Saved from “Tyrants”, by Open Carry Douchebags
>
Kory Watkins, head of Open Carry Tarrant County. Associated Press photo
Back in the 80’s I was a big fan of the comic strip Bloom County. In one of the comic’s subplots the main character Opus the penguin, on a quest to find his mother, finally tracks her down at a Mary Kay Makeup animal testing facility. Just as he’s about to rescue her, the “Mary Kay Commandos”, old ladies with caked-on makeup and pink Uzis, arrive and order the animals back into their cages. Seconds later, the eco-terrorist Animal Liberation Guerilla Front bursts in to free the animals. Caught in the crossfire, Opus makes an observation.
“Saved from sadists by terrorists. Sort of a dream come true, you know?”
Yes, Opus, I know the feeling. Because I and my fellow reasonable gun owners are being saved from “tyrants” by open-carry douchebags.
On Tuesday, January 12th, Kory Watkins and his group Open Carry Tarrant County (OCTC) held a rally at the Texas Capital and won yet another victory for gun rights. By “won another victory”, I mean they acted like the complete fanatic morons they truly are and gave the anti-gun side yet more reason to attack gun rights and gun owners.
During the rally, OCTC members visited the office of state representative Poncho Nevarez (D – Eagle Pass). One of them videotaped the visit. The video shows an OCTC member asking Nevarez to support open carry of pistols in Texas. Nevarez politely says he’s not going to vote for it. The man shakes Nevarez’s hand and curtly but politely thanks him for his time. So far so good.
But then Watkins and his fellow traveling clowns decided to let their inner douchebag show.
OCTC members began calling Nevarez a “tyrant”, exhorted him to “read the Constitution” and told him “you won’t be here long.” Nevarez played along with it for a while – nodding and saying “I’m a tyrant, I won’t be here long” – then got fed up and ordered the open carriers to leave his office. The open carriers took this as a Batman symbol in the clouds ordering them to be the biggest flaming a**holes they could be.
One of them responded to the order to leave the office with “This is the people’s office!” Another told Nevarez “Don’t touch me” when Nevarez apparently tried to lead him to the door. After Nevarez said “I’m asking you to leave my office,” the man responded “I’m asking you to leave my state because you don’t take your oath seriously.” As they were leaving one even stuck his foot in the doorway, then asked “What are you gonna do?” when Nevarez told him to move his foot. He then challenged someone in the hallway.
Open carrier: “What are you gonna do, touch me or something? You creeping up behind me?”
The man says he’s not.
Open carrier: “That’d be one wrong move, bro.”
Courageous Open Carry warriors at the Austin rally
The end result of OCTC’s brave demonstration was a new form of gun FREEEEEDOMMMMMM!!!, in the form of “panic buttons” about to be installed in state representatives’ offices.
But that’s not all our brave open carriers nationwide have done.
Since that victory in my beloved Great State of Texas, open carriers in Washington State decided to spread some FREEEDOMMM!!! up there as well. On Thursday January 15th a band of brave open carriers went into the Capitol building’s public gallery during a protest. One of them was carrying his AR-15 pistol in this totally non-threatening way:
Washington State Open Carrier. AP Photo by Ted S. Warren
A police officer unreasonably told the open carrier he was carrying his weapon in a “tactical manner”, which is against state law. The OCer was in fact carrying in a tactical manner. But the police officer was being unreasonable by pointing out something that was obviously true. OCers don’t like people who unreasonably point out obvious truths (i.e., “If you carry an SKS into Chipotle to buy a burrito you’re a f**king idiot”).
The police officer threatened to eject and/or arrest the OCer, who eventually concealed his pistol and left. Open Carry extremists had won yet another victory. This victory consisted of guns being banned from the Capitol’s public gallery.
These are just two more great victories for gun rights, won by intrepid Open Carry extremists who bravely carry weapons in places where there is exactly zero threat to their safety and who convince businesses and local governments to ban guns from their premises. After previous Open Carry Mass Stupidity/”gun rights demonstrations”, Target, Sonic, Chipotle, Chili’s, Starbucks and other companies either banned weapons or asked people not to carry in their stores.
Every one of those bans was a victory. Right?
Now, I know what you’re thinking: “Of course the best way to win political support is to harass, intimidate, threaten, bully and throw a tantrum like a spoiled brat when you don’t get your way! Way to go, open carriers!” And who could argue with that?
Actually, I can.
I’m a staunch 2nd Amendment advocate. I’ve been shooting and collecting guns for over thirty years. I’ve carried a weapon as a Marine and Soldier for a quarter century, including in combat. I’ve carried a weapon as a cop for two decades. I’ve taught friends and family to shoot. I’ve written about the foundations of the 2nd Amendment, and its modern relevance. I’ve passionately advocated for keeping private citizens armed. I own many weapons and have fired tens of thousands of rounds in military and civilian life, from .22 pistols to an M1 Abrams’ 120mm main gun. I love the 2nd Amendment.
And I think Open Carry extremists are doing nothing but damage to the 2nd Amendment cause.
