“Look at my gun!” Why NRA’s scary “open carry” craze is not about freedom

Freedom for a man with a gun trumps freedom for parents of kids who feel endangered by him. Our scary new reality.

Imagine you’re sitting in a restaurant and a loud group of armed men come through the door. They are ostentatiously displaying their weapons, making sure that everyone notices them. Would you feel safe or would you feel in danger? Would you feel comfortable confronting them? If you owned the restaurant could you ask them to leave? These are questions that are facing more and more Americans in their everyday lives as “open carry” enthusiasts descend on public places ostensibly for the sole purpose of exercising their constitutional right to do it. It just makes them feel good, apparently.

For instance, in the wake of the new Georgia law that pretty much makes it legal to carry deadly weapons at all times in all places, parents were alarmed when an armed man showed up at the park where their kids were playing little league baseball and waved his gun around shouting, “Look at my gun!” and “There’s nothing you can do about it.” The police were called and when they arrived they found the man had broken no laws and was perfectly within his rights to do what he did. That was small consolation to the parents, however. Common sense tells anyone that a man waving a gun around in public is dangerous so the parents had no choice but to leave the park. Freedom for the man with the gun trumps freedom for the parents of kids who feel endangered by him.

After the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre, open carry advocates decided it was a good idea to descend upon Starbucks stores around the country, even in Newtown where a couple dozen armed demonstrators showed up, to make their political point. There were no incidents. Why would there be? When an armed citizen decides to exercise his right to bear arms, it would be reckless to exercise your right to free speech if you disagreed with them. But it did cause the CEO of Starbucks to ask very politely if these gun proliferation supporters would kindly not use his stores as the site of their future “statements.” He didn’t ban them from the practice, however. His reason? He didn’t want to put his employees in the position of having to confront armed customers to tell them to leave. Sure, Starbucks might have the “right” to ban guns on private property in theory, but in practice no boss can tell his workers that they must try to evict someone who is carrying a deadly weapon.

Just last week open carry proponents decided to have one of their “demonstrations” by going into a Jack in the Box en masse, scaring the employees so badly that they hid in the walk-in freezer. The so-called demonstrators seemed confused by the response of police who assumed there was an armed robbery in progress and dispatched a phalanx of cops.

“We’re not breaking the laws,” Haros said. “We’re not here to hurt anybody. We’re not trying to alarm anybody. We’re doing this because it’s our constitutional right.”

Haros, who believes openly carrying firearms helps police, said citizens should know that the demonstrations will continue.

“It’s just for safety purposes,” Haros said. “Officers can’t be there at all times. We understand that. They can only do so much.”

So this fine fellow believes he is doing this to protect the public. And while they don’t wear uniforms so you can’t identify them, have no specialized training in the law, are not bound by police protocols or answer to the authority of the democratic system of government of the people, they have taken it upon themselves to look after all of us because the police are busy. (And presumably, unless you are wearing a hoodie and they think you look suspicious, you probably won’t get shot dead by mistake.) We used to have a name for this. It was called vigilantism. One can only hope that when a “bad guy” really does show up at your Jack in the Box or Starbucks and one of these self-appointed John Waynes decides to draw his weapon you’ll be as lucky as the innocent civilian who narrowly escaped being killed in error at the Gabrielle Giffords shooting.

All of this is allegedly being done to protect our freedoms. But it’s only the “freedom” of the person wearing a firearm that matters. Those parents who want their kids to feel safe in a public park aren’t free to tell a man waving a gun around to leave them alone, are they? Patrons and employees of Starbucks aren’t free to express their opinion of open carry laws when one of these demonstrations are taking place in the store. Those Jack in the Box employees aren’t free to refuse service to armed customers. Sure, they are all theoretically free to do those things. It’s their constitutional right just like it’s the constitutional right of these people to carry a gun. But in the real world, sane people do not confront armed men and women. They don’t argue with them over politics. They certainly do not put their kids in harm’s way in order to make a point. So when it comes right down to it, when you are in the presence of one of these armed citizens, you don’t really have any rights at all.

You can see why they think that’s freedom. It is. For them. The rest of us just have to be very polite, keep our voices down and back away very slowly, saying, “Yes sir, whatever you say, sir,” and let them have their way.

Dispelling the myth of the “wild west”

In his book, Frontier Violence: Another Look, author W. Eugene Hollon, provides us with these astonishing facts:
•In Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell, for the years from 1870 to 1885, there were only 45 total homicides. This equates to a rate of approximately 1 murder per 100,000 residents per year.
•In Abilene, supposedly one of the wildest of the cow towns, not a single person was killed in 1869 or 1870.

Zooming forward over a century to 2007, a quick look at Uniform Crime Report statistics shows us the following regarding the aforementioned gun control “paradise” cities of the east:

•DC – 183 Murders (31 per 100,000 residents)
•
Baltimore – 281 Murders (45 per 100,000 residents)
•
Newark – 104 Murders (37 per 100,000 residents)

It doesn’t take an advanced degree in statistics to see that a return to “wild west” levels of violent crime would be a huge improvement for the residents of these cities.

