’ll tell you: he who defended himself from a physical attack, regardless of what led to it. In the end, it was ‘him or me’. Stop trying to justify trayvon’s actions and ask yourself why a teenager would revert to violence he thought he would be able to get away with, and then, THANK GOD, didn’t.

      • Randall Whitt

        “in this case, it wasn’t about size. Troyvon ambushed Zimmerman and
        started beating his head into the ground, leaving Zimmerman with only
        one way out: shoot him.”

        In this case, that was George Zimmerman’s story. Unfortunately Treyvon was killed and could not be given a chance to tell his side. For all we know, Zimmerman’s minor injury could have been self inflicted. We’ll never know for sure, will we?

      • AntiLies

        I think you don’t know what a minor injury is if you scraped your knuckles on the ground. There are clear photos of the back of Zimmerman’s head. The man was yelling for help, and Treyvon was no 10 year old skinny kid. He was a young man, capable of killing another man with his bare hands, and if you ask me (and the judge) that is exactly what he was trying to do. Treyvon could have called 911 and reported a creep was following him, but what did he do? He ambushed Zimmerman with criminal intent. Zimmerman could have showed his gun if he had time, and MOST LIKELY Treyvon would have backed off, but he didn’t give Zimmerman that chance, and he paid for it. So who is really to blame here?

      • Kimberly

        Thank God he didn’t?? For what? For Zimmerman to continually get into trouble? Have you followed the problems he has gotten into since murdering that kid?? He’s bully’d his ex wife and family, bully’d his ex girlfriend ALL with his gun. He should have been locked up. Nothing less!! He is a monster and needs to be in prison!!

      • AntiLies

        a monster? maybe he’s got some problems, who are you to judge his personal life? You must be a liberal, cause that’s what they do: try to dictate peoples’ personal lives. Zimmerman didn’t murder that ‘kid’, that kid was trying to murder Zimmerman. I don’t care what kind of sleaze-bag Zimmerman is: even he has the right to defend himself from a fist swinging thug. If you walk in Chicago’s back allies, and you have a gun, and a crack-head attacks you, you’ll shoot him too. YES YOU WILL.

    • AntiLies

      now YOU are a democrat I might be able to have a civil conversation with, but the rest of the liberal loony ban-gun knee jerks can KMA.

      • Samson

        And American discourse is ground to a halt. I mean, what ever happened to being the better person, to not stooping to your detractors level to become them? When did civil discussion die? Oh, you’re going to blame someone else? Yep. Blame game. Hide behind political labels.

      • AntiLies

        I love guns, I love the WHOLE constitution, I love the tea party. I’ll answer you with a question: why do you hate me for that?

      • JW

        Why does the tea party REFUSE to have discourse with anyone NOT in the tea party or the republican party and then DEIGN to call it “saving the republic”?!?

      • Critzer94

        Well, all except for that ‘well regulated militia’ clause in the second amendment.

    • cgallaway2000

      Well, I would think someone walking around a park with an openly displayed, most likely loaded assault rifle is an “imminent” threat, in that, it will only take him a few seconds to start killing people. Certainly a visibly loaded weapon is the full capability to do so, and can be argued quite well (successful argument depends on the judge) that he has intent.

      • AntiLies

        yeah, riiiiight. A plane has the full capability to kill hundreds of people at once. Why don’t we go ahead and ban planes please? For the good of the people?
        Don’t attribute YOUR emotion about a gun to the inanimate object called ‘a gun’. Stop being such a gun racist.

      • cgallaway2000

        a gun racist? You might want to get your sanity checked. I fear and respect all colors of guns equally, even the pretty pink ladies guns.

      • JW

        Planes are to take people from A to B, not a reasonable comparison.

    • Randall Whitt

      “In order to “stand your ground” you have to have a “reasonable fear for ones life due to IMMEDIATE Circumstances”

      What constitutes “reasonable fear”? How does a judge determine someone’s state of mind when a shooter person claims they were in fear for their life? If I shoot you and no one sees me do it. I can claim you threatened me and I had to shoot you because I had a “reasonable fear” that you were going to cause me bodily harm. This is how a guy like George Zimmerman shoots an unarmed teenager and gets away with it. Theoretically I could do the same to you if we both lived in Florida.

      • AntiLies

        yes you could. But would you? And stop referring to Treyvon as an unarmed teenager. He was pinning a grown man down, bashing him as hard as he could, possibly with the intent to kill or do grievous bodily harm. If you were on the bottom and had a gun, you’d have shot him too, regardless of what you say or think. Self preservation is instinctive. There’s nothing you can do about it, unless you are killing yourself.

      • Randall Whitt

        The whole situation could have been avoided had George Zimmerman followed the instructions given to him by the 911 dispatcher. George Zimmerman Initiated the attack and is therefore guilty of cold blooded murder. It’s difficult to make a case for self defense when you started the fight. If this had happened anywhere but Florida, George Zimmerman would now be spending a good portion of the remainder of his life in prison.

    • Frosty72

      Maybe you can elaborate on that “anti-gun” agenda Obama has been pushing. What makes him anti-gun? As far as I can tell, gun sales are at an all time high since he took office – and gun regulation has been on the decline.

      In fact, during his first term, Obama signed only two major laws that address how guns are carried in America, and both actually expand the rights of gun owners.

      Obama has repeatedly express support for the Second Amendment.
      “If you’ve got a rifle, you’ve got a shotgun, you’ve got a gun in your
      house, I’m not taking it away. Alright?” Obama has said.

      During his second term, he did sign an executive order mandating background checks for gun buyers – which shouldn’t really be considered anti-gun so much as pro-sanity.

      • AntiLies

        if you like your health care, you can keep that, too…

        sounds familiar?

      • JW

        The only health insurance policies that were canceled were the ones that the insurers didn’t take the time and effort to bring into compliance with the PPACA.

      • CRitzer94

        About as familiar as ‘we need to invade Iraq because they have WMDs.

    • JW

      I only noticed the Obama Administration being the LEAST anti-gun after Sandy Hook, which a significant proportion of the populace STILL thinks was some kind of hoax specifically perpetrated to carry out gun control–effing insane!

  • Sumer54

    Isn’t it odd that those operating under open carry rules never see themselves as threats? Do police showing up at a scene classify anyone who is armed as a potential threat? I believe they do. And everyone else has the right to decide accordingly. Open carry is a simply myopic, and, potentially fatal approach to mostly imaginary threats.

    • AntiLies

      so every time a cop walks into the copshop everyone he sees with a gun is a threat. Go figure. Just because someone who is NOT a cop carries a gun doesn’t mean a person trained to handle a gun will see him as a threat. Don’t generalize like that.

      • Sumer54

        So, let’s make this clear. You, and your delusion, expect a weapon in ‘open carry’ mode to have the effect of a deterrent, to the bad guys who change their minds about creating havoc, due to your presence. And, at the same time, you expect everyone who is not a bad guy to embrace this fully, have no reaction, not view you or your weapon as a threat, because everyone else, somehow, knows that you are a mentally stable, good guy, with our all of our best concerns being the same as yours.

        Sit back for awhile and think about the absolute idiocy of this minority view of yours.

      • AntiLies

        you’re saying the presence of guns doesn’t stop violence? Then explain to me why every soldier at war has a gun if it does no good! Why don’t they just stare them bad guys down? You people concentrate on the shootings where bad guys kill people, but you NEVER focus on the multiple cases where CC saved many more lives by stopping bad guys. Hypocritical, is what it’s called.
        A cop walks all over the place with his gun on his hip or hidden away, but you don’t see it as a threat. Why? Why do you give a cop a free slide? Why can’t you feel the same way about a law abiding sane citizen who open carries? Why the double standards? What about the out of control cops who shoot first and ask questions later? Have you not seen those videos? Innocent people get shot by cops and you lot pull up your shoulders, but when a good gun carrying citizen stops a robbery or a murder you lot are quiet. You have nothing to say about things that don’t fit into your sheeple ministry.

      • Sumer54

        The police force is in need of your enthusiasm and your service.

        A bad cop is more of an exception. There are mechanisms in place to handle a majority of these exceptions, at least to the degree of them being threats to society.

        A bad civilian is an everyday occurrence. Guess what mechanism we have in place against bad civilians. Bingo – cops. Everyone else is a vigilante, or, these days, part of an unorganized ‘militia’.

