A Man with a Gun!! In Arizona its all good… we can open carry loaded

by Larkin Rose with all credit for an excellent piece of work, originally posted on freedomsphoenix.  Good food for thought on this lovely weekend.

A recent story regarding an “open carry” movement in California (of all places) gives a very telling glimpse into the mentality of the general public, and the state mercenaries (“police”).

Here’s the link:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYWz7BEEg1k

The actual substance of the story would be laughably mundane if people weren’t so indoctrinated. The “story” was: “Some people are carrying firearms, and not doing bad stuff with them, and they’re allowed to!” How brain-washed does a populace have to be for that to be “news”? What will the headline say the next day? “Man with axe chops up firewood!; no charges filed.”

Don’t get me wrong. I’m glad the open-carry folk are bringing the issue up; it’s just pathetic that the country has sunk so low (with California in the lead) that it’s even necessary. But what is interesting about the story is the mentality of the general public, and the cops, in California. For example, the news story plays a clip of what I assume was a 911 call, where someone reports a guy (brace yourself, this is scary) sitting around a Starbucks wearing a firearm. Oh, the horror! (The caller, demonstrating either profound ignorance of firearms, or her x-ray vision superpowers, says the semi-auto handgun “appears to be loaded.”)

I admit, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that carrying a firearm is still “legal” (allowed by tyrants) in California as long as the firearm is unloaded, and in plain view. (You can also carry clips and ammo, but they can’t be in or attached to the gun.) The California control freaks also require those carrying firearms to let state mercenaries inspect their firearms at random, without any “probable cause,” to make sure they’re not loaded. (Fourth Amendment? What’s that?)

But again, the “legalities” are less interesting than the mentality displayed in the report. For example, the news narrator explains that nothing brings a cop faster than a report of “a man with a gun.” Oh, horrors! Lock up the women and children! Wait a second … a cop is a “man with a gun”! Is there some reason, when you see one guy with a gun, that you really need to bring over a second one?

Of course, the terror of “a man with a gun” does not, in the minds of the peasantry, include a government mercenary with a gun. What actually scares the peasantry is “a man with a gun who isn’t pretending to be ‘authority‘.” But consider how weird that is. What it boils down to is this: “Oh my gosh, there’s a guy over there with a gun, and he doesn’t think he has the right to rule me!!” Um, isn’t that a good thing? Most Americans have no idea what they should and shouldn’t be scared of.

I’ve seen quite a few people carrying firearms in my lifetime. The only ones who ever invaded my home were “police.” The only ones who ever stole my stuff were “police.” The only ones who ever took me hostage were “police.” And frankly, the only ones whose firearms ever worried me were the “police”–the robots trained to do the bidding of the politicians, forcibly carrying out whatever arbitrary commands the government crooks might decide to make up.

If I heard someone say, “there’s a man with a gun,” my immediate question would be, “And what’s he doing with it?” (Well, my first though might be, “You mean a man with a gun other than me?“) If I heard about “a man with a chain-saw,” or “a man with a crowbar,” I wouldn’t automatically assume they were about to go on a killing spree. So why would anyone assume that of a man with a gun? The simple answer is: indoctrination.

Near the end of the “news” report, a propaganda specialist (“spokesman”) for the California mercenaries (“police”), while admitting that people have a “legal right” (never mind that that is an oxymoron) to carry unloaded firearms openly, said he doesn’t see what it adds to society. Hey, what’s that thing on his hip? Golly gee, it’s a firearm! I wonder what he thinks that “adds to society.”

In short, most state mercenaries today, having devolved deeply into the tyrannical mindset, think they should always outgun the general populace. From their perspective, it’s good for them to always have the ability to kill people, but it’s bad for you to have that ability. (Excuse me, officer, your fascism is showing.)

How sad that the public has been trained to fear those people who have taken on the responsibility to protect themselves and others from the predators of the world. And no, I’m not talking about “law enforcers,” who pretend to be protectors, but are in reality the hired thugs of the biggest gang of predators around.