To any OCers reading this: this ain’t no tyranny. You can own tons of guns, including military weapons suitable for resisting government forces. You can criticize anything you want in public or online. You can travel as you wish. You can spout ridiculous, nonsensical accusations (“The Sandy Hook Massacre was faked by the government! The Boston Bombing was a false flag operation!”). And until you idiots f**ked it up, you could have carried a weapon into Washington’s state capitol.
That’s not tyranny. That’s life in free-as-hell America. You think this is tyranny, try walking into a restaurant with an AK in some of the places I’ve served. Around two seconds after walking in, right around the time you’d get shot, you’d probably realize America isn’t such a dictatorship after all.
I’ve asked this before, and I’ll ask again: please, open carriers, stop “defending my rights”. You’re making things worse. People look at regular-guy gun owners like me, and they see you. You’re convincing the undecided that gun owners are heavily armed, crazed bullies. Even CJ Grisham, the not-so-moderate head of Open Carry Texas, calls you OCTC members “A malignant cancer for the gun rights movement”.
I personally would put you OCTC members above Moms Demand Action and Bloomberg as enemies of the 2nd Amendment. Why? Because MDA and Bloomberg are pathetically ineffective at getting guns banned. You open carry clowns are effective. You’re succeeding where the professional anti-gun agitators fail.
It should be kind of a clue that much of the pro-2A movement thinks you guys are being paid by the anti-gun side to make us look bad. I don’t believe that. But I do believe something worse.
You guys actually believe so strongly in your holy cause, you don’t care how much damage you’re doing to your own side. You’re the suicide bombers of the gun rights movement, happy to indiscriminately destroy anyone, on either side, who doesn’t live up to your standards of what a true 2A believer should be. Like all zealots everywhere, you’ll do whatever makes you the hero of your own little drama, without regard for the negative effects on others.
If you ever did rise up and overthrow “tyranny”, I’m sure whatever you put in its place would be worse. Passionate zealots tend to have little regard for the lives of those less passionate than them. You already view everyone who doesn’t agree with you as enemies or “sheeple”. Based on the veiled threats and petty intimidation you regularly practice, I’d expect you guys to be the real tyrants.
You don’t represent me. You don’t speak for me. I don’t want your help.
At least one other gun rights advocate partly agrees. Alan Gottlieb, head of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, based in Washington State, said this of Thursday’s confrontation.
“This is the result of a few stupid extremists on our side who not only handled their firearms unsafely, but made the hundreds of Second Amendment supporters at the rally look foolish. Irresponsible actions get us bad results. Unfortunately, some of the fools in town are on our side. This kind of childish theater hurts our cause. The gun ban crowd is having a field day over this.”
The gun ban crowd is having a field day because every time they think they’re losing, Kory Watkins and his circus sideshow give them a neverending belt of anti-gun ammo to use against us.
If Kory and his lackeys read this, I have no doubt they’ll dismiss it with “This guy’s not a real 2nd Amendment supporter! He’s hurting gun rights, not us! We should carry rifles into even more places, and create even more enemies, and get guns banned from even more places! That’s what real gun rights supporters do!” And they’ll do it. They’ll do more damage, cause more harm, and pat themselves on the back for it. That’s what mindless zealots do.
But what should OCTC do instead? Shut up, put the guns away, and disappear forever. That’s the best thing they could possibly do to support gun rights.
Because there’s no tyranny here. And even if there was, I wouldn’t want OCTC douchebags “saving” me from it.
Chris Hernandez is a 20 year police officer, former Marine and currently serving National Guard soldier with over 25 years of military service. He is a combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan and also served 18 months as a United Nations police officer in Kosovo. He writes for BreachBangClear.com and Iron Mike magazine and has published two military fiction novels, Proof of Our Resolve and Line in the Valley, through Tactical16 Publishing. He can be reached at [email protected] or on his Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/ProofofOurResolve).
Filed under: 2nd Amendment | 53 Comments
Tags: open carry, open carry tarrant county, veteran writers
Chris,
One possible (even probable) outcome of these protests is that they will enter a small business or office and the lead guy will be carrying in a tactical manner like the Washington State protester in the photo above. Unfortunately for him, they will have created the impression that a robbery or active shooter incident is in progress, and someone inside will be armed and immediately engage the lead guy. Of course, that will lead to return fire from other protesters resulting in multiple poeple killed or wounded. All because some people failed to use common sense.
And that would create a new firestorm of anti-gun sentiment and legislation.
Keep up the good work! Pointing out idiocy is very helpful.
Scott,
I’m starting to think it’s a probably outcome. The guy in WA is lucky he didn’t get shot. OCTC has been pushing for a confrontation in Arlington, TX, and if they keep agitating and threatening they’ll probably get it.
In fact, it is you who give “the anti-gun side yet more reason to attack gun rights and gun owners” by comparing peaceful open carry gun owners to eco-terrorists.
Because I and my fellow reasonable gun owners
It’s always nice to see others claim authority over what is and isn’t “reasonable”. Simply claiming you’re “reasonable” doesn’t make it so, anymore than modern “liberals” are liberal.
they … gave the anti-gun side yet more reason to attack gun rights and gun owners.
