This is Freedom? "The appeals court says while it may be alarming, openly carrying firearms without evidence of criminal or malicious intent is legal."

Feeling safer in our society is not the ultimate goal of our armed band of in your face gun rights strangers. They may feel safer, not safe, carrying a gun, but it's having the opposite effect on society. With armed strangers around, everyone else senses danger, and a limit on their own freedom to feel secure in their own community, their state and their country. We're screwed:

A Wisconsin appeals court has overturned the loitering conviction of a man who was walking near a school with a semi-automatic AR-15 rifle on his shoulder.

The following is anything but normal:

The St. Croix County Circuit Court should have dismissed the case because the evidence suggested the only reason Hoffman was stopped was because of the guns. The appeals court says while it may be alarming, openly carrying firearms without evidence of criminal or malicious intent is legal.

Alarming is okay now, thanks to an activist conservative Supreme Court decision overturning a century of reasoned 2nd Amendment decisions.

"2nd Amendment" Gun thugs confident, responsible, and safely order cops around.

I've mentioned this before, but the wide spread use of guns to settle arguments is here to stay. It's become a more natural solution to settle disagreements, replacing fist fights.

That's why we're seeing an increase in senseless killings that still seem hard to believer or explain, as the headline here shows.

Then there are the leaders of gun rights groups who continually prove that they are some of the most irresponsible gun owners ever. Law abiding...until something goes wrong or they accidentally breaks the law. And even then, Republican legislators pass laws protecting those same irresponsible acts, making them responsible again.

Enter Larry Pratt. Would Pratt have said the following if he didn't feel confident other "responsible" gun owners had his back, or if we didn't have a black president?

RawStory: Gun lobbyist Larry Pratt has proposed a Second Amendment solution for lawmakers with whom he disagrees, and now he wants gun owners to train their sights on President Barack Obama.

“The Second Amendment was designed for people just like the president and his administration,” Pratt told right-wing radio host Roger Fredinburg. Right Wing Watch reported that Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, understood his apparent call for the assassination of the president might create a stir. “If the New York Times and the Rolling Stone, and whoever else wants to have a hissy fit – yes, our guns are in our hands for people like those in our government right now that think they want to go tyrannical on us, we’ve got something for them,” Pratt said. “That’s what it’s all about.”

In every state open carry advocates are scaring the daylights out of everyone not carrying guns, the majority of people. It's like the public should be able to sense how safe these gun toting absolute strangers are. What could go wrong?

But their arrogance and ego will only get worse, like the video here shows. Turn down the volume , this guys a loud obnoxious gun carrying patriot.

Open Carry Texas posted aYouTube video on Wednesday, showing president CJ Grisham argue with police officers over his right to stand on a corner with two colleagues and an assault weapon each, strapped to their backs.

Grisham instructs one officer to order “[his] man” to “stop threatening me” and to “stand down.” When police attempt to speak with Grisham, he announces, “I want your hands off the rifles before I get comfortable.” Grisham asks why cops felt compelled to give a warning armed with AR-15s. When police pointed out Grisham too was in possession of a large weapon, he dismissed the concern since the gun was “on [his] back.”

“I’m a law-abiding citizen. I’m minding my own business,” Grisham complains to police. “Do you know why I’m feeling this way right now?” “I feel threatened,” Grisham explains loudly, “because you are a police officer and you have people with rifles here that are threatening me.”
Grisham tells local news outlet KTAB that “an armed society is a polite society.” Guns are “not designed to kill,” Grisham tells reporters. “They’re not designed to shoot up movie theaters and schools. We’re trying to show what law abiding citizens look like that carry firearms and really remove that stigma.” 

In his Twitter profile, Grisham writes, “I don’t pull punches. I’m an Oath Keeper, a veteran, & I’m not afraid to speak my mind. I own my opinions & won’t apologize for them. Liberty, justice, freedom.”

Sounds very polite. By the way, local officials apologized for the cops, and said they would try and improve their uncalled for behavior. Really.

Open Carry Thugs Clueless about Scaring People.