      • AntiLies

        cops are a reaction to bad guys, not a cure for the problem If you lot on the left will bestow such vigor you have fighting guns on promoting inner city schools and good moral values, we would ALL be better off. Instead you try and take guns out of the hands of people like me, who have NEVER, and never intend to, shoot a person. How can you justify wanting to take my symbol of freedom in the face of your socialist government when your democrat run cities are failing so bad?? Selective outrage, that’s what it is.

      • Janet Price

        Do you think our “socialist” government is coming to get your precious guns??? Oh, wow. Your symbol of freedom??? Sick, sick, sick. Tell all of this crap to the 6 families mourning their dead children in California.

      • Charles Vincent

        California a state with some of the strictest gun laws in the US and yet the laws did stop the carnage.

      • Jeff Friesen

        Who exactly is taking your guns?

      • politicalsanity

        If you never intend to shoot a person, why train so hard to be able to hit one?

      • AntiLies

        jeesh, the concepts of ‘self defense’ and ‘collateral damage’ are probably concepts that’s WAAAAY over your head.

      • politicalsanity

        Actually, no… it’s the probability of extensive collateral damage that turns most people off from the Open Carry groups. They don’t want to be part of the pray and spray scenario.

      • Janet Price

        Nobody wants to have to figure out who is the “good guy” or the “bad guy” when they are out for the evening having dinner. These Open Carry Nutcases are NOT helping their cause. This will eventually have to be banned, once a tragedy happens. And, it will. Mark my words.

      • Becky

        Soldiers carry guns because they are in a war zone. I never want to live in a war zone. Taking my kids to play in the park should not feel like entering a war zone. I feel confident with cops because they have extensive training and their goal is to avoid using their weapon not look for a reason to use it. Also if they have to use their weapon is to protect everyone including the shooter if possible. I can’t say the same about gun carrying citizens.

      • Dale Gribble

        Ever notice the catch phrases from Cops TV show, “Its a battlefield out here”. “Its a war zone”.

      • Pat Frederickson

        This explains a lot. You watch the TV show Cops. Brilliant.

      • Jeff Friesen

        Wow. There must be a big conspiracy to hide all those hero ammosexuals who are stopping crime. I for one would love to know more. Please provide some links.

      • politicalsanity

        The Open Carry guys have their weapons unloaded, according to most reports. As such, they would have to load their weapons before using them. That is a vast difference from those carrying CCW– those ARE loaded, and usually hidden from sight so that they don’t provoke fear in the general populace. The whole purpose of the Open Carry people is to provoke a response from the other people in the area.

      • Janet Price

        Very well said, Sumer54!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • Charles Vincent

        That’s poisoning the well sumer GG on using a logical fallacy to prop up your false argument.

      • Derpington_The_Third

        They are a threat you moron, a gun is not a fucking toy, but you nut jobs with your dead piles of kids from accidents sure think so.

      • AntiLies

        cars kill more people than guns per year. Please post a link to your petition to ban cars.

        cellphones being used in cars kill people too. Please post a link to your petition to ban cellphones.

        drunk drivers kill innocent people too. Please post a link to your petition to ban drunk drivers. OH, WAIT…

        gun toting redneck conservative bible thumpers do school shootings. OH, WAIT, THEY ARE ALMOST EXCLUSIVELY DONE BY LIBERALS/DEMOCRATS.

        please explain.

      • Derpington_The_Third

        You must be licensed and trained and insured to own and operate a vehicle. Not a firearm.

        Cell phones are already banned in vehicular usage in my state anyways, only a retard uses them.

        Alcoholic consumption while operating a vehicle is regulated, if it wasn’t illegal that death toll would climb.

        School shootings are done by nut jobs, regardless of political affiliation. Bible thumpers, being mentally ill, probably shouldn’t have access to a deadly weapon.

        “I’m not mentally ill, I just talk to my magic sky faerie!”

        Jeez, this shit writes itself.

      • Dale Gribble

        And yet people still break those laws and kill people everyday. Law will never stop people from making bad choices, no matter the consequence.

      • Derpington_The_Third

        So let’s just completely have no laws. Company’s shouldn’t be held responsible for dumping uranium in our water supply because at least one company will do it one time in the future.

        There isn’t any point in having a ban on selling alcohol to minors, since there are some minors getting alcohol, nevermind the fact that consumption of alcohol while underage decreases and stunts brain growth during key years.

        There most definitely isn’t any point in not selling RPGs to civilians, because holy shit someone somewhere will buy one in your local Ace Hardware shop and retrofit it with more explosives.

  • John

    “Open Carry” vs. “Stand Your Ground” will each have factions, factions which will tear the Tea Party movement from the inside out. Someone please pass the popcorn.

    • AntiLies

      I think you underestimate the glue of patriotism. The Tea Party is here to stay, and save the republic so people like you can have a podium from which you can badmouth the republic.

      • Dean

        If the Tea Party are patriots then their politicians wouldn’t have avoided the draft. Don’t mistake patriotism for nationalism!

      • AntiLies

        what are you going to do when the republic collapses because the likes of you destroyed those who fight for the constitution and the freedom it provides? Your very existence depends on people like the tea party. Without such people, you will STILL be paying taxes the the King!

      • cgallaway2000

        My view of the tea party is not very positive….on account that none of their politicians actually belong to the “Tea Party”, but instead all identify themselves as being :”republican”,in combination that just like every other politician, they are hypocritical, self serving liars.

      • AntiLies

        BS! The republican party is like liberals, they are latch-on-leeches, only to the tea party. Let me assure you, the republican trash don’t own the Tea Party, and any person who says that are 100% wrong. We actually hold our politicians responsible! Look at boener, always having to fight for his job! I can assure you, the tea party hold their politicians to a MUCH HIGHER standard than you lot hold them idiot democrats! Just look at the trash in your ranks! Nothing but sleaze-bag lawyers, RACISTS and bigots, and they ALL are riding the gravy train, but you lot just let them do it, as long as they attack the Right. Lemme tell to this, too: the problem for your people is NOT the right, it is the trash on YOUR side of the isle. Fix your own mess first before you even try to bash us.

      • politicalsanity

        You hold your politicians accountable? Since when?

      • AntiLies

        lol I didn’t expect a democrat to grasp that concept.

      • politicalsanity

        Once again, you fail. I’m a Libertarian, not a Democrat.

        That being said, I’ll ask the question once again.

        When have you held any Tea Party politician accountable for ANY of their votes?

      • politicalsanity

        Still waiting for a response, @AntiLies:disqus .

      • cgallaway2000

        then how come every “Tea Party” politician is a republican? How come none of them have formed their own political party?

      • JW

        What in the WORLD is the tea party doing to ‘save the republic’ besides fight tooth and nail for everything POTUS, et al would like to do to get the economy going

      • AntiLies

        yes, they are fighting tooth and nail, because the likes of YOU are too blind to see the destruction obama is raining down on civilization.

      • Critzer94

        Yeah! Fight for that Constitution…like the part that says the second amendment is in effect for a ‘well regulated militia’ because the US did not have a standing, national military at the time. Or the part of the first amendment that says Religion says out of Government (ie, can not be discriminated against but cannot endorse it either). You and your Koch-funded ‘Tea Party’ don’t give a hoot about the Constitution, you merely want to be able to do whatever you want without consequences.

      • Dale Gribble

        You conveniently left out ..”the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

      • politicalsanity

        Well, the whole thing needs to be taken in context. The notion that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed was because it was expected that the citizen would join and be part of the well regulated (trained) militia when trouble came a’ calling. Since citizens DON’T join the militia, but instead we have both a standing Federal Army (and other branches of the military) AND every State has its own National Guard, that context has rendered the 2nd Amendment as a moot point.

  • Jack Frost

    I say we invite both groups to a big party and let the problem sort itself out.

    • AntiLies

      if you imply gun lovers vs gun haters, you might be onto something here…

  • Matt Larson

    If his is a genuine question in the article, then I truly hope the author is not actually in possession of a firearm. The ignorance displayed in this article about what constitutes an imminent deadly threat is truly frightening.

    • Dot

      I personally would feel threatened if someone walked into a restaurant with a kevlar vest and an assault rifle. Maybe not so much a pistol in it’s holster, because I could see him start to unholster it. But it wouldn’t take much to swing that rifle around and just start shooting. Do I have a right to start reaching for my concealed carry?