The same way Larry Flint gave censors “more reason to attack” the first amendment? Being an ass doesn’t mean that your liberty, and by extension everyone else’s, should be abridged.
“I’m asking you to leave my state because you don’t take your oath seriously.”
This is a reasonable statement to make. If you think not, then why take an oath at all, if one of things you do is explicitly break that oath? Not sure why you think this makes the protesters “unreasonable”.
A police officer unreasonably told the open carrier he was carrying his weapon in a “tactical manner”
Of course, using overly broad language like “tactical manner” is unconstitutional. It’s as meaningless as “assault weapon”, yet for some reason you’re cool with what will lead to arbitrary enforcement, as “tactical manner” is incredibly vague.
Open Carry extremists
Extreme because they, you know, flex their rights? Again, calling someone “extremist” doesn’t make it so. And extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.
Now, I know what you’re thinking: “Of course the best way to win political support is to harass, intimidate, threaten, bully and throw a tantrum like a spoiled brat when you don’t get your way!
That is indeed an excellent way to get your way politically. After all, Obama is president and our political offices are filled with childish people who throw temper tantrums to get their way.
And I think Open Carry extremists are doing nothing but damage to the 2nd Amendment cause.
Just as Charlie Hedbo did terrible damage to the first amendment, right?
People look at regular-guy gun owners like me, and they see you.
That’s right. It’s like all those defenders of the first amendment must be smut peddlers, amaright? And all those who oppose the drug war must be strung out drug users, right? The reality is that if defenders of the second amendment are automatically associated with bad people (which you have yet to make the case that they are), it’s because people like you give that idea credence. It is you, the supposed “reasonable” gun owner, who is drawing false equivalences between peaceful, though borish, protesters with violent eco-terrorists. Let me know when OCTC or another open carry advocacy group goes on a violent killing spree or bombs some building thinking they are defending their rights. Otherwise, you’re just blowing smoke, expressing faux outrage, and trying to get to a moral high ground that you don’t have.
I have no doubt they’ll dismiss it with “This guy’s not a real 2nd Amendment supporter!…”
Actually, I just think you are a real 2nd amendment supporter, but I also recognize you as a moral poser, using bad rhetoric and employing logical fallacies to make your point.
Invoke them and they will come…
“The same way Larry Flint gave censors “more reason to attack” the first amendment? Being an ass doesn’t mean that your liberty, and by extension everyone else’s, should be abridged.”
Apples and oranges. Larry Flint was coming from a VERY different place than firearms owners. Being an ass didn’t really hurt him, because his “cause” was already seen as immoral and crude. He was at war, DEMANDING his rights be recognized by a government that was on the warpath against those rights.
On the other hand, as firearms owners, we already enjoy the recognition of many firearms rights. We are gradually expanding on the recognition of those rights. OC is legal, and accepted, in many parts of the country and the last few years have even seen a couple of states go with constitutional carry with a few more at least considering it. We are not so much “at war with a hostile government”, rather we are working, diplomatically, towards a better future. Many people don’t see or idea of a better future. They don’t understand the dream. It is up to us to show the fence sitters (as we will never convert the Anti) that the right to openly carry a firearm is not the scary, crazy, violent thing that the Anti is telling them. Being an ass doesn’t do that. Being an ass hardens the fence sitters against us and makes them believe that we ARE the scary, crazy, violent thugs and bullies that the anti is telling them we are.
“Of course, using overly broad language like “tactical manner” is unconstitutional.”
I’m a proponent of Open Carry. I am a member of an Open Carry lobby organization here in Florida because I agree with you, Ken, that being able to carry a firearm (however you choose) is a natural right that should be recognized universally. I believe that the right to arms (both the keeping AND bearing of which) is a natural right that existed prior to the constitution, which merely recognized it, rather than granted it.
HOWEVER, Looking at the picture of the Washington State Open Carrier, I believe that man WAS BREAKING THE LAW, and SHOULD HAVE BEEN ARRESTED. Openly carrying a handgun in a holster, or a rifle at sling arms (not a tactical sling with is much the same thing as carrying at the ready) is one thing. Actively carrying “at the ready” as if one is ready to shoot is quite another. If I were in a public place, and someone walked in carrying a firearm like that, I would feel more than a little threatened. People with guns don’t usually make me automatically feel threatened, but people with guns in their hands ready to shoot when there is no perceived threat DO (and they should, it is perfectly natural to feel so).
On a more practical note, at that angle he was carrying, in an even somewhat crowded place that man WOULD have been muzzling a number of people. In effect, judging from the picture, he would be A) carrying a firearm as if he is going to use it, and B) POINTING that firearm in the direction of living people. Where I live, that is against the law. If you argue that pointing a gun at people who aren’t a threat to you shouldn’t be against the law, I would have to say that you sir, are a nincompoop (and you have just completely lost the argument).
“That is indeed an excellent way to get your way politically. After all, Obama is president and our political offices are filled with childish people who throw temper tantrums to get their way.”