MSNBC's Joy Reid did a great job of focusing her entire interview with Tov Henderson, of Open Carry Texas, on just one question; do you think that ordinary non-gun owning civilians are afraid of a group of people who are armed?

It's a question I've been asking here for years, since it's well known that most Americans don't own or carry guns. Wouldn't these normal people attending farmers markets, picnics and lunches, with their families, be afraid of complete strangers anywhere near them with loaded guns?

The intentional decision to not answer a simple question tells us more than any answer Tov Henderson could have come up with. Raw Story:

NRA loses control of Open Carry Thugs Nationwide. Bullies are now burning their NRA Membership Cards.

Ah, the average law abiding responsible gun owner turns out to be…not so responsible after all.

The following NRA admission, saying their high minded responsible members are acting like irresponsible bullies, should be a valuable lesson for them. Maybe they should consider how the majority of unarmed American citizens feel about these same strangers with loaded guns standing next to their families. 

click to enlarge

This is what happens when we cater to the marginal, and encourage irrational laws and deregulation that normally kept the lunatic fringe in check. Yes, the NRA should be worried. The tide of public opinion is turning against these off the show boaters.

See how the NRA ended up using all the negative terms I use to describe our unfriendly paranoid gun thugs:

TPM: NRA Issues Amazing Statement Admitting Bringing AR-15s To Chipotle Is Dumb: The NRA's lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action, publicly denounce(ed) the tactics employed by Open Carry Texas and other groups as "weird" and even "scary."

"As a result of these hi-jinx, two popular fast food outlets have recently requested patrons to keep guns off the premises," the unsigned statement said … that using guns "to draw attention to yourself in public not only defies common sense, it shows a lack of consideration and manners. [W]hile unlicensed open carry of long guns is also typically legal in most places, it is a rare sight to see someone sidle up next to you in line for lunch with a 7.62 rifle slung across his chest, much less a whole gaggle of folks descending on the same public venue with similar arms," the statement said.

"Let's not mince words, not only is it rare, it's downright weird ...  To those who are not acquainted with the dubious practice of using public displays of firearms as a means to draw attention to oneself or one's cause, it can be downright scary. It makes folks who might normally be perfectly open-minded about firearms feel uncomfortable and question the motives of pro-gun advocates."

Check out how on one hand, the NRA trusts the people, then don’t so much, it’s hilarious:

The NRA made clear it "does not support bans on personalized guns or on carrying firearms in public, including in restaurants." But it concluded that "when people act without thinking, or without consideration for others – especially when it comes to firearms – they set the stage for further restrictions on our rights." 

Uh oh, looks like the NRA just got on the wrong side of crazy. See picture.......

Here's Chris Hayes with his comment:

Family Safety takes back seat in Open-Carry debate: Yet 45% want stricter gun laws/26% fewer, split on open-carry & 55% against concealed carry.

The conservative leaning Wisconsin State Journal (no link yet) suggested it had a pro-carry bias, and that guns were “safe” in its recent series, “Open carry: Safe v discomfort.”

Another words, carrying guns in public is safe, and a separate issue from feeling “discomfort” around strangers with loaded guns? But there was this moment of honesty in the piece:

But it’s also created a backlash against the open-carry advocates from some unlikely sources: other gun owners.

“I don’t think (open-carry advocates) represent ordinary family-oriented fun owners,” said Adam Schesch of Madison, a 68 year-old target shooter and deer hunter…Schesch said he and his wife frequently eat out with their teenage grandchildren at places like Culver’s.

“If we came into a restaurant and saw people with guns, we’d turn around and walk out,” he said. “I would feel really unsafe.”

You can either buy into Schesch's family values logic or believe this:

But open-carry advocates say they feel unsafe without their guns, and other should, too. “At the moment you’re getting your head beat in, you probably wouldn’t mind someone being on scene with a gun.” Auric Gold said.

That’s just third world scary, and why this letter to the editor takes the issue to its final conclusion:

When the Madison Police responded to the call at Culver's restaurant with eight officers, they were looking for trouble, and one of the men stated the police officers had an attitude problem.