      • Matt Larson

        If his is a serious question, then please lock your gun in the safe and leave it here until you get some training from a competent instructor. If you are serious, then you clearly lack the requisite understanding necessary to carry a firearm responsibly.

      • cgallaway2000

        that’s part of the problem, what makes an instructor “qualified” varies from state to state.

      • AntiLies

        then join the drive for standardization, whereby a CC permit will be valid in ALL stats because ALL states follow the same laws. Join the NRA.

      • cgallaway2000

        This gets into an even bigger conversation over states rights, as to which states’ requirements will prevail in the new standard. I have yet to hear (besides you) a tea partier actually demand a national standard that the Federal Government would put in place, especially with Obama as President. Good to see you shattered the stereotype.

      • JW

        It sure seems like many of the open carry demonstrators recently were not carrying firearms responsibly. What makes you think most are?

      • Matt Larson

        I believe these “open carry demonstrators” are morons. That said, the author of this article is just as much a moron for advancing the contention that the mere sight of a firearm constitutes an imminent lethal threat in and of itself.

        Anyone who does not immediately recognize the stupidity of the author’s argument lacks the training and judgment to carry a firearm in public, IMHO.

      • Dot

        Really? What makes you think these jerks who flaunt their big guns to scare people are more trained with guns than I am? How about this. Any restaurant who allows these people access with their guns will just lose my business. Can you really tell a good guy with a gun from a bad guy with a gun? Would it not creep you out if someone was walking around in front of your house with a gun and telling you ha ha, you can’t do anything about it? Tell me you wouldn’t call the police. But of course, I’m sure you would be one of those “responsible” gun owners who would publish the phone number of a person who called the police, so they could get threatening phone calls. No intimidation there (dripping with sarcasm).

      • Matt Larson

        Perhaps you are all equally dumb. And your ASSumption that I would publish your phone number is compelling evidence that this is the case.

        Your post indicated that the mere sight of a firearm in and of itself constitutes an imminent deadly threat that justifies your drawing your firearm. This demonstrates that you lack both the knowledge and judgement that are needed to carry a firearm in public.

        Someone should already have taught you this. If you are truly confused about these issues and not being a flaming internet troll, then may I recommend you either find a good trainer, or at least read a couple books? I’d recommend “In the Gravest Extreme” by Mas Ayoob, or “Law of Self Defense” by Andrew Branca. Either will teach you the necessary elements of a threat, and demonstrate why you are completely off the reservation on this.

      • AntiLies

        can you take a gun into a place that sells liquor…?

        go read your laws.

      • Dot

        Actually, in Kansas, you will soon be able to do just that. If you want to play with your guns, go play with them at a shooting range, or at your home, if you live in the country. I will not be intimidated by you “responsible” gun owners.

  • Susan B.

    I’ve been thinking this since the Trayvon Martin murder – exactly who was standing their ground from whom in a situation where only one person was armed? More to the point you raised, can I now claim to feel threatened (as indeed I am) whenever I see guns carried openly? Am I therefore allowed to kill the gun carriers?

    • AntiLies

      omg you’re going in circles. If a gun holder threatens you, SHOOT HIM, but then again, you lot don’t carry guns, so I guess you’ll just have to deal with the lead pellet.

      also, the only person who qualified for ‘stand your ground’ between treyvon and zimmerman was the one getting his head smashed into the pavement. Treyvon didn’t have that law protecting him because he didn’t have a gun, and if he ‘stood his ground’ like a man it would merely have been a confrontation, but instead he decided to sneak up on zimmerman and tried to kill him with his fists. At that point, zimmerman had ALL the right to shoot to save his own life.

      • Jillz

        You’re just not getting the point of this article, are you? Like Susan B said, she feels threatened (as would I) by seeing guns carried openly. Under SYG laws, one only has to FEEL threatened in order to shoot the person they feel threatened by. Since the feeling of “threatened” is so subjective (what constitutes threat to one person may not constitute threat to another) then even if open carry was legal, another citizen would be within their legal rights to shoot the person open carrying IF they felt threatened by the presence of the gun. Right?

        In the case of the gun nut in the park with children. Would you not feel threatened if your child was playing in the park and there was some lunatic walking around with a gun telling you “you can’t do anything about it?”. Whose rights would be prioritized in a case where a parent shot the guy waving a gun around his/her children playing? The gun nut since he was legally open carrying? Or the parent who was feeling threatened and legally stood their ground?

      • AntiLies

        OMG you just don’t get it. You automatically classify a responsible open carrier as a gun toting child killer. You are clearly unable to draw the line between the two. Well that’s just in line with your party’s talking points: guns are BAD, big guvvmint is GOOD.
        A responsible open carrier can very well be the person who shoots a gun swinging nut in the playgroung, saving even your little brat. But in your lala land playpark, guns are banned, so when a law breaking loonie starts pumping rounds into your little kiddies there will be NOBODY to stop him. You assume that a responsible, sane gun lover will just stand around because he supports guns and therefore won’t shoot a gun toting hooligan threatening kids. Why don’t you go and see how many innocent bystanders get SAVED by responsible gun owners? I’ll tell you why; the answer does not fit in with Dear Leader’s narrative.

      • Jillz

        First of all, I’m fortunate enough not to HAVE to get it because I live in a civilized country where private citizens are not permitted to walk around waving their guns in public and shooting each other.

        You say that I “automatically classify a responsible open carrier as a gun toting child killer”.

        The point continue to miss is that you can’t tell a responsible open carrier from a gun toting child killer until they start shooting. In the example I cited, I would NOT take the risk that the open carrier in the park was responsible when it is my CHILD’S life at risk especially.

        So I ask again. If I feel that some guy waving a gun around my child and telling me I “can’t do anything about it” is a threat and shoot him based on my perceived threat to my child’s life, whose rights should be prioritized? My right to stand my ground in protection of my child? Or the “responsible” gun toter waving his gun around a park just because he can?

      • Dale Gribble

        If the man was truly waving his gun, its brandishing a weapon and illegal and rightfully a perceived threat. Call the cops or shoot (but you’ll have hard time proving self defense in courts). Any responsible and sane gun owner knows to never draw weapon unless its to shoot to kill.

  • djallyn

    Actually, Rogers DID engage armed people in a shootout, not once, but twice. He fired on cops in two separate instances during his shooting spree.

    So, the idea that a “good guy” with a gun is going to stop a “bad guy” with a gun is not necessarily true — especially if the bad guy has every expectation of dying in the long run. (and most of the time the bad guy isn’t killed by the “good guy”, he usually tends to kill himself.)

    I never really understood why some people have this “need” to display their firearms. I do not have a problem with people who carry guns, but I DO have a problem with people who feel the need to be in your face with them.

    If I were a store owner, I wouldn’t prohibit people from carrying firearms — unless they were deliberately making a show of it. Carrying an AR-15 into a bank might actually cause people to think that maybe the bank is about to be robbed.

    Who wants to be sitting in a Denny’s eating breakfast when some idiot comes in carrying his predominately displayed AR-15? I might want to leave my breakfast behind and leave the store — especially since I don’t know who this guy is or what his motives are.

    Does this guy’s “right” to carry his weapon into every place he goes trump the owner’s “right” to be able to attract and retain his customer base?

    • AntiLies

      you judge people by the things they carry. Cellphones kill more people on the roads than shooters in Denny’s. Wanna ban cellphones?
      And yes, you CAN ask people not to bring guns into your business. The only thing you’ll do is alienate customers. Why just last week a business was robbed that had a very prominent ‘no guns’ sign out front. How ironic…

      • djallyn

        I might alienate the open-carry customers, but I would probably retain the people who just want to come there to eat.

        And yes, we DO tend to judge people by what they wear and/or carry. Some people might get really freaked out if a group of people just walked into a Denny’s carrying AR-15s.

        The question I have is WHY the need to be so confrontational? Because that is exactly what is going on — these people are DARING someone to notice them and their big, bad guns.

        I carry a gun most of the time myself, but I don’t advertise it. I don’t NEED to. I don’t wear tight pants to show off my penis either, but apparently some people really feel the need to make up for some kind of inadequacy.

        Besides, the LAST kind of weapon you would need for protection in a close area like a restaurant would be a rifle. That’s what makes this whole thing rather ludicrous.