And you want to lower yourself to their level? I submit, the reason the Anti hasn’t gotten their way on Gun Control is precisely this. People look at their ridiculous tantrums, they see them freak out taking pictures in the supermarket of a guy with a holstered handgun just going about his business, while listening to their unreasonable bleating about how threatened they were even when that guy didn’t even look at them crossways and move a little towards our side of the fence. If, when they get there, they see scary armed Washington (or Texas) OC protester dude pointing a gun at them, they are likely to move right back (I wouldn’t blame them). If instead they see reasonable guy, still going about his business, NOT carrying a gun in a manner that suggests he may start shooting at any minute, NOT yelling “leave my state you tyrant” to the reasonable looking man in a suit (who was, after all, elected by his constituents to be there), they may just stay, or even move further in our direction. Perhaps, if made to feel safe and comfortable and invited nicely, Mr, or Mrs, fence sitter may come to the range and try this whole shooting hobby out. As WE know, it’s damn fun! They may go from being fence sitter, to being one of us.
This is how we win.
Not by being an ass.
Well said.
“In fact, it is you who give “the anti-gun side yet more reason to attack gun rights and gun owners” by comparing peaceful open carry gun owners to eco-terrorists.”
No. I was talking about people being caught between two bad options. By your logic, I was also comparing elected representatives to the Mary Kay Commandos.
“It’s always nice to see others claim authority over what is and isn’t ‘reasonable’. Simply claiming you’re “reasonable” doesn’t make it so, anymore than modern ‘liberals’ are liberal.”
Here’s why I’m “reasonable”: I don’t try to make political points by carrying weapons around the American public in the same manner I carried them at war.
If there is no definition of reasonable, then I guess the Westboro Baptist Church is full of reasonable Christians.
“The same way Larry Flint gave censors ‘more reason to attack’ the first amendment? Being an ass doesn’t mean that your liberty, and by extension everyone else’s, should be abridged.”
Who said it should be abridged? I said OCTC is full of f**king clowns. The WBC is also full of clowns, and I don’t think their actions should be made illegal either. Blatant stupidity is legal in America. Please quote anywhere I’ve written that open carry should be illegal. I’ve never said that (I’ve actually said the opposite). That doesn’t mean I think it’s “good”, it means I grudgingly accept it as legal.
““I’m asking you to leave my state because you don’t take your oath seriously. This is a reasonable statement to make. If you think not, then why take an oath at all, if one of things you do is explicitly break that oath? Not sure why you think this makes the protesters ‘unreasonable.'”
Because in America we vote out representatives who we don’t think are doing their jobs. Asking an elected rep who is following the law to leave the state is a grandstanding, empty and ultimately stupid gesture designed to draw attention to the commenter but unlikely to accomplish anything substantive. Asking him that while you’re in his office and then harassing him by sticking your foot in his door isn’t reasonable by any definition (other than yours).
According to you, “reasonable” is whatever you decide it is. I guess that applies to me too. I think OCTC’s actions are incredibly unreasonable.
“Of course, using overly broad language like ‘tactical manner’ is unconstitutional. It’s as meaningless as ‘assault weapon’, yet for some reason you’re cool with what will lead to arbitrary enforcement, as ‘tactical manner’ is incredibly vague.”
It’s not vague if you have training. Carrying up front in a manner that allows you to quickly raise your weapon and engage is carrying in a tactical manner, as opposed to carrying on your back in an administrative manner. The OCer in Washington was carrying a pistol in front in a two-handed grip. That’s no different than someone carrying an axe over their head ready to swing while they’re in the Walt-Mart checkout line.
I suppose you think it’s reasonable to walk around in public with your pistol out at the low ready.
“Extreme because they, you know, flex their rights? Again, calling someone ‘extremist’ doesn’t make it so.”
Not “because they flex their rights”, but because of the manner in which they exercise their rights. People exercising their right to practice their religion doesn’t make them extremists. People standing outside a funeral screaming “God hates fags!” does make them extremists. Again, extremism shouldn’t be illegal. But it should be mocked for the stupidity it is.
“And extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.”
Um… BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
No further response needed to your fawning adoration of Joseph McCarthy. :)
“‘Now, I know what you’re thinking: “Of course the best way to win political support is to harass, intimidate, threaten, bully and throw a tantrum like a spoiled brat when you don’t get your way!’
That is indeed an excellent way to get your way politically. After all, Obama is president and our political offices are filled with childish people who throw temper tantrums to get their way.”
In my world, that makes you a hack. You don’t care about principles, you’ll support whatever makes your side “win”. That makes you no different than Nancy Pelosi or Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, people who won’t criticize their own side no matter how pathetically wrong they may be. That’s not how I support the 2A.
“‘And I think Open Carry extremists are doing nothing but damage to the 2nd Amendment cause.’
Just as Charlie Hedbo did terrible damage to the first amendment, right?”
