He’s really on our side, right?

Sometimes “The Gun Guy” is so far out that it’s like a caricature. But he’s further out than I could portray even if I tried. Case in point:

If the gun lobby gets its way in Congress, the following scenarios might become all too real:

  • You’re visiting an elderly family member at the hospital when you see a gruff man in the parking lot adjusting his loaded and deadly handgun in his belt. You inform the nurse that there is a dangerous and armed man outside and the nurse informs you that it is “legal” for the gun owner to carry a concealed weapon only steps away from the hospital entrance.
  • You’re walking through the park with your kids on a sunny day eating ice cream when you see two men pull up in a dark SUV. As you walk by, you see them take two handguns out of the glove box and stick them in their jackets. You immediately call 9-1-1 to inform the police that there are armed men in a park with families and children, but the police tell you that unless their is cause, the armed men are perfectly legal carrying deadly weapons in family-friendly locations.
  • You’re at a coffee shop sipping your latte when you see a woman with a handgun casually tucked inside her purse chatting away on her cell phone and says she’s from out of state. You’re terrified at the sight of the weapon knowing that children are present. You ask an employee why loaded handguns are allowed at a coffee shop and the barista says that the owner still hasn’t posted a sign explicitly prohibiting carrying concealed weapons and therefore it’s permitted.

A gruff man with a handgun is known to be dangerous? “A gruff man with a handgun” describes a fair number of police officers.

He puts quotes around the word legal? It’s currently legal in nearly all states. So what is his point? The proposed law wouldn’t make the described scenarios any more or less legal.

Armed men in the park? I’ve done this more times than I could count and I know lots of people that do it. It’s currently legal in nearly all states. So what is his point?

Women at a coffee shop with a gun in her purse–and his point is? Oh, yeah. He’s terrified.

If he were talking about blacks or homosexuals that way it would be virtually impossible for him to get or keep a job. But since it is gun owners he is talking about he gets paid by the Joyce Foundation to spew hate at such a ridiculous level it’s difficult to not believe it is a deliberate farce.

Either Scott Vogel is conning the Joyce Foundation or he is really wacko. I’m really not sure which.


20 thoughts on “He’s really on our side, right?

  1. Joe, I agree those are wild colorful examples, but isn’t the point clear? Some States have stricter standards for people to carry guns and they don’t want folks coming in from out of state where there are milder standards. Shouldn’t the states be autonomous in this? Aren’t you opposed to the federal government dictating to the states what they can or cannot do?

  2. Well geez, mikeb. The states used to differ on who minorities were allowed to marry and what schools they were allowed to attend. Are you opposed to the federal government dictating to the states how to deal with race relations?

  3. MikeB,

    In all 3 cases did the gun owner do anything alarming, threatening or ILLEGAL?

    This is a case of the fear of people trying to limit the rights of the rest of the population.

    Should we let people’s fear limit our constitutionally protected rights?

  4. Must be tough going through life being afraid of gruff old men, dark SUVs, and armed women… jes sayin.
    Lord knows what he(?) would do if he saw the two-inch .357 that my wife carries when she is driving to meet me somewhere.

    By the way what do you suppose he was planning on doing to that woman until he noticed that she was armed???

  5. Well, in that case, MikeB (by the way, I see you have not addressed Reputo’s handling of your specious statements, nor BobS’ dealing with the same), should not states be autonomous as to whether or not they honor each other’s driver’s licenses? Or marriage licenses? Or automobile registrations? Or any other internally-produced state registration or license? If you are going to advocate state autonomy for one license, you might as well man up and advocate it for all of them – there is no difference.

    That said, I have little doubt that the proprietor of “The Gun Guys” is actually that whacked-out… He honestly thinks people will come unglued at the mere sight of a firearm, and, in some cases, I do not doubt that he is right. However, a few people’s emotional responses to an inanimate object is no reason, whatsoever, to abridge all people’s Constitutionally-protected, natural rights, and that is all this debate really boils down to. Are we going to let emotion be the law of the land, or are we going to defer to the Constitution?

    People flipping out about someone carrying a firearm is just the same as people flipping out about any other inanimate object – you might as well form an argument around the basis that if people object to other people driving SUVs, they should be able to ban the driving of those SUVs (of course, the second I write that, I realize that is what is coming in our future). Of course, it is for this reason that I am starting to come around to the “open carry” side of the house… Granted, I am not yet to the point of actually doing so, but while concealed carry is arguably the more tactically-sound method of carrying (at least for most people), it also has no societal impact. Since ocncealed carriers hide their firearms, no one really knows how many of them there really are; no one really knows that concealed carriers are just normal people, just like them; no one really knows how many places legally-carried firearms are being taken into. Oh, sure, there are the numbers, but there is a world of difference between reading something, and seeing it first hand. If more people were more accustomed to law-abiding, responsible, acocuntable, adult citizens carrying firearms in public (like they do already), the “Gun Guys”‘ argument would fall even more flat on its face than it does already.