        As far as Allen Clifton’s example above where a guy is going through a park waving a firearm around young children — just because he can legally do so? If MY kid was around all of this, I might feel threatened enough to take him out. Without thinking twice.

        Then you would have the dilemma: which of us would be in the right, the man with the right to wave his weapon around any damn fool place he wanted, or me, who shot the guy who was waving that weapon around because I felt my child was in danger?

        HMMM?

      • Dale Gribble

        waiving a gun = brandishing a firearm = illegal. Call the cops and report it like a sane person would.

      • politicalsanity

        That is what many people have done. The Open Carry people responded by calling the local law enforcement agencies to DEMAND the names and addresses of those who called 911.

      • Darrin Freeman

        you are just a jackass……if someone open carried in my buisiness, theyd be told to leave…if they refused, i’d draw on them and theyd either disarm and leave, or be shot!….my property, my rules, my
        ground stood!

  • blah blah blah

    Really , open carry at a target . If you look closely you’ll see the target emblem on the menu. Maybe they were going for a play on words, Guns -Target Idk but he looks stupid.

  • Ezechias Nieves Sr

    morons!!!

  • Dave

    If a right wing gun nut struts into my neighborhood with an assault weapon intimidating people I will stand my ground and run his/her ass over!

    • AntiLies

      why do you say ‘right wing’ when ALL the mass shootings are perpetrated by LEFTIES?????

      • Dave

        Bullshit. Go away troll!

      • cgallaway2000

        I didn’t know all the mass shooters are southpaws!!!!!!

  • John McCready

    So, when cops are standing next to the paranoid with a MILITARY ASSAULT WEAPON, they just.. . . smile and nod?

  • ArizonaTea&Skittles

    So this clown is saying it’s better no citizens to have guns, just criminals at the moment they decide to open fire and the cops that will show up half an hour at best AFTER us or our families have been shot?

    Do I think everyday Joes need to walk around with military grade arms? Not necessarily, but few and far between are the mass shootings where the guy had nothing but a handgun…

    Also as for the “only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” he brings up pretty much every other sentence; maybe I’m crazy, but I’m more comfortable with the idea of being the single casualty in a shooting before someone else manages to take down the maniac rather than one of several VICTIMS because none of us had any legitimate means to defend ourselves beyond sitting in a corner singing kumbaya until the cops show up.

    TL:DR: if you don’t like guns fine, you don’t have to carry. If you don’t like the fact that our Constitution protects that right, the border’s open so don’t let any gate hit you on the way out. If you want to presume criminals will play by the same laws that will bind law-abiding citizens please walk down the alleys of LA at 2 A.M. and preach that yourself. Laws and requirements to carry can (and should) be more stringent but to ensure qualification not restriction of the American populace to safely maintain and (in only necessary circumstances) use their firearms.

  • Karlheinz Groeger

    One major flaw in your article; you assert that we need more guns to protect us from more guns. That is factually incorrect. Homicide has declined 50% since the early 1990s, despite having more guns today than ever (2013 was a record year for gun sales). That is also despite more people licensed to carry (11 million today, compared to 1 million in 1980). That is despite all states now allowing their citizens to carry in some fashion (up from way less than half thirty years ago). What’s really happening is easy to explain. Tragic events are more readily available to us today, due to most people having computers, and instant media. That makes those with preconceived narratives (IOW, the anti-gun nuts), immediately react with emotional blathering, rather than checking the facts! Statistically you’re safer today than in the last thirty years, but facts don’t matter when you have an agenda to “support.”

  • Mike McAvoy

    i like some of the points you made, but there’s only one that i really have an issue with. and that is that the “bad guy” is going to follow the crack down on gun laws. if they’re intending to do bad things with a gun, guess what? chances are they aren’t going to follow legal channels to do so. therefor, as usual, the law cracks down on those that have not broken them, and allows those that don’t, to run around with more power. not to say i think nothing should be done about it, but damn. there hasn’t been an answer to this that i’ve particularly liked, and would rather keep my fire arm in case it’s ever needed.

    • AntiLies

      exactly. There is no gun control, only people control. The knee jerk politicians NEVER solve the problems, only make them worse.

    • cgallaway2000

      I agree with you. Sad part is, the police know where a lot of the illegal gun markets are, yet don’t do anything about them.

  • So, which states have an SYG and OC law side-by-side on the books?

    This article doesn’t really advance the conversation very far. Instead it relies on characterization of gun owners and a big “What if?” scenario. There is the mandatory foray into “military style” or “assault” weapons even though the shooter in CA used handguns.

    A better question would be: What went wrong in CA that allowed a person who legally passed the very high bar to gun ownership to engage in a mass shooting.

    • John Ash

      I wouid like to know how he got ahold of a knife.

      • LOL. I often remind the 2A advocates that the word “arms” isn’t merely guns. Here in TX I can carry a monster pistol in the small of my back but have to leave the Ka-bar at the house.

  • mark nathan

    if you feel you have to carry a gun in public to show what a big man you are, chances are your not.

    • Dale Gribble

      Ah ad hominem, you completely convinced me the errors of open carry.

  • mij515

    So what happens when the law prevents me from having my gun, when we shut down open carry laws and stand your ground laws, and the bad guy still finds a way to get his gun, doesn’t care what laws are out there, and because I do care, and decide to follow them I have nothing. Your logic, and the logic of the left in general, ignores the responsibility of people. Not everyone will be responsible, but the more we cover for people’s irresponsibility, the more irresponsible we will become.

  • Sheldon Oakes

    “Wouldn’t it make sense to do more to keep the bad guy from getting the gun to start with?”

    Yes, I agree it would. Lets start by actually enforcing the laws we have. Lets look at the reasons that people choose to go on killing sprees in the first place. Because guess what people? You find a legal means to take guns away, then only the REALLY bad people have them. And even then if a homicidal maniac can’t get access to a gun, they will use knifes. Then are we going to start talking about licensing people to have knifes? Lets get to the root of the problem and start dealing with the psychological issues that cause people to do thing like this and stop just trying to deal with the symptoms.

  • Michael Fairchild

    “So I’ve still never understood how guns “make us safer.””

    Military, police, secret service……………… but they, being human like us regular folk, are not supermen. People should not be more afraid of the government then the criminals roaming the streets.

    • JW

      So you support the new Indiana law that lets citizens shoot cops?

  • Janet Price

    This is a WONDERFUL article. I thoroughly agree. Total common sense. And, I’ve also been saying it’s just a matter of time until this “open carry” stuff is going to cause a needless tragedy.. I don’t want to have to figure out who is the “good guy or the bad guy”. These people who have to be armed 24/7 are just insane.

  • kittenhasawhip

    Wouldn’t the bad guy shoot the obviously-armed good guy when his back was turned? Any smart bad guy would.

  • Pithy Eponym Here

    I grew up with guns, I was taught how to hand load my .22. I shot paper, carried my long rifle in a case to the range/ At the range you were not allowed to use semi-automatics because it was common courtesy not to pew pew pew while others were trying to aim. Walking around with exposed/loaded weapons was asking to get arrested. There’s a time and a place for owning and using guns. Walking around with an AR15 over your back is just impractical, foolish and insipid. That said I have no use for handguns in my home. Any moron who keeps one lying around loaded deserves the tragedy that will befall them.

  • Gary Kroegman

    This is the craziest crap I’ve ever read. Were you up late at night doing lines to meet your deadline? Go home Allen, you’re drunk.

  • Derpington_The_Third

    But didn’t you know that bad guys with guns wear shirts that say “I’m the bad guy, shoot me!”?