The truth of the matter is that the “wild west” wasn’t wild at all … not compared to a Saturday night in Newark.

http://www.examiner.com/article/dispelling-the-myth-of-the-wild-west

Slain student called 911, but no one came in time
Story Highlights
• College student’s battle for her life caught on 911 tape

• Police did not respond to her call for help for 48 minutes

• Brittany Zimmerman’s fiance found her body

• Police suspect she was attacked by a stranger and are eyeing vagrants

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/12/16/grace.coldcase.zimmerman/index.html?eref=rss_us

She called 911, just like the experts tell you to.

******************

Contrast that with this guy:

Slow response by Dallas police angers armed robbery victim

DALLAS — The Dallas Police Department is looking at another possible breakdown in the city’s 911 phone system.

A store owner called police just before 11 p.m. Sunday to say he had just been robbed and shots were fired, but it took Dallas police nearly 90 minutes to respond.

Four robbers, armed with rifles, walked into Pepe’s Grocery Store in the 4800 block of Bernal Dr. Sunday night. The store owner said they demanded money, so he fired his .38 caliber revolver. Then he called 911.

He would only talk to News 8 off-camera, because he said he is afraid of retaliation.

“I called and told them I was robbed, and that I had shot at them and they at me,” he said.

Police records show the call came in at 11:00 p.m. as a robbery, but wasn’t answered by officers until 12:15 a.m. When officers finally arrived, the store was locked.

http://www.wfaa.com/news/crime/Slow-Response-By-Dallas-Police-Angers-Robbery-Victim-206317351.html

Here’s a little experiment. It’s changing the subject, but I could help:

Freedom for a gay man trumps freedom for parents of kids who are disgusted by him. Our scary new reality.

Imagine you’re sitting in a restaurant and a loud group of queer men come through the door. They are ostentatiously displaying their perversity, making sure that everyone notices them. Would you feel safe or would you feel in danger? Would you feel comfortable confronting them? If you owned the restaurant could you ask them to leave? These are questions that are facing more and more Americans in their everyday lives as “homosexual” enthusiasts descend on public places ostensibly for the sole purpose of exercising their constitutional right to do it. It just makes them feel good, apparently.

For instance, in the wake of the new Georgia law that pretty much makes it legal to parade deadly perversity at all times in all places, parents were alarmed when a queer man showed up at the park where their kids were playing little league baseball and wearing a dress and shouting, “Look at me, I’m gay!” and “There’s nothing you can do about it.”

The police were called and when they arrived they found the man had broken no laws and was perfectly within his rights to do what he did. That was small consolation to the parents, however. Common sense tells anyone that a pervert dancing around in public is dangerous so the parents had no choice but to leave the park. Freedom for the man with the gay trumps freedom for the parents of kids who feel endangered by him.

After the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre, gay advocates decided it was a good idea to descend upon Starbucks stores around the country, even in Newtown where a couple dozen queer demonstrators showed up, to make their political point. There were no incidents. Why would there be? When a queer citizen decides to exercise his right to be gay, it would be reckless to exercise your right to free speech if you disagreed with them. But it did cause the CEO of Starbucks to ask very politely if these gay proliferation supporters would kindly not use his stores as the site of their future “statements.” He didn’t ban them from the practice, however. His reason? He didn’t want to put his employees in the position of having to confront queer customers to tell them to leave. Sure, Starbucks might have the “right” to ban gays on private property in theory, but in practice no boss can tell his workers that they must try to evict someone who is carrying a deadly weapon.

Just last week homosexual activists decided to have one of their “demonstrations” by going into a Jack in the Box en masse, scaring the employees so badly that they hid in the walk-in freezer. The so-called demonstrators seemed confused by the response of police who assumed there was a queer robbery in progress and dispatched a phalanx of cops. “We’re not breaking the laws,” Haros said. “We’re not here to hurt anybody. We’re not trying to alarm anybody. We’re doing this because it’s our constitutional right.” Haros, who believes openly being gay helps police, said citizens should know that the demonstrations will continue.

All of this is allegedly being done to protect our freedoms. But it’s only the “freedom” of the queer person that matters. Those parents who want their kids to feel safe in a public park aren’t free to tell a man wearing a dress to leave them alone, are they? Patrons and employees of Starbucks aren’t free to express their opinion of perversion when one of these demonstrations are taking place in the store. Those Jack in the Box employees aren’t free to refuse service to queer customers. Sure, they are all theoretically free to do those things. It’s their constitutional right just like it’s the constitutional right of these people to be gay. But in the real world, sane people do not confront queer men and women. They don’t argue with them over politics. They certainly do not put their kids in harm’s way in order to make a point. So when it comes right down to it, when you are in the presence of one of these queer citizens, you don’t really have any rights at all.

“is known as brandishing, and is still illegal. So, the author is a liar

She’s more of a liar than even that. I read through the comments and got the full story about that.

The guy in question was just walking through the park with his firearm holstered. The part about him pointing at his gun, saying “you can’t do anything about it”, and waving it around are all fabrications. They apparently come from the distraught mother who called the cops. In an interview with her, she says that “It was like he was saying ‘You can’t do anything about it.’” She was waving HER hand around. The police came and questioned him and the other parents and found out that he hadn’t said anything, hadn’t pointed at his gun, and hadn’t waved it around.

In the case of the “gang of armed men” who “frightened the employees so badly that they hid in the freezer”, that also is a complete fabrication. In this case, it was four guys WITH THEIR FAMILIES who came in. The employees did nothing but their jobs, and the person who called the cops lied about it all.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.