No. Charlie Hebdo didn’t damage anything (and, ya know, they’re in France and all, where there’s no 1st Amendment). Charlie Hebdo wasn’t hurting or threatening anyone. That’s a material difference between groups like the WBC and Charlie Hebdo, and groups like OCTC. WBC and Hebdo can’t kill anyone with their words, but OCTC can kill people with their weapons. The threat of using a weapon to make their point causes harm to the 2A because it leads people to believe gun owners in general are violent extremists.
“‘People look at regular-guy gun owners like me, and they see you.’
That’s right. It’s like all those defenders of the first amendment must be smut peddlers, amaright? And all those who oppose the drug war must be strung out drug users, right? The reality is that if defenders of the second amendment are automatically associated with bad people (which you have yet to make the case that they are), it’s because people like you give that idea credence. It is you, the supposed ‘reasonable’ gun owner, who is drawing false equivalences between peaceful, though borish, protesters with violent eco-terrorists. Let me know when OCTC or another open carry advocacy group goes on a violent killing spree or bombs some building thinking they are defending their rights. Otherwise, you’re just blowing smoke, expressing faux outrage, and trying to get to a moral high ground that you don’t have.”
Perhaps you’ve missed the unending stream of anti-gun and anti-gun owner propaganda flowing from numerous media outlets over the last two years. Or you’ve never heard of MDA, or Bloomberg, or the NY SAFE Act. Here’s the reality: the anti-gun side owns the media, and people who hate guns and gun ownership vote. People like OCTC make some people more likely to vote against gun ownership (just as OCTC and the WA state OCers managed to get measures passed to protect representatives from protestors, or to get guns banned from a public space where they had been legal).
I’ve written before that I have no issue with peaceful OC protests where gun owners safely carry weapons slung over their shoulders in public places. Those rallies don’t, in my opinion, cause harm. But confrontational rallies in government offices or private businesses DO cause harm, as has been proven by the long string of negative consequences to OC rallies in those places.
I don’t really care much if you think I don’t have the moral high ground. That never even occurred to me as I wrote this. But now that you mention it, I do in fact have the moral high ground. Because I’m not using a weapon to intimidate people for disagreeing with me.
“Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice” that would be Barry Goldwater. Otherwise, great post.
I’m busted! :)
Thanks for pointing that out, I always thought it was McCarthy.
No problem. Keep up the good work!
“Just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.”
So you think brandishing arms in public until people further restrict gun rights us the best way to go after this issue?
Fair enough.
Note to self…
FYI: open carry and brandishing are two very different things. Tactical carry is brandishing. This isn’t up for debate. It’s what the law says and it’s what common sense says. Brandishing a firearm in public is not only stupid and illegal, it’s also terribly dangerous.
OC your heart out. Just stop brandishing weapons in public and getting MY right to bear arms further restricted every time you and your idiot ilk open your mouths. Seems to me like OC advocates have succeeded in restrictions my right to bear arms more, in recent years, than anyi-gunners have.
Target? Starbucks? My state legislative house? Check, check, and check.
Ken, please, for the live of Gorn STOP HELPING ME.
I should post the video from A Bug’s Life, where Flick keeps screwing things up as he’s trying to help. When he says, “I was only trying to help,” an old ant answers, “Help us! Don’t help us!”
The protections imparted to us by the constitution sheild us only when the public at large believes in the protections afforded by them. If the tide of public opinion turned against any constitutional protection, then it would become invalid in practice.
See the Japanese internment camps as a prime example of how quickly public opinion can render your rights worthless.
So maybe constantly poking the public in the eye isn’t the best tactic here? Huh. Whodathunk…
You are an idiot
Thanks again for a fine piece of literature.
As you stated, these Open Carry (OC) lunatics are making things worse…when Howard Schulz (Starbucks CEO) is forced to take a stand on OC in his stores, that is bad for the overall 2A cause. Every citizen who doesn’t know much about firearms/2A now associates those dopes with those of us who carry discreetly and without fanfare.
Mr. Schulz (somewhat of a liberal person) was quite happy to “look the other way” regarding people carrying firearms in his stores…until these nutjobs forced him to make a (to his credit) weak statement requesting people to please not carry in his stores.
I am convinced Mr. Schulz was not writing to us (concealed pistol carriers), but the dimwits who carry RIFLES around and demand to be served.
These guys have gotta stop.
I have no idea how people could get angry at Schulz for asking people not to make Starbucks a 2A battleground. He just wants to sell coffee. OC extremists forced him to take a side, not the other way around.
The other issue that came to mind is this…what requirement for self-protection is there that a pistol (with 2-3 spare mags) cannot satisfy? There are those who may think I am crazy for carrying a pistol…by most accounts a reasonable act of personal protection. I cannot fathom a rational reason for carrying a rifle around for everyday personal protection.
They are just being douchy a-holes…simple as that.
Cameron,
The reason the guys in Texas are using rifles in their OC demonstrations is that rifle OC is legal in Texas. I’m not sure why they think that doing so is going to help in the fight to legalize handgun OC, but that is what they are trying to do.
Just thought I would help clear up that up.
I have nothing to add to your points in this post Chris, bravo! You once again poignantly say what (most of us) are all feeling regarding these jokers.