I was happy, and somewhat surprised, that the news report included a comment from one of the “open carry” advocates, correctly pointing out that the state mercenaries (my word, not his), according to the Supreme Court, have no obligation to protect anyone. That being the case, if I see a guy in a Starbucks with a gun, I’m sitting in his general vicinity. Because, if some bad guy is unlucky enough to pick that time and place to play tough guy, I and the other “man with a gun” will have him outnumbered.


Comments

  1. Love seeing you conservatives go all radical and stuff however a a little history might be in order.

    Do you know how California got to have these laws about unloaded open carry and related laws? It was because Ronald Reagan advocated for them as governor and signed them. Anyone know why that happened? It was because conservatives were crapping their pants about black men in the Black Panthers openly carrying loaded guns, which was legal at the time , and monitoring police brutality and abuse. In other words this isn’t because of the actions of the left but Saint Ronny himself.

  2. Veritas Vincit says

    Actually having been there back then, having “angry black males with loaded weapons” acting in a threatening manner scared the pants off ALL of the politicians. So Ronnie did what was needed. Sorry, wasn’t a R versus D matter but it was elected bums afraid of an armed public – so California disarmed the public.

    A lot like those thugs back east during the elections at the polling places working for A.C.O.R.N.

    UNLIKE the man at the Obama rally in Phoenix who was quite armed but not alarming anyone because of his peaceful behavior.

    Moral of the story? Governments doing what’s wrong are afraid of an armed public and so they disarm the people and hire enforcers (called police) who are under no obligation to protect anything but the government agency’s interests they work for.

  3. VV,
    Exactly the double standard answer I would expect. Oh, and I did not say it had anything to do with R vs. D. Do you get extra points for dropping in the unrelated ACORN reference?

  4. James Davidson says

    Todd,

    Ask Betty Van Patter about Black Panther Party violence. The conversation, though, would be a trifle one-sided. The badly-beaten body of this accountant for the BP Party washed up on the beach of the San Francisco Bay. She was murdered.

    Or ask Huey Newton, one of the Party’s founders. But then he also was murdered.

    Like most revolutionary parties, there was some devouring of the faithful going on.

  5. James,
    Newton was killed in the late 80’s over a drug deal. Betty Van Patter may have been killed by someone in the Black Panthers or may not (yes I know David Horowitz claims she was, but I don’t find him a credible source based on his history). Regardless, I am not holding them up as a source of virtue but rather the fact that it is clear that there wasn’t all this gun rights talk from conservatives when it was black men wanting to defend themselves against a racist and violent police force. Then it was just doing ‘what is needed.’ It seems the right to carry a gun is dependent on whether you have the right political views. It also doesn’t remove the point that these gun laws were instituted in CA by conservatives.

  6. I have never been a great fan of arguing the past, which cannot be changed nor ever altered regardless of the words dedicated to it. Of course, if it is merely a game in which certain words might win, well then!

    Neither am I much of a fan dreaming about a future which might never develop. How about a little ‘here and now’? But that presupposes a conscious effort to solve current problems.

  7. Iris,
    My point is not to argue the past but rather demonstrate the rank hypocrisy of people like VV who get exercised and begin all the chest thumping about gun rights but care little if those rights are taken from others who disagree with them. This is typical.

  8. todd: I wasn’t alive when the black panthers visiting the state house with their guns. Therefore I was unable to “get exercised” about it. (Although I do enjoy exercising with firearms.)

    That said, I support the right of anyone to take up arms to defend themselves against the government and other predators, whether they are black, white, or green.

    Ronald Reagan erred when he supported this ban in the wake of the Black Panther activity. No one is perfect.

  9. The Democrat Party has been in the forefront of restricting Blacks from 2nd Amendment Rights. THe NRA and the GOP have supported 2nd Amendment Rights for African-Americans, particularly to provide self-defense against the KKK.

  10. Veritas Vincit says

    Todd, what the hell are you blathering about?
    re: #7 and #1

    It must be true, liberalism is a mental disorder because Todd cannot complete a coherent thought on topic.