  • Lisa Drake

    Damn good question. Because I can see innocent people caught in the middle of stand your ground (aka playing cop or hero complex) and open carry (aka yes I’m a bad ass I’ve got a gun,legally) Guns don’t kill people, people kill people,and bullets have no name on them! so, do you think gun control could be possible before this inevitable train wreak? I believe and or respect the right to bear arms, I just don’t believe 1, you need a arsenal and 2,should allow LUNATICS to gain them,legally or illegally. You have to take a driver’s test,a eye exam, meds your on,to drive,but if you have no record (or never got caught) you can buy guns. Why does the average security conscious citizen need a assault rifle or machine gun (Mac 10) if you miss with a 6 shooter (revolver) you suck and will probably be hurt or worse by your own gun. In England the police don’t carry guns,but America has the highest gun violence of any other country. More guns,let’s clean up the illegal ones first along with administrating a mental test,like is it okay to kill innocent people,or do you have voices telling you what to do, annually, to would be owners to see whose NUTS,VIOLENT,OR PLANNING A MASSACRE OR SIEGE AND TURN THEM DOWN FOR LIFE
    OURS

  • Craig Peters

    I am so sick of the slaughter, and so sick of the BULLSHIT responses to the slaughter: “No law will stop a criminal from getting a gun.” Well, sure — anyone DETERMINED to get a gun will always be able to get one. But AS A SOCIETY, we need to send a message that says: “We will not tolerate the wanton violence anymore.” That means common-sense gun laws that include background checks, licensing, training, and any number of other measures. Let’s stop the horseshit: Having to get a license and train in order to own a deadly weapon does not infringe anyone’s 2nd Amendment rights any more than having to get a license and take lessons infringes on anyone’s ability to drive a car or cut hair. AS A SOCIETY we need to stop saying, “more guns is the answer” and start saying that “less guns is part of the answer” and that “responsible gun ownership is part of the answer.” Can horror stories like this ever be eliminated? Sadly, never — and to block common-sense legislation because they won’t eliminate 100% of the horror stories is not only disingenuous, but it plays into the gun lobby’s main goal: More profits through gun sales as a result of sowing fear through lies like “Obama is coming for all your guns” and “the government is going to repeal the 2nd Amendment.” The fact is that gun deaths CAN be minimized — and until there’s national political will to stand up to the SCUMBAGS in the NRA and Gun Owners of America and all the other far-right radical gun-happy douchebags, these groups will continue to have blood on their hands as innocent kids continue to die for absolutely no good reason.

    • Dale Gribble

      No, I’m pretty sure its the mentally unstable person who stabbed or shot someone has blood on their hands. Are car manufactures guilty for automotive deaths? Are breweries, and anyone who drinks, guilty for drunk drivers?

      • dieselbug

        The NRA are culpable for not backing universal background checks – something that would have prevented the guy from legally buying the firearm he used in Isla Vista.

      • cgallaway2000

        As to the car manufacturers reference, perhaps you might want to look up what GM has been up to this year….;) A wink because I know you were speaking in general about someone driving their vehicles in an unsafe manner, but you left it vague enough that the answer could be “Yes” based on what the car manufacturer might have done to conceal deficiencies and prohibit the drivers from using the car in a safe manner.

      • Craig Peters

        I’m pretty sure that any legislator who suggested we monitor and regulate gun owners the same way we monitor and regulate car owners would have the NRA up his or her ass in a heartbeat, pouring millions into his or her opponent’s campaign

  • Derpington_The_Third

    If getting guns is as easy as conservitards claim, then ban them anyways: because if they want their toys so bad they’ll get them.

  • Cory Testerman

    One thing the author got very wrong is that open carry laws simply state that the weapon musty be three stages from firing and that local law enforcement can take and check said weapon at their leisure. The conceal carry laws allow you to carry your weapon loaded but the courses and background checks are lengthy. And anyone who had been to these classes know that the first rule is if you pull it you use it. So you would not see someone with a conceal carry flashing their weapon.

    • Toggi3

      This is Florida? Is it applicable to pistols, rifles, both?

      I carry my double/single action makarov loaded with safety on, I’m in Virginia, I don’t think this is a problem there regardless of permit status, but I have a CCW permit.

      • Cory Testerman

        With a CCW you can carry loaded. They consider you fully trained.

    • cgallaway2000

      So, what you are saying is that open carry will not save a life, because the weapon is 3 stages from firing? Kind of knocks out some of the arguments for open carry on this board.

  • slugsucker

    “Paranoia strikes deep. Into your life it will creep. It starts when you’re always afraid.”

    • cgallaway2000

      just stop…..hey, what’s that sound?

  • WDS

    The collision already occurs to some extent between stand your ground folks. Look up the rates of murder in states where stand your ground has passed (like Florida) and you will see a spike in murders.

  • Toggi3

    I’m just saying, moan all you want about the availability of guns and how we need laws to stop people, but the truth is we don’t enforce the laws we already have and we need to bring back mental institutions on some level.

    • cgallaway2000

      agreed

  • Responsible carry

    Most gun owners would prefer concealed carry be universally allowed. But because of the required permits in most states which are difficult to impossible to attain and are economically restrictive many are unable to concealed carry and if we want to carry open carry is our only legal option. The idiots strutting AR and other rifles in public are just a tiny fraction of legal gun owners and do not represent the 99.9% of us that just want to go about our daily lives any more than the extreme liberals represent all liberals. Laws preventing concealed carry stop us from using the preferred method for personal protection. You are right, open carry invites the “bad guy” to take out their biggest threat to their evil plans. Do you know the death rate differences in mass shootings that were ended by armed citizens as opposed to those stopped by law enforcement?

    • dieselbug

      The NRA doesn’t represent the majority of the gun owners in the US, just like the idiots with ARs in fast food joints. But I don’t see or hear anyone condemning the NRA for being the face of gun ownership

  • Reed Rooster

    you can not stop a person with intent,but if everyone open carried he might be stopped before his kill count can rise. response time is 2 to 5 min. how many people could be saved by a law abiding citizen with his own weapon ?

    • dieselbug

      And how many law abiding citizens will have the guts to shoot at another human, hit them, and successfully maim or kill?

    • cgallaway2000

      I don’t agree with the idea of everyone open carrying. I know plenty of people piss scared of weaponry…I don’t want any of them holding one.

  • Derpington_The_Third

    Guns don’t kill people, people kill people, and their preferred method is with a firearm!

  • Acococure

    Great point!

  • ruthmcveigh

    Thank you for making the issue a little clearer. This Canadian no longer has any desire to cross the border. No “bargain” is worth the risk.

  • bamb4bam

    the thing people dont get is that a “bad” person is obviously going to hurt people, regardless of rights or carry laws. So do you want people to just keep going about the way we used to and wait for it to happen again, or put it out there that ‘Hey, we are prepared to fight back!’
    That is why these people carry guns in public, and for you to assume they are mentally unstable or are “gun nuts” is ignorant.
    Throughout life my opinion of guns has changed, and i understand that many people have a fear because of one situation or another, but truth is most gun owner understand gun safety, own a gun safe, and carry there weapon properly and within the law.
    I’m just tried of seeing people let fear be there only guide to opinion….

    • dieselbug

      If most gun owners are responsible, then why does the NRA steadfastly refuse to bend on universal background checks for firearms purchases? There are too many grieving families in Santa Barbara that would like to know the answer to that…..

  • bvocal

    I’m sure it’s not long until we see open carry with quick draw holsters. That’s when the real fun will begin.

    • camirish

      Please explain to me what a “quick draw holster” is?

      • cgallaway2000

        Ever watch Quick Draw McGraw? LOL

  • heyheymama51

    It’s not the guns. It’s lunatics with guns. That’s what all these events are. The mentally ill.

  • danny Sullivan

    We’ll end up with gun control laws like the rest of the civilized world, but it’s going to take quite a while. All this good guy, bad guy with a gun is a joke. I don’t want a good guy, or a bad guy, shooting guns in public, hoping that there won’t be collateral damage. There’s no rational need for guns in a truly civilized nation, except for defending us from the guns that are already out there. Ipso facto, we need to be trashing guns, no selling them. The stats don’t lie; we have epidemic like proportions of gun deaths compared to anywhere on the planet outside of maybe Yemen or Iraq. But if you’re an angry person who wants to latch onto an issue that seems to give you power, gun rights is for you.

  • AntiLies

    allright you bunch of leftwing dummies. Seems like I have to make the same damn points over and over to show you how wrong you are on just about every issue raised here.
    You lot are welcome for all the comments I have caused on this stupid article, and here’s to hoping you lot will wake T.F. up before it’s too late.

    • Derpington_The_Third

      You seem pretty buttmad about this article.

  • Just call me Bob

    Please pardon my ignorance, for I am new to this medium. I was just wondering why people stoop to name calling in these forums. Is it inability to see the other point of view, or a mind set of who speaks loudest is right?

  • camirish

    Sigh….Allen and everyone else who has ever told me this
    line of reasoning (sorry Allen, you are not the first), can you all stop
    looking at these laws from a politically driven, ill-informed view and stop
    coming up with an unrealistic scenario from it? SYG does not give someone the right to shoot anyone that they feel threaten by. If you feel the urge to shoot someone that has a rifle on their back, just walking down the street, it is probably good that you are afraid of firearms and not carrying one. In
    reality, SYG just removes any silliness from a life and death situation where
    split second decisions like shoot or don’t shoot matter.