I WILL say that I can’t wait to read your response to Ken’s comments… logical fallacy Ken, really???
Thanks Scot. To be fair, Ken was much more reasonable in his defense of OC extremism than most OC extremists are.
Dorky Twatkins and his merry band of idiots are a cancer on society. They don’t care about changing the world, or being able to open carry guns, they just want attention. They want to be known for being something (although being an a**hole at this moment is not a good idea, as you pointed out in your article).
They think that people look at them as “freedom fighters of the world”, when in reality, people just want to shoot them. They live in a fantasy world where they are gods, righting the wrong, saving the world, exposing the evils of real citizens who are trying to make America a better place to live. And the people who fit that bill are Police Officers, Soldiers, Sailers, Air Force, and of course Marines. When they say they are fighting for open carry, in their minds, they want to tell citizens (in their own twisted demented way), that authority (the Government, law enforcement, ETC.) is holding them down from doing whatever they want to do.
One of the miscreants of Dorky’s group, decided to help out and show what a bunch of dumba**’s the group really is, and used her “Cool toy” to blow away her husband and his son. Can you imagine what it would be like if Twatkins bunch of pencil penis’ actually win? What needs to be done is the resposible owners give a show of force against that crew of losers and write to your congressman, state representitive, hell, even the president if it would help, and let them know they need to outlaw not open carry, but outlaw stupidity.
Agreed on all points except outlawing stupidity. The best way to shut these guys down is to let them show the world what the really are. And besides that, I enjoy the entertainment. :)
And this is why opencarry.org has a strict rule against promoting rifle OC. I’ve been OC’ing a holstered sidearm for over a decade and most people don’t even notice. Hell, the clerk at my local Safeway didn’t notice for over a year even though I had chatted with him almost daily.
I completely understand the anger at rifle OC, especially the offensive and unsafe manor in which it is done by these people. I share the anger myself.
Travis,
In this essay I didn’t make a point of differentiating between rifle and pistol OC, and I should have. While I generally disagree with pistol OC tactically, I do understand that it is perfectly normal and reasonable in some places and situations. Likewise, I didn’t complain about rifle OC until people like Watkins started using it to provoke confrontation.
I appreciate your perspective. The difference between people who OC a pistol for good reason and people who OC rifles to intimidate and harass deserves better explanation than I offered.
“Open Carry Advocate” is becoming shorthand for “deranged lunatics off their meds, woefully under-educated, and capable of giving lessons in kneejerk fanaticism to Muslim terrorists”. Who unfortunately own guns.
When you embarrass your friends, give ammunition to your enemies, sabotage your alleged “cause”, and are just flaming @$$tards in 100% of documented encounters, you are not allies, you are the problem.
That would be, anecdotally, every Open carry advocate I have ever encountered firsthand, or via any report, whether a firearms friendly site like this, on the NYTimes.
We rightly rail/question the existence of the “moderate” Muslims who can never seem to be found to condemn a terrorist episode.
Thanks for that not being the case with you local bunch of chuckleheads.
(And your capitol cop is a patient man. In twenty-eight states, Mr. Tacticool Pistol AR’s photo would likely have been the last one he posed for before his untimely demise. If it’s a pistol, it belongs in a holster. A long arm belongs on a sling over your shoulder. Strapped across your chest at-the-ready, let alone in your mitts with your finger in proximity to the trigger, it’s an invitation to open the ball – going back to Dodge City and Tombstone in the day, no questions asked then or now – and someone should have done exactly that for him. Pour encourager les autres.)
The Stupid is strong with these ones.
Most of your comment I have no problem with. “We rightly rail/question the existence of the ‘moderate’ Muslims who can never seem to be found to condemn a terrorist episode.”, however, I take exception to. Hamas condemned the Charlie Hebdo attack. *HAMAS*, for pity’s sake! If you can’t find evidence of Muslims condemning terrorist episodes (not that all terrorists are Muslims by any stretch of the imagination), you simply haven’t been looking for it.
Rick,
1) HAMAS is one of the world’s premier terrorist organizations, and more than a bit eager to avoid either GIGN commandos or a JDAM coming in the window should any of their sticky fingerprints be found on the Charlie Hebdo incident. They are in no one’s imagination “moderate” Muslims, regarding anything.
2) Some behavior is so evil and stupid even the baddest bad guys are loathe to be associated with it, and strain gymnastics to avoid the consequences of any association with it, however remote. (Pity the Open Carry ‘tards can’t assimilate that lesson.)
3) If you had the example of an actual legitimate group of Muslim “moderates”, (not just someone astroturfing political cover for the Usual Suspects, or some lone nutjob pining for attention and his own personal fatwa) you’d have named them, instead of a bunch of widely-acknowledged bloodthirsty rocket-builders and baby bombers on the Med as your exemplar, wouldn’t you?
4) By not so cleverly changing what I said to what you wanted it to say, you forgot that I might notice I never said “no Muslims anywhere ever condemn any terrorist incident”. Thanks for playing, and there’ll be some lovely parting gifts for you.