    Anywise, just random musing on my part…

  6. Poor “Gun Guy” & MikeB,
    To live their lives always afraid.
    In these imaginary (but possible?) scenerios, was anyone actually brandishing (waving about in full public view), threatening, or shooting (at) anyone? If not, then STFU & mind your own business.
    He(?)/they seem to think that “loaded and deadly handgun(s)” will get away from their owners and jump up and shoot people ALL BY THEMSELVES. I don’t know where he(?)/they come from, but MY guns are well-trained, and don’t do anything more or less then what I tell them to do. I’ve had any of my guns sitting by me ALL DAY LONG, and they just sat there, didn’t jump up, didn’t shoot anyone at all, didn’t go anywhere until I picked them up. (Good gun, nice gun. pat, pat).

  7. A lot of people claim to be something but it’s only when you read their stuff that you know one way or the other. I’d watch this guy from what I read so far in your post here.

  8. Joe, I agree those are wild colorful examples, but isn’t the point clear?

    The only thing clear is that those examples are written by someone who (if they’re actually serious) have some very obvious mental problems.

    In none of those examples was there ANY reason to fear the person with the gun. It’s just as ridiculous (and bigoted) as fearing a black or homosexual who happens to be walking near you. Should we pass laws bringing back segregation because some racist bigots are afraid of interacting with, or even seeing a black person?

    State autonomy does not give States the power to deny fundamental civil rights.

  9. I just LOVE it when some lefty gets all indignant over the “rights” of states or cities to “make their own decisions”. OK Mikeb, lets play along; say Idaho wants to make machineguns fully free-market. That is to say zero restrictions on manufacture, transport, sale, purchase or possession. Lets say that, since the right to bear arms is enumerated in the BOR after all, just like religion, Idahoans decide gun trade will be non-taxable, same as religion. Lets say we want to eliminate all restrictions on DDs too, so there would be easier access to towed artillery, grenades, HE ammunition, grenade launchers, RPGs, etc. No doubt you’d jump right in here, strenuously defending the rights of Idahoans to make their own decisions, eh?

    Yeah, like hell. Don’t even start.

    You anti-freedom activists can talk out of one side of your mouth, or you can talk out the other, but when you have been talking out both sides of your mouths for the last 100 years, I’d say any credibility you may have started with has been gone for a very long time.

  10. Lyle, I actually think they are consistent. They consistently want to restrict freedom. They are on the side of whoever will restrict it the most.

    MikeB, another example would be the 13th Amendment. Sure it says slavery is illegal. But that’s just the Federal government that may not have slaves (that we are already slaves of the Feds by some definitions is a topic for another time), right? If the states want to allow slavery it should be a states rights issue, correct?

    Mike W, Lyle, Linoge, et. al. I’m about three fourth convinced MikeB is just putting up straw men for us to knock down. His position is so weak, poorly thought out, and totally lacking in factual understanding that it’s almost got to be that he is just parody of a bigot.

  11. Actually, the “Gun Guy” is not on our side. That site is funded by the Freedom States Alliance (Google it, not going to add links to promote anti gun sites). While on the outside, this organization looks like they want to help gun awareness and safety, it seems reading deeper into their articles and affiliate sites (License to Murder), I think its their belief the solution is to remove guns all together. Their main topic seems to be anti-50 cal, but have moved on to anti-Concealed carry with a new law being proposed.

  12. Greg, I’m aware of all that. But he does such a farcical job of it that it would be easy to imagine he is actually just spending the Joyce Foundation money to no benefit of anyone but his own.

  13. “Mike W, Lyle, Linoge, et. al. I’m about three fourth convinced MikeB is just putting up straw men for us to knock down. His position is so weak, poorly thought out, and totally lacking in factual understanding that it’s almost got to be that he is just parody of a bigot.”

    Nope he’s just a troll that likes all the sparks that fly when somebody farts in Church (if you take my analogy)

  14. It’s funny that some of you guys pick up on the “fear” aspect of the Gun Guy’s post. How many of you guys keep guns in the home or actually carry them everywhere you go because of fear? How many of you run your lives based on that fear even though the thing you fear really doesn’t exist? The way some of you talk you’d think you had to shoot your way out of dangerous situations regularly, when in reality most of you never will.

    And then in the best spirit of “the best defense is a good offense,” you accuse the gun control folks of fear.

    I realize many of you are secure rational and responsible people, but many of you are quite the opposite. Do you deny it?

  15. Uhh, not quite pilgram. The point of owning a gun is exactly the same as owning a fire extinquisher.

    I’ve had one car fire and didn’t have an extinquisher. Fortunately a couple of guys stopped who did. Hope I never have another one, but I’m sure going to want an extinquisher around if I do have one. So now I keep two in the back of the SUV, one in the Merkur and one in the wife’s Neon. If I could figure out how to carry one on the motorcycle I’d probably have one on it as well.

    Of course if you live in a neighborhood where the juvvies play with matches all the time, you might want to keep a small one on your person at all times.