  11. Veritas Vincit says

    My exact quote: “Sorry, wasn’t a R versus D matter but it was elected bums afraid of an armed public – so California disarmed the public.”

    As for the A.C.O.R.N. folks at the polls? There weren’t defending anything – they were imported intimidation of voters.

    As for the Black Panthers in California? There weren’t defending themselves but acting in a threatening manner.

    Defending is one thing; intimidation with a gun is quite another.

    But Todd knows that already, he’s just trying desperately to be relevant.

  12. “There weren’t defending themselves but acting in a threatening manner.”

    By carrying around loaded guns? I thought the point of this post was that this should be a citizen’s right.

  13. “As for the A.C.O.R.N. folks at the polls? There weren’t defending anything – they were imported intimidation of voters.”

    Really? ACORN was intimidating voters? Where?

    I thought the rub with ACORN was that they were fraudulently registering voters, and the New Black Panther Party was intimidating them. You’ve gotta get your paranoia right, VV.

    “Defending is one thing; intimidation with a gun is quite another.”

    And of course, you’re the sole arbiter of what’s intimidating, right VV?

  14. Also VV, do you really sign on to calling police “state mercenaries”?

  15. “…if some bad guy is unlucky enough to pick that time and place to play tough guy…”

    If that’s why you carry a firearm then I’m afraid you’re missing the very point I suspect you’re trying to make. People carry for different reasons, some not so good. Using your weapon to respond to a “tough guy” scenario is not a good idea. You’re already taking a stance that puts you in a position of authority over others, which I sure you don’t intend, do you?

    Carrying concealed actually makes you less of a target for some crackhead that otherwise thinks he needs to kill you first, then everyone else in the coffee shop.

    It’s like robbing a bank…it makes a lot of sense to take out the guards first.

  16. Veritas Vincit says

    Todd … “…in a threatening manner” Yeah, watch the film clip (or talk to someone who was there)

    Klute, guess you didn’t see the two ACORN thugs with night sticks in at the Pittsburgh polling place.

    and yes, the police are the state mercenaries when they forget the “protect and serve” concept.

  17. Veritas Vincit says

    Klute and Todd … what’s your problem with the 2nd Amendment? A firearm too much for you to handle?

  18. “Klute, guess you didn’t see the two ACORN thugs with night sticks in at the Pittsburgh polling place.”

    No, and neither did you. What you’re referring to is this:

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Philadelphia_polling_place_security_patrols_2008.png

    And that was 1. in Philadelphia and 2. New Black Panther Party members, not members of ACORN. But I’m sure whatever mailing list you subscribe to (Stormfront, National Alliance, whatever) put up a post with it calling them ACORN people, and you, with an inability to question anything that validates your already deep-seated prejudices, took it as fact and added it to the litany of things you think you know.

    “…yes, the police are the state mercenaries when they forget the ‘protect and serve’ concept.”

    Such as?

    “…what’s your problem with the 2nd Amendment? A firearm too much for you to handle?”

    No, although admittedly I’m not the best shot in the world. And where did Todd and I question the 2nd Amendment, you old fool – is the dementia hitting you extra hard today?

  19. Veritas Vincit says

    Thanks for finding the link and picture. Now, do a little more than google and research a bit to find out how they were related to A.C.O.R.N.

    re: police… when they shoot the unarmed man at the B.A.R.T. station in Oakland Ca on New Years Eve or the 18 year old kid in Queens just the other day… how many rounds in the kids back?? Or how about the guy on his wedding day? More wack and stack by your local state mercenaries.

    Imagine, a slam poet in combat boots, a trench coat with a gun. If that isn’t enough to call the Brady Bunch I don’t know what is. but that’s our Klute.

  20. VV,

    I don’t have to, because I’ve already had to debunk this little bit of right-wing hysteria for my brother-in-law. The ACORN link was another phantom…

    “More wack and stack by your local state mercenaries.”

    Good to know we’ll be able to see you at the National Day of Action on January 16th.

  21. Klute, you’re my favorite.

Leave a Reply