4) Thanks for providing evidence that even jihadi terrorists are brighter than Open Carry activists, as noted in the OP. Much appreciation for the comedy relief, but your exception failed to make its own point.
Actually, I thought the Muslim mayor of Rotterdam did a pretty good job by telling other Muslims to get the fuck out of Holland if they don’t value freedom.
Eloquent as always, brother. Semper Fi.
In states where OC is legal and CCW permits are rare as hens teeth leave no other option for carry other than illegal concealed without permit. When folks started carrying OC in California, the state quickly banned it opening the door for legal challenge which has recently become a reality although many sheriffs have declared publicly that they would need to be practically drug kicking and screaming into compliance as they felt it was their duty to keep the people safe from law abiding citizens with CCW permits.
It has been a very long road. Over 30 years since I first applied and was denied after my wife was assaulted while i was on deployment and my brother’s wife was car jacked and killed. We had both applied. I did not OC because too many sheep would be alarmed and I would be in constant police contact each time they are called. I will neither confirm nor deny my ultimate decision.
Although I did not OC, it was the OC’ers that got the door opened for a challenge of the laws. Many of them that I chatted with specifically stated that it was their aim to get the ball rolling and they knew the state would ban OC if they got enough attention.
Since the state is losing the battle for CCW, they are now introducing additional qualification hurdles and expense. On average a CCW now cost well over $500 and must be renewed every two years. My belief is that if you own a handgun legally in the state, there should be no additional license to carry it or at the very least, no duplication of requirements that were fulfilled when the pistol was purchased.
lhecker,
What you’re describing is a rational approach to a problem. I fully agree that citizens should be allowed to carry weapons, and California is one state that tries like hell to prevent citizens from doing that. My opposition to OCTC’s approach isn’t that they OC rifles; it’s that they do it specifically to intimidate, harass and cause confrontation.
Texas has had OC rallies for years. Until OCTC started invading stores and restaurants, the rallies had been peaceful, safe and in public places. I never criticized those. Carrying in private businesses or state capitols and intimidating people, on the other hand, creates problems for people like you who want to carry to defend yourself and family. I strongly criticize those actions.
Hope that clears it up.
Open carry should be legal. Open carry of rifles should be legal. If what I’ve read of these people is true, this is beyond open carry and well into brandishing–which should not be legal. Holstered (or slung, for long guns) open carry done with care can be effective advocacy. Waving guns of any sort, demonstrating with a hand near the trigger, and anything remotely like armed physical confrontation is hugely counterproductive. The enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend, and I don’t want anything to do with this sort of advocacy.
Bam. Exactly. Thanks sevesteen.
OC Tarrant County – the Black Panthers/Westboro Baptist Church/North Korea of the greater gun-rights movement…
If you want to be a good ambassador, for the Second Amendment or otherwise, you ought to remember NOT to cut off diplomatic relations and declare war at the first sign of disagreement.
Instead of repeating the same failed tactics(harder and louder), and expecting different results, may I suggest studying what DOES work to expand gun rights?
In my home state of Arizona, I’ve seen us go from no citizen CCW at all, to the Holy Grail of the Second Amendment, permit-optional “Constitutional Carry,” in the space of sixteen years – first we got “shall-issue” CCW in 1994, then the training and renewal requirements gradually got lowered, until we finally passed “Constitutional Carry” in 2010. Wouldn’t you agree that this is a model of success?
Thing is, it was a long, drawn-out process, that required a lot of hard work – courteous, respectful negotiations, informing and mobilizing constituents, watching dozens of bills fail in committee or in open session, and even a few court challenges – and persistently bouncing back from setbacks until incremental change was finally won.
And, I guarantee you, nobody in Arizona would recognize folks like Ken Rineer or Charles Heller by name or face, except for the people that count – the members of the grass-roots gun-rights organizations that they represent, and the legislators and staff that they lobbied and negotiated with.
These “militant Open-Carry activists” remind me more of “Veruca Salt” from “Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory” – they want it ALL, they want it NOW, and they want everyone to know that THEY did it…
They do it because it makes them feel good. If you disagree with them, tell them to calm down, you’re a quisling. It’s tiresome.
Glock,
That’s another interesting perspective, thanks for sharing.
Dear author…you’re a whiny fag and we don’t need you.
I’m hurt….
Fortunately you guys are doing so well on your own.
Do they make “tactical” clown shoes? Just curious.
For Derek the clown.
http://www.ivymikecafe.com/2014/05/22/fucking-retarded/
I’m a firm believer in legal OC simply to avoid situations such as I understand to be the case in Florida (at least at one time) where if your concealed weapon becomes visible (wind catches jacket, stretching to a high shelf uncovers your belt line,etc) you can be charged with “brandishing” by their definition. It’s not my first choice tactically, but that’s me.
Wankers such as the objects of this post remind me of a question I have been known to ask (at least to myself) to some of my more intellectually/operationally challenged compadres when on active duty:
“I forget, are you with the KGB or GRU? ‘Cause you sure as hell aren’t working for our side”.
