Hundreds of armed people filled a Hudson park Saturday afternoon as part of an anti-tax and pro-second amendment rally."It's our right to carry guns and I think everyone needs to know," said a gun rally supporter.
Openly carrying a firearm is legal in Wisconsin, in fact the only legal way to have a firearm there is to openly display it, but it is rare to see so many people doing so at once.
We've discussed this before when some folks made national news wearing guns to the Obama rallies in the summer. My opinion then was that they do more harm than good to the cause they represent. To most people who are not involved in the gun rights movement, they appear to be fanatics. That was exactly my impression watching the video of the Hudson Wisconsin rally.
What's your opinion? Do the folks depicted in this video seem like the kind you can trust to carry guns? They don't to me. They seem like people who are angry, some of whom could be volatile and dangerous. Why do the pro-gun folks not understand that the rest of us don't feel safe around people like this? Whether we're right or wrong, shouldn't our impressions count for something? Insisting on wearing guns, and in states where it's allowed to carry them concealed, to me seems like a form of bullying. In this video, for example, weren't the gun owners bullying the rest of the citizens?
What do you think? Please leave a comment.
"We've discussed this before when some folks made national news wearing guns to the Obama rallies in the summer. My opinion then was that they do more harm than good to the cause they represent."
ReplyDeleteI'd say your judgment is very consistent, Mike.
How about Heller pronouces a regulated individual right (Heller couldn't register one of his guns).
ReplyDeleteThese clowns present gun owners as idiots.
People being to get more and more frustrated with the power of the NRA, an organisation that represents gun manufacturers more than gun owners.
I often wonder why gun laws are getting laxer rather than tighter.
There is no CCW in Wisconsin. The only way they could legally carry was openly.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what the antis are worried about with this. They all want more gun laws and this will lead to more laws. Since open carry is the only method of carry afforded Wisconsin citizens, they have no choice. However, since they are scaring the sheep, they will end up with concealed carry laws so that the citizenry can still carry but discreetly so the sheep won't know.
ReplyDeleteSo there you have it, more gun laws. Isn't that what you want?
"Do the folks depicted in this video seem like the kind you can trust to carry guns? They don't to me."
ReplyDeleteTranslation: Anyone who exercises their rights should not be trusted with those rights.
"Insisting on wearing guns, and in states where it's allowed to carry them concealed, to me seems like a form of bullying."
ReplyDeleteRead Mike W's comment and let it sink in.
Your ignorance is astounding.
Do some research before you post.
"Do the folks depicted in this video seem like the kind you can trust to carry guns? They don't to me."
ReplyDeleteSo MikeB, which kind of folks "seem like the kind you can trust to carry guns?"
What is your method & criteria for making that determination?
If you don't "feel safe" around a black man does that mean he should refrain from going out in public? What about gays? If you don't "feel safe" that's your problem.
"I often wonder why gun laws are getting laxer rather than tighter."
ReplyDeleteI would say your aversion to reality helps that a good deal.
It comes down to...who are you to judge someone based on that little information? If you're uncomfortable around women not completely covered up, what would you propose? Create a law that all women be completely covered at all times when in public? Yes, it has been done, and most of the world calls it oppression...except in those countries where they KNOW they are right, and put women on trial for wearing something as tantalizing as pants. Do you purport that you KNOW you're right? I'd prefer to think that you have a leaning, but are open to other points of view...otherwise why keep creating a blog where you have 1 person who always agrees, a few that try to be open-minded, and a large number against your opinions?
ReplyDeleteIn the end, no matter WHAT side you're on, there's always going to be someone you really wished wasn't on your side.
Any intimidation is more a factor of society's training at this point. They've heard for so many years that guns are dangerous and bad, and there's a chance that they'll randomly kill you. BUT, I bet you that park was one of the safest places to be on that day. No mass shootings, no 'wild west' showdowns over parking spots which always seem to be predicted by certain groups.
But yes, I agree that in some cases, carrying an exposed firearm can be intimidating, and careful thought should be put into the TRUE motivations behind trying to use them as a statement rather than simply exercising a right.
kaveman put these words in my mouth: "Translation: Anyone who exercises their rights should not be trusted with those rights."
ReplyDeleteI'd said, "Do the folks depicted in this video seem like the kind you can trust to carry guns? They don't to me."
What I was thinking of was angry middle-aged white men with beer bellies and when they speak who sound like high-school dropouts.
Now MikeB is showing his elitism.
ReplyDeleteNo wonder he fits right in with the crowd at One Utah.
People who didn't attend college or have perfect english usage shouldn't be allowed to exercise their rights.
What I was thinking of was angry middle-aged white men with beer bellies and when they speak who sound like high-school dropouts
ReplyDeleteThere you have it folks. Read MikeB's own words.