  16. I wear a seatbelt every time I enter a vehicle. I have never been involved in an accident.

    I keep a fire extinguisher in my kitchen. I have never had a cooking fire.

    I keep bandages in my bathroom. I try to keep my leaking to a minimum.

    My wife keeps an epipen in her purse. She has never been stung by something that would require it.

    I keep antivirus software on my computer. I have never been infected by a computer virus.

    I keep a flashlight with me wherever I go. It is not often that buildings go completely dark.

    I am a relatively decent driver, but I do not attempt to drive US129 at 100 mph.

    Are those likewise “running my life based on that fear”?

    Here in Tennesse, you had a 0.75% chance of being a victim of a violent crime in 2007 (at least for the recorded violent crimes, and discounting the possibility of one victim being the target of multiple crimes); however, crime does happen, just like accidents happen, just like fires happen, just like wounds happen, just like flying insects happen, just like computer bugs happen, just like all sorts of things really, actually, honestly do happen.

    Is preparing for a distinct possibility “letting your life be ruled by fear”, or is it simple preparedness? However, there is a distinct and marked difference between preparing for the possibility of a human doing something illegal, and preparing for the “possibility” of an evil gun going off and shooting people on its own (what “The Gun Guys” are advocating). Regardless, exercising a Constitutionally-protected, naturally-granted right to self-preservation and self-defense is hardly a question of fear, but rather a question of responsibility and self-perpetuation. Some people are willing to be responsible for their own lives, some are not. And adult, responsible, rational humans tend to try to keep their fear of inanimate objects to a minimum.

  17. Heh, looks like Mike Dropped another loud one right during morning hymns!

    First up, note how he completely changed the subject. He knows he’s just trolling, and has no concerns about initiating a discussion, he just wants chatter.

    Next up, who was talking about fear? So carrying a gun makes me afraid? Really? Does having a life insurance policy make me afraid of death? A better example would be my Parents. They’re in their 60s and running strong, but they have a LOT of life insurance. Are they afraid of death? (Well seeing as my Mom is a semi-retired RN and constantly reminds us of her living will and her desire to be unplugged if she is ever attached to life support indefinitely, as well as her desire not to become a decrepit old lady, she’s in amazing shape, and could run circles around most of us, i suspect) Honestly they could leave NOTHING to my wife and I when they pass, funeral expenses and burial would be nice, but that’s a cost that could easily be covered by us and other family.

    So why do they have the policy? Well they didn’t get it when they were retired, they got it when they were first married. They knew that if one died early and left a wife/husband and son, as well as a mortgage to fend it alone, the results would be grave. The insurance is to protect from such a grave happening, no matter how probable.

    I have life insurance too. Fire insurance, car insurance, medical insurance. I also keep guns and fire extinguishers in my home, as well as owning a home security system and motion activated lights (which besides security are damn convenient when coming home to a dark house).

    I’m not afraid at all, just better to be prepared than be unlucky and dead.

    But not to be outdone Mike Contradicts himself:
    “How many of you guys keep guns in the home or actually carry them everywhere you go because of fear? How many of you run your lives based on that fear even though the thing you fear really doesn’t exist?”

    Heh, Mike, so why are we quibbling? If the potential of violent assault “Doesn’t exist” why do you care what we do?

    Why is it almost all of your “guns are bad” stories in your blog aren’t about lawful gun owners? (tho you claim it as often as you can, it most often turns out to be false, and you’re too much of bigot to admit when you make mistakes or straight-out lie)

    Hell you yourself admit to owning black market guns in your checkered past. Of course you don’t want to discuss where and how you got them, and if in fact you’re being truthful about your emigration to Italy where the guns went when you left America. Why not? Obviously if you bought them from an unscrupulous gun dealer, wouldn’t that be a damning story? What if you bought (or sold) them in a gunshow parking lot from a man with a carry permit? That would be damning!

    Instead you likely bought the guns from somebody who stole them, and then you sold them off to more criminals who weren’t concealing their desires to commit crimes with them.

    MikeB, I carry a gun because the world has people like you in it. Sadly it always has, but if we could somehow get rid of jerks like yourself, we wouldn’t need guns at all.

  18. And Weer’d Beard beat me to making it back to my keyboard…

    Stop changing the topic, MikeB. You made a case that states should remain autonomous as to which concealed carry permits they will honor, and which they will not. Many people brought up counterpoints. Either attempt to defend your position, or yield the point. You pretty much have already done the latter (silence being consent and all), but I guess it is incumbent upon us to keep you (supposedly an adult human of sound mind) on topic…

  19. States are free to set up concealed carry requirements as stringent or loose as they wish. Regardless of the nature of the hoops set up for people to jump through to carry an effective means of self defense, NO STATE HAS HAD PROBLEMS.

    So who cares whether my resident permit limits me to one type of gun, or even one single serial number? Who cares whether I have to shoot bullseye accuracy at 75 yards to qualify, or don’t have to shoot at all?

    Only the hysterical hand-wringers whose dire predictions about concealed carry have never come to pass.

Comments are closed.