Randy,
You’re going to love this:
http://www.wtsp.com/story/news/local/2015/01/20/shopper-tackles-man-with-gun-at-wal-mart/22067325/
Yeah, saw that. Also saw that the Anti-gun types are whining because the cops arrested the guy that attacked the CCW carrier. Which is strange because they always say that one should never take action yourselves and call 911. I guess they have their own version of OC Wankers (which, by the way, is, in my mind, a distinctly separate category from OC Advocate).
Some discussion my “home” forum regarding situational awareness, but really, the way this played out it would be hard to be totally prepared for a bolt out of the blue attack. Reinforces 2 things for me:
Keep it concealed
Keep your situational awareness up, but realize that Murphy rules the universe and some days it just sucks to be you.
Supposedly this is no longer the case. A law passed last year (year before?) that made some clarifications so that incidences where a concealed firearm is accidentally exposed would no longer make one an instant criminal. Of course, it was supposed to be an open carry bill that the bastards nerfed, but we’ll take the “fix”. It was pretty scary to CC down here before that went in.
I actually had it happen to me once (before the fix). I was getting out of my jeep and my shirt tail got caught behind the pistol I was carrying IWB. I didn’t even notice until I heard a “Squeak!” from behind me, looked, and saw an older woman staring at my ass… then I realized what the problem was. I calmly fixed my shirt tail and apologized to the lady for scaring her like that. Gave her a smile, and went about my business. The cops didn’t show up, so I assume that the woman didn’t call them, but I sure was sweating it for a bit there. As the law was at that time, I could very well have been arrested and charged with a crime.
Stuart. Glad to hear that. Haven’t been down that way for years so haven’t refreshed myself on their latest carry laws (part of my prep for any travel).
You guys do realize these OC ass wipes are liberal trolls and shills trying to make us look bad, right? They can’t get their pet gun control laws passed any other way. They need to make enemies of as many lawmakers as possible (which they just did), they need to bring their lack of common sense to the general public to attempt to change public opinion about the 2A (You’re not scared of guns? Well, how about when I point one at your kid while walking through the mall?), and they need to cast decent gun owners in the worst possible light.
Pretty soon, we are going to have a martyr incident. Either one of these OC douche bags are going to get shot, or there is going to be some sort of ND, during which hopefully someone won’t get hurt, but will sway some of the opinions of people who are on the fence.
When I’m feeling charitable, I tend to say that folks like OCTC are politically unaware. Most of the time, I simply say they’ve abandoned the goal for the sake of their activity. The activity, aggressive open carry of a weapon, has become its own end. Here’s an example of what I mean from another arena: When we look at both the first generation IRA and first generation Basque separatists we find something interesting. Both groups, while sometimes violent, had activities in which they simply would not engage and groups they would not target. As time went on, the list of things they would not do got smaller and the list of those they would target got larger. It can be argued that both groups reached a point at which the originally stated goals took second place to the activities that were ostensibly designed to achieve those goals. Please note that I am most emphatically NOT saying OCTC folks are terrorists. I am saying that some open carry people, of whom they seem to be a representative sample, exhibit a greater desire to push and intimidate than to win greater acknowledgement of the right to open carry.
It’s easy, and often gratifying, to abandon success for ideological purity. It’s also shortsighted. Years ago, the conservative hero William F. Buckley, Jr. was asked which Republican he would like to see nominated for President. His answer was “the who would win.” He recognized, it seems, that we can’t always get everything we want – at least, not right away. Those who oppose open carry, concealed carry or even any sort of gun ownership, understand this. They have spent years slowly and patiently chipping away at gun rights (I’m a retired Navy officer. Calling them “guns” is really difficult). For years they successfully took charge of the narrative and worked to change the public perception of firearms. They were amazingly successful. Remember Senator Feinstein’s infamous “If I could have banned them all” comment? She knew that wasn’t a possibility, so she went for what she could get. I submit the answer for us is NOT to do everything we can to piss others off and confirm to many that firearms owners are hyper-aggressive lunatics with short fuses. Rather, we need to seize control of the narrative, help change public attitudes towards firearms and take what we can get, not as some will intend it – a pittance to placate us, but rather as one in a series of steps to return 2nd Amendment rights to their rightful place. We did not get where we are, with severely limited firearms rights, overnight. It is foolish to suggest we are going to get to where we want to be overnight. This is not a sprint. It is a marathon. If a majority of the public ever reaches the point of seeing 2nd Amendment supporters, including the relatively silent ones, as loose cannons, we will be loose all the ground we have gained and more.
Street theater is street theater. Whether it is “open carry” of a long arm in a ready position or blocking a freeway at rush hour, the *real* purpose (regardless of what the participants say) is to provide exposure for the participants and make them feel like they are “making a statement” and so giving them bragging rights within their in-group. None of them really believe they are changing anyone’s mind with the antics, nor do they care. The purpose of their actions are simply for themselves.
I’m with Chris on this- there is a way to stand up for your rights and to protest. But this is not it. This is just being stupid.
I’m with Chris on this. Kory is an idiot. This is not how you win over politicians, or fellow citizens in the middle.