    There are obvious advantages and disadvantages of open carrying; some of the cons you mentioned here. Nevertheless, that does not mean legislation needs to be enacted just because it scares you. Yes open carriers might be putting themselves at risk of an attack. Yes, they may not stop an attacker and become an initial target. But does that mean people should be just lambs to the slaughter? Allow the attacker to have free reign like they currently do in locations like CA, MD, or schools?

    From every recent story I have read, once the presence of a gun from a
    “good guy” came into play, the “bad guy” was stopped or killed themselves. It is also true that the “good guys” and “bad guys” are not easily recognizable before something goes down. Unfortunately,
    that is life. Timothy McVeigh was just picking up some fertilizer, maybe for farmland.

    If an accident happens like you described where someone carrying a pistol mistakenly perceives a person carrying a rifle as a threat and kills them, will you shoot off your “I Told You So!” article or will you instead advocate for something more effective like teaching firearm safety to our communities. States with open carry and SYG laws already exist, and they don’t appear to be having the Wild Wild West scenarios that you describe here. Actually, left-wing politicians have been fear-mongering that scenario since the first enactment of carry laws decades ago and the opposite has been true.

  • George Hill

    Stalking is against the law. You don’t need someone to stand their ground if they believe they are being stalked- forget about carrying a fitearm in cammo and kevlar… you are a dope.

  • Don

    “the stupidity of gun fanatics” …Yep, I think they’ve proven their point, as evidenced by the attitude of the gunoholics posting in this thread.

  • Goran

    Thank you for overthrowing dictators in WWII and after, but right now I as a European would say: Please do continue to shoot each other lots of times and as fast as possible so I can visit your beautiful country and appreciate it without the fear of being shot. You may leave out some elderly to how me around, as long as they are not armed! Thank you!

  • Leslie Martinez

    Misinterpreting the usage of threatened in the law. If a person is walking around with a holstered gun, it is not threatening. When a person draws a gun and prepares to fire, that is a threatening action.

    • cgallaway2000

      and there inlies the issue….the definition of the word “threatening”. The way I understand the usage of the word is that the person “Standing their ground” has to feel “Threatened”. Different people have various sensitivities that have them feeling “threatened” at various points. An elderly person may feel “threatened” by someone looking like a menace, while a marine might feel “threatened” by nothing. So, who’s definition of “threatened” is the law based on? There should be some standard, which is very difficult to put into words.

  • rushing marchette

    It would be an interesting case, but you’re assuming that killers like Elliot Rodger and the Newtown killer were rational. When gun shots ring out, very few people remain rational enough to target potential threats such as an open carrier.

    • cgallaway2000

      That doesn’t mean that some won’t. It’s the same thing with emergencies…most people won’t stay calm enough to help, but that doesn’t mean we should not have any first aid classes.

  • Brian4000

    We need to repeal the second amedment and enact legislation making militias illegal. This terrorist nonsense has gone on too long.

    • cgallaway2000

      As a liberal myself, I don’t think this is the right course of action.

    • E.D

      Are you seriously kidding right now? Our forefathers would roll in their graves over that ridiculous comment! How bout we repeal all of our rights then? Or you can take your sorry ass out of this damn country I’ll even help you pack so you can go live somewhere else preferably a third world country.

      • Brian4000

        The constitution gives us the right to amend, which can remove rights. In the 1700s it made some sense. Now it is a reckless right to bestow on the population. Not only does it lead to things like these mass shootings, but it helps to flood our inner cities with illegal firearms (remember they didn’t start out illegal) and perhaps most dangerously it is setting us up for significant instability because we have large numbers of armed militia groups with ideologies that embrace insurgency and rebellion. And anytime elections don’t go their way, or legislation and laws get enacted they don’t like, they start rattling their weapons, leading to things like the Bundy standoff where the groups were using WOMAN and CHILDREN as human shields and receiving ample vocal support from some of our own politicians. If we keep this up we will look like the middle east in no time.

  • E.D

    Seriously where was all this anti-gun propaganda when Americans stated settling out in the west? Where you could have easily been shot over a card game or cause some idiot decided he wanted to get drunk and shoot up the place… Same back in the colonial times as well so why is it just now becoming an issue with people nowadays?

  • lmfao

    BTW we have the most gun violence? I wonder what percentage of that comes from places like NY and Chicago where only the criminals have guns but lawful citizens can’t get them?

  • boots

    All I know is that I have no desire to ever step foot on American soil ever again thanks to your gun toting loonies. I say travellers boycott tourism in the good ole USA and put it on the travel advisory list of countries that are a great risk to travel to along with Afghanistan,Ukraine,Egypt,& Iran. Your country has been taken over by religious extremists and is no different than downtown Kabul.

  • r44

    all I know is that antilies is the dumbest moron on here !!!

  • Rock

    You Liberals just will never get it. It is Our right…do not infringe. Shut the hell up. Go help people who dont want to do anything for themselves…feeding off the government teets. Your arguments are null and void. Why change things like laws and constitution if they arent broke.

    • Sherri G

      Well regulated!

  • Ed Stanley

    The Second Amendment provides for an armed citizenry militia for the express purpose of defending our citizens from tyrannical government. All of these other “what if” gun regulation arguments are just distractions away from that undisputable fact.
    And tyrannical government types hope you DO miss the actual intention of the 2nd Amendment… while they subsequently disarm us as a result and impose their elitist will on our then defenseless lives,… with impunity. Every other gun regulation issue is subordinate to this fact.
    I do not mean to imply that these “what if” issues are without merit or due consideration, but the standard by which we tinker with gun ownership regulation must be the actual law and intent of the 2nd Amendment; our only protection against a tyrannical government. Our Founders were brilliant.
    There – I said it……………… (by the way…. RE-Elect NO ONE!) : )

  • DELL HEWEY

    Maybe this is the way to go—the “stand your grounders” will fire on the “open carriers” and it will become a circular firing squad. Problem solved !!!

  • Elwood P. Suggins

    I believe some of these “gun nuts” dream of the chance to “take someone out”.

  • Hunter

    It would have been a great article and much more effective without the opening the paragraphs. No sense turning off readers and making enemies before you get to the meat of the argument

  • nutsinavice

    “…there’s something about guns that renders people who are otherwise sane to act completely irrational.”

    I think there’s an assumption here that’s faulty. The people who support open carry and stand your ground are not otherwise sane.

  • rich

    Bull…I once had a guy and his girl friend pull a gun on me to rob me, I seen the bulge of it in his waist, she tried to get in my face so he could draw without me seeing it, I had him before he could pull it all the way out, his finger in the trigger loop, I broker his finger in several places disarming him, when she attacked I became her dentist, and b the way,progressive dummies, there are not million of guns in the hands of law breakers, how dumb can you be, read the constitution so you can understand what its for miss Fisher, not hunting, we know we have a tyrannical government right now, and that’s what the founders ment when they wrote it.

    • Sherri G

      We DO NOT have a TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT…..go to N Korea to see tyranny!

  • rich

    With as many decades of open carry, and stand your ground being at the front of history in America, you will probably have to engineer the the confrontation you are hopeing for progressives, after all, isn’t that your motive?

  • Fritz

    South America, Central America and the Caribbean have the highest rates of murder by firearms in the world, not the United States. Just to keep the facts in order.

  • Stephen Bellinger

    “it won’t be long until some state that allows for both “stand your ground” and “open carry” will see the two collide in some kind of public shootout ” – And this is just a matter of when, not if, because it will happen.

  • jay wilson

    Because we are awash in a sea of guns we may have reached a tipping point where carrying a gun may actually BE needed for self-protection. The NRA and the gun lobby has ginned up so much fear and faux paranoia that everyone is at flash point instability. Mix that mindset with drugs, mental illness, road rage, inequality, racism, flash mobs, political unrest, corruption…and you know this is not going to end well.

    We’ve ALL been in a state-of-mind, like road rage, where tempers went off
    the chart. Now replay that same scenario BUT with easy access to a gun…and that’s where you get the headline “Mother of three goes berserk”.

    So enjoy your Open Carry guns, wallow in them, oil them up, sleep with
    them…just don’t be surprised when you meet Stand Your Ground who is a little
    more paranoid than you.