He's a class act!!...
"What I was thinking of was angry middle-aged white men with beer bellies and when they speak who sound like high-school dropouts."
ReplyDeleteProper english would be...
What I was thinking of was angry middle-aged white men with beer bellies and when they speak, sound like high-school dropouts.
See that? Drop the word "who" and replace it with a comma.
What you wrote is what I would expect from a high-school dropout.
"I often wonder why gun laws are getting laxer rather than tighter."
ReplyDeleteBecause more people are looking at places like Chicago, Philly, and New Jersey and starting to realize that tighter laws don't work.
"So MikeB, which kind of folks "seem like the kind you can trust to carry guns?"
The police, obviously. They can never do any wrong.
MikeB, by his own words, believes that Wisconsin allows concealed carry.
ReplyDeleteWrong on every level and easily refuted.
Do you know how to google, MikeB?
MikeB is spreading lies that are so easily debunked that I must applaud him for making our job so easy.
Care to challenge me, MikeB and show where the state of Wisconsin allows for concealed carry?
Checkmate.
What I want to know is this: What is going to happen when one of these people starts shooting his gun instead of just wearing it? Will all the other gun wearers shoot that person? Will only one person shoot back? Will no one shoot back?
ReplyDeleteI'm asking this now because I think we all know that this will happen eventually. What will the outcome be?
kaveman, For someone so quick to criticize, maybe you should be more careful yourself.
ReplyDeleteYou said this and then referred to it as my "spreading lies."
"MikeB, by his own words, believes that Wisconsin allows concealed carry."
What I said in the post was this:
"and in states where it's allowed to carry them concealed," which makes it clear that I understood about Wisconsin.
Why are you wasting our time picking on such details? Don't I give you enough to argue about? Do I have to post more, is that it?
Kaveman,
ReplyDeleteBe careful or MikeB will drop the "comment moderation hammer" on you.
See you can say the words are wrong, but you can't say that MikeB or his companions are wrong.
I think he wants to focus on the words so he doesn't have to take responsibility (not even shared) for them.
Don't call him a liar, call his words "untrue".....so he can admit to being deliberately wrong but not have to admit to lying.
Just a precautionary note from someone's whose comments rarely make it through
Bob, You've got some nerve comparing your comments to those of kaveman. I only published this one of yours so I could respond to it. Like so many, this one contains no substance at all and has diverted the focus of the thread to me and my commenting policy. kaveman on the other hand, usually puts some meat into his remarks.
ReplyDeleteWe were trying to talk about the gun rally in Hudson WI, remember?
MikeB,
ReplyDeleteWe are talking about our rights and those people who want to restrict them.
When you inject yourself and your integrity into that debate, you become fair game.
Your commenting policy is fair game for comments. I notice that you don't refute the substance of my points, you instead try to focus on how I'm being mean to you.
I am addressing the issue. You refuse to allow certain comments, especially comments questioning your integrity or honesty. You've gone so far as to moderate comments so they can't been seen if YOU FEEL they are personal attacks.
Yet, on this blog you allow personal attacks by yourself and people like MudRake and Laci.
If a person is being hypocritical in their values, doesn't that need to be addressed?
Do the folks depicted in this video seem like the kind you can trust to carry guns?
If we can't trust you to live up to your value, should we allow your attempts to restrict our rights to go unchallenged?
Over and over again, you've shown your bias, lack of integrity and in proven cases out right lies.
Shouldn't people who are commenting or reading here know what type of person they are dealing with?
You point out the ethics or question the mindset of the protesters who are legally exercising their rights...why won't you let your ethics or mindset be questioned?
Mike, when you say (in reference to the supposed "untrustworthiness" of these people with guns): "What I was thinking of was angry middle-aged white men with beer bellies and when they speak who sound like high-school dropouts," what makes them untrustworthy? Their "anger" (they didn't seem all that angry to me--besides, what do you want--people who are immune to anger?), their middle-agedness, their whiteness, their beer bellies (so now, to have a gun, a person should have to look good without a shirt on?), or their inability to speak the Queen's English?
ReplyDeleteWhy bring up their age at all? Or their race? If white and middle-aged are disqualifiers, how about men who are young and black? Hmm--that's a problem, since an enormously disproportionate amount of violence committed with guns is committed by young, black men (would it make a difference if they're slender, sexy young black men?).
So who DO you trust with guns?
"What I was thinking of was angry middle-aged white men with beer bellies and when they speak who sound like high-school dropouts"
ReplyDeleteThat's a perfect description of a cop actually.
My not trusting people with guns is a fact, and that goes for cops, young black men and fat angry tea baggers of the white persuasion.
ReplyDeleteI present these feelings as nothing more than that, subjective feelings.