Friday, July 25, 2008

Open Carry at the Boise ID Zoo.

Recently, a local group visited the Boise Idaho Zoo, all while Open carrying firearms. It seems to be an issue that is divided in many different areas. Not only are there people who are just plain against guns, making noise, but there are also some, who while in favor of gun ownership, and in favor of concealed carry, but are dead set against open carry.

It just seems odd to me, that a so-called "pro-2nd Amendment type" would be against someone exercising their constitutionally protected rights. I am always amazed at the attitude, and the "excuses" they bring up.

1. You'll be the bad guy's first target, because he'll see your gun.

The reality is, if you're out and about in public, and open carrying your pistol, most likely, if a bad guy is about to commit a crime, and sees your gun, he's more likely to seek out a safer target than risk you shooting him.

2. You're giving away the tactical advantage of surprise.

Maybe, then again, you've got the advantage of a faster draw available to you. The plain truth is, by openly carrying your pistol, you've got more deterrent effect than carrying concealed. And I always the thought the idea of carrying a gun for self defense was in the hope you'd never need to use it. It seems to me, that with OC, you're cutting down on the possibility of ever needing to actually use it for self defense.

3. The police will hound you.

Depends on where you live, but this actually has a little bit of truth. Some police departments, in states where OC (Open Carry) is legal, need more education on this subject. Or else they need better Chiefs.

I happen to have a Concealed Pistols License. Which oddly enough, will let me OPEN carry in places I can't carry concealed due to the stupid way the law was written. By law, and thanks to State Attorney General's Opinion 7113, I can openly carry in a school, hospital, bar, a sports arena or stadium, a day care center, and a host of other places that are off limits to open carry without a CPL, and are off limits to concealed carry WITH a CPL.

Doesn't make must sense, does it.

Well, that's state lawmakers for you.

Current Mood: Amused
Current Music: None
My Carry Pistol: Walther P-38 9x19mm

Friday, July 18, 2008

Cindy Sheehan for Congress?
I think I'm gonna puke

Yes, that's right, The People's Email Network is collecting funds to support the traitor, Cindy Sheehan for Congress critter. It's not like the US Congress doesn't lean to the left enough, they want to see it topple completely to the left.

I mean, would you vote for THIS person????

She is no patriot, as evidenced by her actions, since the tragic death of her son in Iraq. She might as well spit on her son's grave, for all the work she's done since his death. You really have to wonder if she really wears the T-Shirt below.

Her son must be turning over in his grave. I know, if my mother did something like this, I'd find a way to come back from the dead and haunt her. But my mother would have NEVER done anything so un-patriotic, as to give comfort and support to our enemy.

I only hope she comes to her senses before it's too late.

Current Mood: Disgusted
Current Music: None
My Carry Pistol: Taurus PT92AFS

Heller's registration application rejected?!?!?!

WASHINGTON (WUSA) -- District residents can start registering their guns today. But at least one very high profile application was already rejected.

Dick Heller is the man who brought the lawsuit against the District's 32-year-old ban on handguns. He was among the first in line Thursday morning to apply for a handgun permit.

But when he tried to register his semi-automatic weapon, he says he was rejected. He says his gun has seven bullet clip. Heller says the City Council legislation allows weapons with fewer than eleven bullets in the clip. A spokesman for the DC Police says the gun was a bottom-loading weapon, and according to their interpretation, all bottom-loading guns are outlawed because they are grouped with machine guns.

Ok, WHAT is wrong with this picture? I'll tell you, a pistol, taking a magazine from the bottom, that fires one shot for each time you pull the trigger, is NOT a machine gun!!! What IDIOT wrote that law? I hope, whoever it was, he's now dead. Because if he's not, he should be taken out and shot for aggravated, felony stupidity.

For some odd reason, I see a return to court on this one. And I hope it's soon. DC is NOT in compliance with the SCOTUS decision

Current Mood: Awake
Current Music: None
My Carry Pistol: Walther P-38 9x19mm

Saturday, July 12, 2008

It's NOT Vigilantism, it's SELF DEFENSE!!

From a story on, on page three. (The title of this blog entry is linked to the story, click on it to read the whole story there.)
But Sgt. Nick Muyo, public information officer for the San Jose Police Department, believes more violence is exactly what could happen, and cautions against any inklings towards vigilantism.

Why is it, when normal, everyday citizens talk about arming themselves for self-defense, some of those in Law Enforcement or the anti-rights groups like the Brady Campaign, call it vigilantism? Ok, granted, the people in the story linked by the title above, may not qualify as normal by most of the straight community, but still. This is a problem I have seen repeated again and again.

Here's another example, from April 24, of this year (2008).
Atlanta Mayor Shirley Franklin this morning led a group of two dozen public officials, business leaders and workers in a plea directed at Sonny Perdue, asking the governor to veto a gun bill that would permit licensed concealed weapons to be carried on public transportation, in restaurants that serve alcohol, and in parks.

Prospects of vigilantism were raised by MARTA head Beverly Scott. And MARTA workers said they’re already passing around a petition to demand bullet-proof partitions for bus drivers and train operators should Perdue sign the bun bill into law.

Why is it, that defending one's self, a Basic Human Right, is seen as vigilantism? I guess it's one of the few arguments the anti-self defense crowd has left that they think will sway those who sit on the fence regarding this issue. Even in the "Old West" they knew the difference between self defense and vigilantism.

And speaking of the old west, I also get tired of that comment, when anti-rights people claim a "return to the old/wild west" with blood in the streets and such. If you check the actual statistics for the "wild west" you'll find that other than the Indian wars, crime was much lower than it is today. Old Dodge City was imminently safer than modern day Chicago. It's too bad we can't return to at least the crime rate of the old west.

Current Mood: Awake
Current Music: None
My Carry Pistol: Walther P-38

Sunday, July 06, 2008

The argument for Open Carry

I have read many responses to the idea of "Open Carry" with regard to pistols. I've seen anti-2nd amendment types get all hysterical over it, and I've seen so-called pro-2nd amendment types get equally as hysterical also. I've read posts in various forums both pro and con, and some even arguing that the recent decision by the US Supreme Court ONLY affects Washington DC.

What I see as having been virtually ignored is that as stated numerous times, (in numerous places) the 2nd Amendment does not give us the right to keep and bear arms, any more than any state law or state constitution does. The 2nd amendment merely protects that right. Whether or not any state law or constitution says so, we still have the right to self-defense, and as an extension, the tools necessary to exercise those rights.

We still have the right to keep and bear arms, even without the 2nd Amendment. Just as we also have the right to free speech, freedom of religion, trial by a jury of our peers, the right to not testify against ourselves.

But it seems that government isn't the only entity that has forgotten those rights. Many of us, have forgotten them also. And this is in spite of all the amendments and the Constitution.

How many of us have run into US law enforcement officers, under the mistaken impression that if there isn't a law saying we can do something, then it must be illegal? Where do they get this idea? Where does anyone get the idea that a right not granted by law, doesn't exist?

It still exists, but if we don't properly exercise our rights, we will lose them, by ignorance, as well as by legislation. If for no other reason than this, we must press on for open carry, and eliminate any bans that exist.

States rights should not usurp the rights of the individual citizen. The idea of free, elected governments is to serve the citizens, not rule them. If we are ruled, then we are not free. If we are not free, we are not citizens. If we are not citizens, we are slaves.

Current Mood: Amused
Current Music: Macho Man - The Village People
My Carry Pistol: Taurus PT-92AFS 9x19mm NATO