  • CRI

    so… “stand your ground” laws typically involve your domicile. Each jurisdiction has their own self-defense laws, but typically you cannot kill someone in self defense unless that act is proportional to the threat (that can be an objective or subjective or combination test for culpability or justification/excuse doctrine). However, “stand your ground” allows you to use self defense more aggressively in your domicile- where an intruder can almost be assumed to be a threat to your life. I’m not familiar with many stand-your ground laws that permit you to leave your property and “stand your ground”, because it’s not your ground. And I’m sure it would take courts a loooooong time to ever get to that conclusion, because it sounds nuts. Self-defense is hard precisely because of what the article says- because at what point, when someone is openly-carrying a gun, is that a threat to your life? If someone walked towards me with a bad look on their face and a gun, I would feel that that action is a threat. So… I can see how this may descend into chaos.

    • PavePusher

      You can actually look this stuff up, or chose to remain wilfully ignorant. Your call…..

  • Dangman

    DUMB DUMB DUMB what are we some third world country with people walking around with guns waiting for some other person with a gun to confront them. .Whats next Toyota pick up trucks full of armed men roaming the streets .

    • PavePusher

      Your paranoia and bigotry are noted.

  • Nemisis

    Open carry and brandishing are two completely different things.
    I live in a state that has both laws. I can tell you it’s not as bad as it is in Texas. Mostly because there is also an education component to ownership.
    In the situation described in the article. Nothing wrong with that guy walking around in a park even if there are children around. The guy pointing out that he had a gun and waving it around should have been considered as brandishing and arrested. Brandishing is not the same as taking a gun and pointing it at people as soon as that happens another law has been broken. That is when a stand your ground could come into effect, anyone that was doing that just to prove a point or was just joking doesn’t need to have a gun nor do they need to be allowed to breed.
    Do people think that there is going to be a massive gun battle when they see police or military carrying guns? No, they trust that they have the proper training and are a good guys. They hope. Still no panic. My state has a clause to the open carry, if a given place doesn’t want guns in it they simply need to post a “no guns” sign if the sign is ignored the gun owner broke the law. There are some that feel they have been slighted and demand special treatment. Which they get, they then get to pay a fine. Too be honest when I do see someone open carry I do pay attention to them a little bit more, I would do the same if I saw someone carry a baseball bat into a grocery store.

  • Jason Weedman

    ok i got one question for everybody here… Why are humans so damn dumb?!

  • OldCowboy

    Here’s my view. If the gun is a long gun and it is strapped on the wearer’s back, then he’s an “idiot good guy with a gun.” If, on the other hand, that long gun is carried in front, I will definitely feel threatened and be forced to stand my ground and protect myself, my family, and other innocents around me.

  • H0BS0N

    This is insanity at its best. And you’re right. This will happen. Someone will feel threatened (as they should) by someone intimidating others with military weapons, and they will use the Stand Your Ground defense to pre-emptively shoot them first.
    Of course, it gets really crazy when there are more then two gun nuts out there and they all take each other out, and maybe a few passersby.
    We lost common sense at some point. Not sure when.

  • PavePusher

    Overly contrived scenarios and ignorance of self-defense laws doth not an article create. I award you no points, and my the FSM have mercy on your insipid soul.

  • WFP

    Most of this discussion is “suppose this, suppose that…” anything is possible and anything can happen. So if something bad happens, then it does. If someone can stop it before it gets worse, good. That’s it. No one can stop it, not even by trying to outlaw guns as thought guns are guilty of something.

  • Cassandra

    I love living in Canada where if you see someone carrying a gun you know they are the bad guys. Not many people have guns and if they do they are kept in a very safe place not out in public. I can’t imagine living somewhere where everyone feels they need a gun to protect themselves, how sad.

  • Kimmo Wilska

    Perhaps these two subgroups of the American gun culture might cancel each other out.

  • pgwarrick

    Of course the two laws won’t collide at all if one shooter is white and the other black.

  • FMJ

    This open carry crap is killing businesses all over. No one wants to be in a restaurant, especially that serves alcohol, where people have guns, so people aren’t eating out as much. Places here have gone out of business and are laying off waiters due to lack of business. This applies to any store that allows people to carry guns inside. It might be our rights, but a little common sense goes along way.

    • bigD

      Have you ever lived in Arizona? They have had open carry for decades. However, Phoenix prohibits open carry within the city limits. Businesses in any city are free to post “NO WEAPONS” signs if they choose. These restrictions are easy to implement in any establishment or municipality. You just don’t like guns. Sorry, but the second amendment is still the law of the land. As for people not eating out as much. For your information there are millions of people unemployed or under employed thanks to Obama. Broke people can’t afford to eat at restaurants and restaurants don’t accept FOOD STAMPS!!!

  • Gary Gray

    These commies come right out and admit what they are in their Publication’s title. We have been at a point for a long time where being a pinky, socialist, commie traitor is no longer something to hide in shame. These people have become brazen and a full war is on to take the United States of America and your freedoms down.

  • blahblah

    I am in favor of this open carry law and I pray it clashes with stand your ground. The more Americans that are armed and shooting each other the better.

  • Aytar

    Just wait until the “good guy” kills an innocent bystander trying to hit the “bad guy”. If the good guy killed one on my loved ones like that the good guy becomes the bad guy in my eyes.

  • John Michael Hutton

    YOu are asking a question involving a great amount of logic and thinking skills, your typical gun advocate/gun nut IMO isn’t capable of answering or even thinking about this. They would simply say that you are a liberal commie pinko fag or some other insipid comment.

  • Cathryn Sykes

    Personally, I think the both the “Open Carry” advocates and the “Stand your ground” advocates must be the biggest cowards in the world. They don’t feel safe unless they are hauling around enough deadly firepower to take out half a restaurant full of people in a few seconds. Imagine being so fearful, so paranoid, that you can’t leave your home without a gun? So scared you can’t even peek through a window to see who’s on your front porch, but instead have to grab a gun and shoot before you even know whose there…and who is there is a young woman who wanted to use your phone because she had car trouble. Imagine thinking that everyone who is not EXACTLY LIKE YOU is a potential attacker….the black and brown people, the gay people, the “libtards”, the commies, the poor people, those who not only aren’t Christian, they’re not your specific kind of Christian…fear, fear, constant fear, only eased partially when you have a gun on you. Pitiful. Truly pitiful.

  • Chris Linville

    The title of this article should be I’m stupid and haven’t got a clue about gun facts.

  • David Clap

    The problem is we live in a buy now, pay later, fast food, shoot first, ask questions later society. We have laws that allow subjective “he said, he said” defense when one of the “he saids” doesn’t exist anymore. We have people who know the laws and know they can get away with taking care of someone who affected them emotionally and hurt their feelings. All they have to do is say they felt they were in danger, or I thought he had a weapon and boom you are an innocent little butterfly with a glock. I’m all for someone defending ones self and loved ones, if it is justified. Justified is someone entering your home or vehicle with intent to harm or kill or someone with a weapon that can seriously injured or kill with that intent anywhere. Not someone who intimidates you and they are yelling and approaching fast. Not someone you get into a fist fight with and you get the snot beat out of you so you go to your car or home, get a weapon and kill that person. Whatever happened to a good old fist fight instead of a gun fight? We turned into a bunch of crying twats who spoil our kids rotten and overreact when they get their feelings hurt so that next time they will act out even more to get attention. We keep feeding this be fair, be nice, everything’s perfect until reality hits and they can’t deal with it. They don’t know what to do, they are scared and angry at the same time. They find out options of a way to protect themselves with a weapon and when something like that happens again they will be ready to snap , push that nuke button or pull that trigger.

  • Frdmftr

    Well, let’s see:
    “Except we’re not the only free country on the planet (there are many
    others) and we lead the world in gun violence.” Not true. We ARE the only “free country” on the planet if your definition of “free country” includes the
    sovereign individual right to run your own life and own and control your own
    property without government interference. Of course, this is the definition that has been under continuous Progressive assault since COMINTERN in 1925, and breath-takingly so in the last quarter-century. We are the only nation in which private individual rights trump the arbitrary whim of kings and
    princes and government thugs and neighborhood warlords every time, no
    exceptions, no excuses – except for the chipping away of these fundamental
    principles by Progressives since COMINTERN in 1925, and breath-takingly so in the last quarter-century.

