If you’ve watched the news lately, there was a shooting in Binghamton, NY. Prior to that, there had been sporadic shootings all across the nation. Additional to these things, according to rainn.org, someone is sexually assaulted every two minutes. The United States murder per capita is 0.042802 per 1,000 people.

Last I had checked, none of these real criminals ever made appointments with their victims. It never hurts to prepare for the worst in a moderate way.

So consider my opinion voiced- I do not think there is any need for weapons at a public meeting where no one else is armed.

Fair enough (but see the two responses prior to this one).

It only brings on a situation of “my gun is bigger than your gun” to a place where previously words and debate won arguments.

That’s a subjective, situational determination requiring all sorts of assumptions.

Part of wearing firearms openly and more often is to help cure people of their gun phobia, the idea being the more they see them being worn by average, non-violent persons, the less they will fear the very existence of firearms let alone some non-menacing person armed with one.

Plus (be it right or wrong) the public will view the FSP as violent and intimidating.

And that’s why activists need to reach out to “the public” and re-educate them on these issues so that they no longer fear guns simply because guns exist or because someone is armed with one.

Suppose a heavily armed violent madman enters the public meeting, and proceeds to start shooting people, as certainly has happened a number of times in this country.

Would you be glad then that these people have the ability to defend themselves, and others at the meeting, so the death toll is more like one or two, rather than something like 12? I sure would.

Don’t be intimidated — these people would not use their weapon except in self defense. Words and debates still win arguments, the fact that people are armed does not change that.

Also, I think part of the reason to open carry is so people get used to peaceful people doing it, and do not view it as violent or intimidating. We’d be safer if we got back to that old way of thinking, where carrying a gun is normal and expected self defense. We’d all be a lot safer from violent people, who will get a gun anyway, as well as from the possibility of a truly totalitarian government.

Decades of propaganda and brainwashing have convinced many people (especially those of the liberal persuasion) to assume that anyone who carries a weapon is up to no good.

Ask anyone who lived during the early part of the 20th century or before whether it was unusual to see someone “packing heat” and you get a different story.

More people were armed, often to hunt but also to defend themselves as well. Watch the films of the 30′s and 40′s and examine their social statements on guns. People didn’t run screaming from Phillip Marlowe or Sam Spade because “OH MY GOD HE’S GOT A GUN!”. They didn’t assume that someone who was armed was some kind of madman with wicked intentions.

Cowboys often went armed but the townsfolk, both in reality and in TV-land, didn’t freak out when a newcomer rode into town armed with his six-shooter.

Mass shootings didn’t erupt left and right because people were armed either. That’s more a product of the modern era, because today’s violent criminals and whackjobs can prey on a populace that has allowed themselves to become defenseless sheep. People that have been made to feel so afraid of firearms that they deem them and anyone with one as “evil”. And yet those same terrified “holophobes” (fear of weaponry) are just fine and dandy if that armed person carries a shiny badge and a fine hat (or crew cut).

I’m sure most of the onlookers in the California BART murder thought they’d be safe until that cop went schizo, took out his gun and shot that kid in the back. There are many other such incidents (like the 92-year old woman who was shot to death by 3 cops) so it’s pretty obvious that having a badge doesn’t determine whether or not an armed person is “safe” or “good”. Only a person’s words and deeds can determine that. Having or not having a firearm makes no difference whether one is moral or immoral, sane or insane, violent or peaceful. Just ask Jeffrey Dahmer. His choice of murder instruments was bludgeoning and power drills.

How often do you see people freaking out at the sight of a power drill?

If more people stopped solely relying on the cops (government) to defend them (which they have no obligation to do according to several court rulings), then maybe those 13 people in New York wouldn’t have been defenseless when that nut shot them up. Maybe a fine upstanding person exercising their right to defend themselves would have taken him out and less people would have died as a result.

After all, in most cases, police are often relegated to the clean-up crew. They show up after you’re already dead. Sure, they might eventually nab the guy but a lot of good that does you or your loved ones.

So, back to your concerns… if someone comes onto your property armed and you have a no-guns policy, then you (the property owner) have every right to tell them to remove their guns or leave.

