Permissive Laws for Gun Exhibitionists

Should society tolerate their need to flaunt themselves?

By that "reasoning", if a score of mild-mannered, smiling jihadis were gentling fondling their firearms as they strolled through an airport, the public should accord them good ol' southern hospitality, of course.

"Looky! Looky! Me 'n mah big shooty mincin' 'round Jackson International!"

How, exactly, are decent folks and security personnel - in airports or school playgrounds - supposed to know that Cooly is a harmless nutter?

Shouldn't he, at the very least, be required to wear a sign or maybe a funny hat?

 

No need for them to look like you. A person used to be able to carry in 'some areas of commercial airports' before the fear of the gun control crowd took over sanity.

 

Or maybe a special jacket?

Eventually one or another of these nutters are going to get into the Capitol and shoot down a few Congresscritters, then we'll see common sense prevail once it's THEIR lives on the line.

In the meantime, it's open season on YOU and your family, courtesy of America's gun industry and their bought and paid for conservative lickspittles

 

Common sense in Russia means that the citizen is a vassal of State force instead of being free.

 

Thanks for referring to the rifle as just that, a rifle.

That's a welcome change.

I'm not a fan of any open carry anywhere btw. CCW is the way to go everywhere.

 

If gun control nanny nazis would tone down their desire to restrict or eliminate the 2ndA, 2ndA advocates would feel less of a need to 'exercise' their 2ndA right, just for the sake of exercising their right.

 

I advocate both, cc and oc.

Conceal carry is for navigating a dynamic environment, like walking thru a mall or neighborhood. While open carry is for a static environment, like working behind the counter of a quick stop.

 

​

If I understand Cooly's argument, old geezers with a gun fetish and afraid of going out in public without at least one can all strut around my kid's school playground without raising concern if they're "not carrying it in a menacing or threatening manner."

Those sh¡t-eating grins the pantywaists are all sporting are so reassuring!

 

I meant oc in public in my opinion is not a good idea if cc is an option.

I agree that whole working behind a counter or desk, OC is better. Or having it mounted under the counter so as not to make it obvious that you're carrying, or attempting to draw.

 

Speaking of pantywaists, how is the gun control crowd doing lately?

 

The harmful crackpots with guns and the harmless crackpots with guns are having a good ol' time for themselves these days.

The harmless ones can be readily identified because as they prance around flaunting their ballistic juju, they do not "carry it in a menacing or threatening manner," whereas the harmful ones sneer and pout all the time.

Under gunster Cooly's foolproof criteria for judging:

​

.

Happy Face = Harmless​

 

Carry your own gun. If he is a bad guy, you have the means to defend yourself. Or be a sheep and die.

 

Only a real fool would believe anyone would carry a weapon for show.

You're talking about 0.00000000000000000001% of the population, and frankly it's not at all an issue or a problem.

Don't you clowns have anything better to do than push this crap into our faces?

Leave the gun owners alone. The cops are shooting you way more than the gun owners are, why don't you stay focused on the cops for a while?

There, that's a good liberal, run along now....

 

Sorry, we are not aware of your fantasies but then, I am sure we don't want to be.

 

There's plenty of cowards who can't leave home without a gun. Unfortunately, the rest of us have to pay for it. over 30,000 people die from gun violence each year.

The Constitution's General Welfare clauses is being ignored.

 

I would say the majority of those 30,000 wish that they owned and trained with a gun so that they would have had a fighting chance. training in firearms would also reduce accidental death. Guns are not going away, so the more gun handling and education everyone has, the safer everyone will be. If you rely on police to defend your family from a criminal with a gun, I would have to say that you are the coward.

 

You must have missed the article. Cooly minced around an airport showing off his weapon so that he could take pictures of himself doing it, then solicited the media to promote his self-indulgence. Did you think he was hunting the jihadis who, under the same law, are free to swagger into airports as well?

Personally, I have a problem with strangers brandishing their confidence-builders in my toddler's school yard. Some don't, apparently.

 

Well, that's kind of a problem with liberals, when they look at a gun all they see is the barrel and they never see the grip or the trigger. They're always looking at the rifle from the barrel, never from the stock.

I'll just say this: if there are strangers mysteriously showing up in your toddler's school yard then you have a problem with the school and not with the weapons. Just sayin.

 

I know some have those "liberals! constantly festering in their noggins, but the law at issue "allows licensed carriers to bring their guns into a variety of public places, including bars, school grounds, places of worship and some areas of commercial airports."

Like most Americans, I've had quite enough of the permissiveness that allows the gun-dependent to indulge themselves shamelessly. If these characters need a gun to keep from peeing themselves when they venture into a school yard, they might want to stay home.

Americans have a right to have guns; they should not be forced to be subjected to them everywhere.

 

Hm. So this is liberal "tolerance" in action, right? You scared of guns therefore you're going to project your fears onto others, and force them to obey nonsensical laws just because you don't know what to do with a weapon or what they're good for.

I'm very sorry, you're going to have to do better than that. I support open carry and I do not support a culture that seeks to marginalize self defense.

 

That number is always thrown around in the anti 2A narrative. Which is quite intellectually dishonest because it includes suicides and legal intervention. The only number that should be used in such an argument would be homicide with a firearm stats, and that number is only 10-11k a year. Given the 300m+ population and the extraordinary high firearm ownership, that tends to suggest access to firearms is not the cause of violence. Otherwise homicide with a firearm would be astronomically higher.

Besides, murder and violence has existed long before firearms were ever even conceived. Restricting one's access to a tool the best equalizes one's chances at self protection, only serves to make them vulnerable to others with a physical advantage.

 

In the liberal narrative, criminals are not responsible for what they do because they are victims of a repressive or racist society so the onus must be pushed somewhere else, in this case, an inanimate object. Personal responsibility need not apply.

 

Translation "GUN WAAAAANHHHH!!!!!!!" If you are going to (*)(*)(*)(*) yourself every time you see a grown man with a gun you might want wear some diapers to go along with your infantile paranoia.

 

What about the 5,000 kids who are shot each year? Give them defensive gun training and arm them?

There are gun-toting cowards all over the place who think that there's danger around every corner. These idiots are adding to the problem of gun violence.

 

So, you're "one of those". Are these 5,000 kids being shot by people who are legal gun owners, with legally acquired guns? You know that answer.
You refer to CCW holders and OC proponents as "cowards", and claim that they are contributing to the problem. The number has already been presented in this thread, before you posted, but you are bound and determined to promote your lie anyway. It's what you do.