    “So I’ve still never understood how guns “make us safer.” Well, there is no accounting for the Progressive’s lack of intelligence: When people exercise their right to keep and bear arms and criminals and the mentally ill know it, they are very careful about who they attempt to rob, assault, rape, attack, murder. This is why all but two mass shootings have occurred in locations where signage claims the illusion of “Gun Free Zone.” Understand now?

    “If anything it seems our love for guns has made them a necessity in our society.” Two problems with this idiotic statement: First, I am
    a gun owner and I carry, but I don’t love guns. Unlike Progressives, I love people and use things, instead of the other ‘way around. Secondly, the requirement of self-defense is what has made them a necessity in our society, and in any society. Without them, Mr. Clifton, the biggest thug on the block with a baseball bat or sword or knife or violent posse runs your life and you have nothing to say about it – that is, unless you just happen to live long enough to call a cop with a gun. YOU are the first responder: How about YOU deal with it legally, safely (for you and your family) instead of placing others in harm’s way? Self-defense is a fundamental right and responsibility: Exercise it instead of being a coward and whining “Save me! Save me!”

    “And I’m not saying all gun owners are ‘gun nuts,’ …” Good, because on the street that would earn you a lump on your snout. “… but there’s a clear difference in my opinion between a gun owner and a gun nut.” Your opinion is clearly defective, because you are using what you think is perfect as a weapon against the good, when in fact your definition of perfect is proven to be destructive in the extreme.

    “Stand your ground laws essentially state that a citizen has the right to defend themselves with deadly force if they feel threatened.” No, they don’t. They state that a citizen has a right to defend himself with deadly force if IN FACT they are being threatened with deadly force. Your version is typical
    Progressive gobble-d-gook designed to sucker people who don’t know any better.

    “Open carry advocates believe that citizens should be allowed to carry their guns practically anywhere, in full sight of every single human being they encounter.” No, they don’t. They believe they have the RIGHT
    to carry their guns practically anywhere, without reference to every single
    human being they encounter, and without limitation as to “openly” or “concealed.” And they do. (Personally, I feel that open carry is both foolish and counter-productive tactically and politically, but we cannot legally outlaw open carry and if we did, precious little snowflakes would then whine and snivel about concealed carry. As they do anyway.)

    “Because nothing says “I’m sane” quite like carrying military style assault weapons into local restaurants like Chipotle.” It doesn’t say anything
    one way or the other about “sanity.” The picture shows a man in line with a rifle slung over his shoulder. No problem. You might have an argument if he were carrying it at the low-ready position, or had it shouldered looking through the sights. That would constitute an ‘Assault,” which is
    a violation of law. But why do people like you get your panties in a wad over someone peaceably, in a non-threatening manner, exercising a fundamental right? Could it be that you don’t like the idea that your tyrannical political
    theories are thereby constrained? After all, Hitler didn’t like people having the right to defend themselves. Neither did Stalin, or Trotsky, or Lenin, or
    Mugabe, and not to put too fine a point on it, but neither does the political
    leaders of any other nation on Earth – which is why your claim that other
    nations are ‘free” is pure self-serving cow manure.

    “Or there was the case in Georgia, where a man went around in a public park, where children were participating in sporting events, flashing his gun at people who walked by and telling them that there was nothing they could do about it.” If he was brandishing it, he was committing a criminal act. If he was bothering people, he was disturbing the peace. After all Progressives like yourself don’t have any lock on being idiotic. But what you describe is exceedingly rare, not at all like the constant idiocy of the Progressives.

    “What if, as a gun owner, I’m out with my family and I see someone wearing a kevlar vest carrying a loaded AR-15 stalking around a park filled with children? If I lived in a state with “stand your ground” laws, couldn’t I conceivably shoot this individual and claim that I felt threatened? “ No,
    you could not. You could and rightfully should call the cops, for this is clearly “out of the norm.” You don’t know if he is wearing Kevlar; you don’t know if his AR-15 is loaded; you don’t know if he is “stalking.” You would be justified in keeping eyes on him until the cops get there and taking action only if he threatens someone. You see why we regard Progressives as idiots? GUN OWNERS KNOW THIS. Why don’t you? (Simply being an idiot is not a capital crime, Clifton.)

    “I had no choice but to stand my ground and defend myself and my family.”
    Nothing in the scenario you described referenced any threat to you or your
    family. Based on what you described, had you shot him you would have been righteously prosecuted by the local prosecutor and would have given lawful gun owners a worse reputation than the idiot running around the park in full battle rattle.

    “In a world of open carry, what this person was doing wouldn’t be illegal.” To
    the contrary, if people – including you – are frightened by what he is doing,
    then he is “disturbing the peace.” The standard is whether a reasonable person would be disturbed by it. And it is not the fact he is armed, it is the
    totality of the situation. I would have called the cops and kept eyes on the guy and perhaps gotten into position to intervene if necessary, but you can’t shoot someone for disturbing the peace, Clifton.

    “Should we first wait to see if they shoot a child or two before we become the right-wing cliché of ‘a good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun’?”
    As I described above, we haven’t “waited.” We have started the process of dealing with it. How about you stop being the “left-wing loon” cliché that anyone with a gun must be out to kill someone? You are not only expressing that looney cliché in your description of the guy with the AR-15, you are describing it in your reaction to it.

    “Because in a world where open carry is legal, you know what a potential mass shooter is called right before they unload 20 rounds into a crowd of children? An American citizen exercising their legal right to carry their assault rifle out in the open.” To the contrary, in a world where the right to keep and bear arms is legal, openly or concealed, it is perfectly normal for an American citizen to exercise his legal right to carry an assault rifle in the presence of children – FOR YOUR INFORMATION, TEACHERS IN ISRAEL DO IT ALLTHE TIME.

    People with AR-15s are at least better-equipped to protect children from wackos than Gun Free Zone signs, Clifton.

    “But again, a “good guy with a gun” can’t stop a “bad guy with a gun” until that bad guy opens fire – unless “stand your ground” collides with “open carry.” So, like most Progressives, you would rather the “good guy with the gun” gets disarmed so that instead of one child being murdered, 32 are murdered as at Sandy Hook – (that’s even assuming Sandy Hook even happened; there is quite a bit of evidence that it was entirely a false flag event).

    “That’s why I’ve always mocked the “only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun” propaganda gun nuts like to use. It essentially says we need to let a few die in the initial attack so that we can allow the “good guy” to identify the target and take them out. Wouldn’t it make sense to do
    more to keep the bad guy from getting the gun to start with?” Do you hear yourself, Clifton? Do you even read the crap you are writing? No, Clifton, it most certainly DOES NOT MAKE MORE SENSE to keep the bad guy from getting the gun to start with because YOU CANNOT KEEP THE BAD GUY FROM GETTING THE GUN TO START WITH! That’s why gun owners and others with intelligence levels above room temperature wonder if Progressives are even intelligent enough to tie their own shoes in the morning after they let their mommy dress them.

    And it gets worse, Clifton: In the constant effort of Progressives to accomplish the flatly impossible – keeping bad guys from getting guns – you are cheerfully advocating the destruction of our 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 10th Amendment-guaranteed rights, which, not to put too fine a point on it, we have the right to keep and bear arms to preserve and protect.

    And that is why I am one of the very few left willing to try to instruct air-headed yo-yo’s who come out with the unmitigated garbage you have
    posted in this article: Most of us, myself included most of the time, are sick and tired of arguing with a bunch of “useful idiots” of V. I. Lenin and Trotsky and Stalin and Lavrenty Beria who don’t give a flying Frisbee for the safety of the public or any other of your slimy claims; your objective is to prevent the people from defending themselves from Progressive tyranny.

    I’ve given you some logical, factual arguments against your thesis, Allen Clifton, but in the final analysis there is in reality nothing to argue about: We will not comply with your Progressive thesis. We will not allow your tyrants to govern our nation. We will not allow your statist thugs to run our lives. We will not allow your Second Bolshevik Revolution to take place, and our patience is wearing mighty thin: If you Progressive thugs keep committing violence against property and people to advance your agenda, sooner or later you will reach the tipping point and every one of you will be in a prison camp … if you survive. If deaths have occurred due to your efforts, on either side of the issue, the felony murder rule will apply and the gallows will be very busy.

    • Madame Mildew

      STFU