If they come to a *public* gathering exercising their 2nd Amendment right, that’s not your decision to make. You can certainly voice your opinion and kindly ask them not to bring their weapon in but the choice is theirs to make.

I believe some establishments (saloons, whorehouses, etc) in the Old West and the early 20th (speakeasies) had such a policy where you’d check your gun in at the door and get it back when you left.

I have a question- who are you protecting yourselves from by carrying guns to public meetings where there are no other armed people or police? Isn’t that simply intimidation?

You should respect the people at these meetings trying to do their jobs, as well as the public that attend. Please fight your battles with words and not intimidations that could become violent. Save the guns for interactions with police, who are equally armed.

I might have had an enlightening conversation with anarchojesse about his garden, but the gun was certainly off-putting. If you want to win over the residents of Keene, you should leave the guns at home. Perhaps Jesse didn’t want a conversation? Perhaps guns are used as some sort of gardening tool unknown to me?

Wrong. Liberty “activists”, as you like to call yourselves,

Oh, it’s not just us, Pansy.

Here’s what Wikipedia says about activism:

Activism, in a general sense, can be described as intentional action to bring about social change, political change, economic justice, or environmental wellbeing.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activist

Wiktionary says:

“one who is politically active in the role of a citizen; especially, one who campaigns for change”

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/activist

Dictionary.com says:

“an especially active, vigorous advocate of a cause, esp. a political cause.”

invoke violence and anger and disguise it as your “cause” via passive aggressive behavior.

And here you reveal just how insane and illogical statism is. Because we’re “passive-aggressive” (which is a ludicrous oxymoron) about seeking an end to involuntary servitude and being violated by the gang called government, we’re somehow invoking (your word) violence and anger?

Dude, that’s like saying it’s the rape victim’s fault for pointing at the rapist and shouting “Rapist!” and that it’s okay for the rapist to then violate her again for “causing a scene”.

Ghandi and MLK didn’t tote guns around just because they could, like you folks do.

Those of us who carry firearms do so because a) we have a natural right to defend ourselves, b) it is enumerated as a protected right in the Constitution’s Bill of Rights and c) it apparently (according to your statements) prevents some raging nutzoids from trying to violate our persons.

I can only imagine what you’d do if you thought we were all defenseless. Hanging? Drowning? Burned at the stake? Or maybe you like to get hands-on and strangulation is your thing?

You guys are cowards.

Apparently, you’re the coward if you’re only willing to assault people you disagree with when they’re defenseless. You’re sick in the head.

And Sam is a pansy with too much time on his hands.

Sam is more brave and principled that you could ever hope to be in your wildest murder spree-filled dreams.

Hope he likes his new home.

Hope you like the idea of dozens and dozens more activists moving to Keene because of the immoral and violent actions taken against him.

Your message(s) carry the foul stink of sock puppetry and you appear to be using the tired old tactic of using multiple accounts to give the appearance of you actually being more than one person. You haven’t even been honest enough to actually say what your stake in the system actually is.

Personally, I find it sickening and an obvious sign of evidence of possible mental illness, by getting all gushy over men in funny costumes with guns strapped to their hip, thinking they may do no wrong, simply because they are cops.

I suppose there are still some folks out there that can gain some measure of delight in the pain of others and can sleep just fine at night in spite of what they are.

Dan

Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest.

As for MLK:

Finally, I contended that the debate over the question of self-defense was unnecessary since few people suggested that Negroes should not defend themselves as individuals when attacked. The question was not whether one should use his gun when his home was attacked, but whether it was tactically wise to use a gun while participating in an organized demonstration.

and related to why one carries a gun

As we have seen, the first public expression of disenchantment with nonviolence arose around the question of \”self-defense.\” In a sense this is a false issue, for the right to defend one\’s home and one\’s person when attacked has been guaranteed through the ages by common law.

The right to own and carry a gun, to defend oneself, is being systematically infringed upon. The reason to carry a firearm is to both protect yourself and those around you but also to exercise one\’s right to self defense. To push back against those who feel we should not do so and wish to keep us from doing so through the threat of violence.