Law enforcement, those guys on the front line ensuring our public safety, are the real danger!

As Ammoland’s Executive Director Shaun Kranish writes: Latest on Madison Police Chief Noble Wray’s Open Carry Debaucle.
That’s…debacle! But beside the spelling mistake, Kranish continue to ignore the plight of parents and their kids:

Rather than educating the public that open carry is legal and there’s no need to call the police unless something suspicious or threatening is happening…

WE need to be educated, so WE aren’t afraid of people carrying guns in public? WE need to change basic human behavior and our natural sense of detecting danger for a small contingent of immature, insecure paranoid adults? For open carry bullies, they feel victimized by the concerns of fathers and mothers everywhere:

Open Carry can be considered disorderly conduct, because someone may not like it…

No, actually, someone may feel fearful around STRANGERS with loaded guns. But gun goons feel we need to be reeducated, and reprogrammed, to ignore our sense of self preservation? Kranish mocks that instinct:

Disorderly conduct doesn’t require a disturbance to take place, just a “perception” that one’s actions could possibly cause a disturbance.

…or death? Instead of understanding the general public’s fear of guns, they resort to calling us names because we disagree:

You give power to imbeciles incapable of critical thinking … They open their mouth, or write their name and their foolhardy ideas on paper, and freedom goes out the window.

The graphic above tells us something completely different. Check out the reactions of a few citizens asked by the Capital Times about open carry: HERE

Related articles by Zemanta

• California Open-Carry Gun Ban Rejected By State Lawmakers (huffingtonpost.com)

You carry a Gun, You Threaten my Family.

It’s time for all of us to take back our communities, safety and sanity, by calling in a public disturbance anytime we see someone carrying a gun in our community.

Ask yourself a few questions; Just what argument are they going to win with their firearm? Just what public shoot ‘em up do they think they’re going to win? Are these grown-ups, who never did grow up? Are they rebelling against authority? Do they threaten “domestic tranquility,” as written in the preamble and Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution? And so the story begins…

Five men questioned by Madison police for having holstered handguns in a restaurant on Saturday night have been cited for disorderly conduct, because the complainant felt violence was possible. Initially, two of the five men were issued obstructing a police officer citation because they refused to produce identification. The other three were not cited.

What were the two gun men tying to hide by not showing an ID? How do we know they weren't illegally in this country planning an armed attack on restraunt goers?

The complaint about the armed men sitting at Culver's was made by a 62-year-old Madison woman who called 911, saying she didn't know what the law was but wanted police to check out the situation because she didn't want to be "that one person who saw guns and didn't call and something terrible happens."

"The complaint clearly reveals she recognized the potential for violence from these armed men and it was this fear that motivated her call to police," said police spokesman Joel DeSpain.

"It is my expectation that MPD officers encountering individuals who are armed with firearms in public places will take a pro-enforcement approach," Wray said in the memo. "If the investigation shows probable cause for a violation, the suspect should be arrested or cited," Wray said.

What we should watch for is how the courts will determine what constitutes a public disturbance or danger. Will it decide against a perceived threat to an individual or family, and allow armed individuals to roam freely around unarmed defenseless Americans, just so we can avoid lawsuits? Is there a Constitutional issue regarding a citizen’s right to domestic tranquility, knowing there are untrained, emotionally unstable armed individuals mixing into our public places? If law enforcement screens out applicants they find unfit to carry a gun and protect society, why don’t we have similar protections in place to weed out paranoid open carry advocates?

Madison Sgt. Shawn Engel said police can cite individuals for refusing to identify themselves depending on "the totality of what goes on ... in the event that we're investigating." "The concern we would have, if any business calls, is that we don't know the persons' intent, who they are or what their intentions are," he said. "Whether they have a legal right to carry, we are certainly not going to infringe on those rights, but we have to insure the safety of the community as a whole."

Related articles by Zemanta

• Loophole allowed accused killer to carry gun (philly.com)
• Why Carry a Gun? (lewrockwell.com)