Gun advocates want to carry firearms at Arts, Beats and Eats

[Swede]

You never know when a hippie needs to be put down.


A group of pistol-packing gun advocates has come to consecutive City Commission meetings, asking the city to overturn a clause in the city’s agreement with Arts, Beats and Eats that bans firearms from the festival.

More than a half-dozen people, openly carrying guns at the meetings inside City Hall, say the restriction banning firearms from the festival is unlawful. But the festival organizer disagrees, and the city is looking into the issue.

http://www.candgnews.com/Homepage-Articles/2010/07-28-10/Arts-Beats-gun-advocates.asp

[marmar]

1. I'm so sick of these fucking Open Carry people I don't know what to do.....

nt

[AnArmyVeteran]

3. They are sick and twisted. Like demented children.

The calibres of their guns are higher than their IQs.

[pipoman]

5. Fucking civil liberties, where do they fucking end?

[marmar]

7. Apparently where civil stupidity begins.....

nt

[cleanhippie]

61. And judging by your posts, this is that place.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

41. My right to public safety

That is my civil liberty argument against guns.

[X_Digger]

43. So let's hear your argument..

What facts support it?

Is there a place that banned guns and then had a drop in crime? Both DC & Chicago experienced an increase in crime after their respective handgun bans.

Conversely, over the last 20 years, firearms laws have been relaxed, ownership is up, and crime and accidents are down. I wouldn't correlate the two in a causal manner, but it does disprove the 'more guns = more crime / gun death' premise.

[PavePusher]

45. How/where/when were you endangered?

Please be specific.....

[oneshooter]

49. Gee, I don't know how you are in any danger.

My CHL pistol won't reach the UK. Even my long range rifles are a little short of that reach.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[FunkyLeprechaun]

58. My safety is endangered when I visit my home state of Minnesota

You never know who is carrying, a sensible person and/or a nutjob. After all, I've never really understood the need to carry a firearm everywhere.

Way to be patronising, Oneshooter.

[oneshooter]

59. Easy to fix, just stay in the UK, and have no fear. n/t

[cleanhippie]

63. HOW is your safety endangered?

Really! I want to know.

[jazzhound]

66. Too bad for your argument that there is no evidence

to support your irrational, prejudice based fear.

Crime stats for Texas and Florida demonstrate that you are five times less likely to be on the receiving end of a violent assault from a concealed carry permit holder than you are from a member of the general population.

If your knees keep jerking, perhaps your physician can prescribe the appropriate medication.

[rrneck]

67. Let me help.

You never know who is carrying a screwdriver, expandable baton, garrote, plastic bag and duct tape, brass knuckles, blackjack, glass bottle, pencil, cane, skateboard, brickbat, lead pipe, hammer, tire iron, utility knife, exacto knife, kitchen knife, pocket knife, four foot level, nail gun, crowbar, steel toed shoes, carabiner, ice pick, scissors, keys, rock, rolled up magazine, telephone book, gardening claw, collapsible dolly, straight razor, briefcase, purse, gym bag, shiv, backpack, stadium stool, belt, or sock with a rock , a sensible person and/or a nutjob.

There, fixed it for you. No charge.

[FunkyLeprechaun]

78. Most of these things aren't designed to kill

Guns are.

And your point is?

[shadowrider]

79. Just because something isn't designed to kill, doesn't mean it can't

and dead is dead, regardless of weapon used.

[one-eyed fat man]

80. Back many years ago

Sitting through my first class in Combatives at Fort Jackson I learned that dangerous men determine what things are dangerous.

FM3-25-150, Chapter 7

Handheld weapons provide a significant advantage during a fight. For soldiers to be well trained in their use there must be connectivity between the techniques of armed and unarmed fighting. As soldiers progress in their training, bayonet fighting techniques that are taught in initial entry training will merge with the other elements of hand-to-hand fighting to produce a soldier who is capable of operating across the full range of force.

To survive, the soldier in combat must be able to deal with any situation that develops. His ability to adapt any nearby object for use as a weapon in a win-or-die situation is limited only by his ingenuity and resourcefulness. Possible weapons, although not discussed herein, include ink pens or pencils; canteens tied to string to be swung; snap links at the end of sections of rope; kevlar helmets; sand, rocks, or liquids thrown into the enemy's eyes; or radio antennas. The following techniques demonstrate a few expedient weapons that are readily available to most soldiers for defense and counterattack against the bayonet and rifle with fixed bayonet.

Here the manual discusses use of common field expedient weapons like the entrenching tool, and 3 and 6 foot sticks.


The effectiveness of the 3 foot stick should not be underestimated. When we got training with the riot baton in preparation for riot control duties back in the 60s the first thing we were told is NOT to use the baton like a sword, i.e., using the tip to strike and to particularly avoid poking the rioters as shown on the chart.



Having reached an age where I might appear to be a target of opportunity for some young tough, I have taken to carrying a walking stick. White hair and well past 60, no one looks twice, and used advantageously, will kill as quickly as a pistol with less noise.

The Cane as a Weapon is a book by Andrew Chase Cunningham, a US Navy Captain, presenting a concise system of self defense making use of a walking stick or umbrella. It was first published in 1912 in the United States of America. The drills and techniques in this book work. They are an excellent low-impact form of exercise for us "elderly" and a damn sight more useful than 'sweatin' to the oldies.'

Now, you would think that a leprechaun would understand the true nature of a shillelagh

A cane is a weapon, not a crutch, in self-defense

[PavePusher]

84. And this is why I develop a severe limp...

any time I need to fly.... sssshhhhhhhh.......

[rrneck]

81. They can be used to do so.

Who were guns designed to kill?


What was YOUR point?

[cleanhippie]

62. Ok, so define what "public safety" means to you......

and how the legal, lawful carrying of guns affects that.

[SteveM]

71. Not a good argument...

Public safety is not something guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution. That state and local LEOs try to help in that regard is commendable, they are only charged with apprehending suspects, gathering evidence and presenting same to states' attorneys for possible prosecution. You and your neighbors' safety is pretty much in your hands.

Would you feel better if the guns were carried concealed? I rather suspect people do so already, at this event and many others.

[proteus_lives]

6. I'm so sick of those fucking anti-war people I don't know what to do.....

[Odin2005]

13. Yes, those fucking civil liberties, how inconvenient they are!

:eyes:

What is one of the first things an authoritarian regime does to maintain power? Confiscate weapons.

[marmar]

14. So a festival of performing, fine arts and food, whose customers might be put off ......

..... by people walking around with guns on their waists, is really a covert authoritarian plot?

[pipoman]

18. So a festival of Irish linage, whose customers might be put off...

by two men being affectionate, is really a covert authoritarian plot?

[marmar]

19. Repetez en anglais, s'il vous plait?

:wtf:

[TheWraith]

56. Short answer: your rights do not extend to telling others what to do.

You have no more right to tell someone that they're not allowed to carry a gun for protection in a public space than someone is to tell a gay couple they can't kiss. Despite what you think your rights are, it is not infringing on you any more than it is on the fundies.

[Walk away]

53. Folks who are insecure enough to need a gun strapped to themselves while at an arts festival....

might be frightened of art, culture and the "elite". I am sure there are a few "oddball" gun lovers that feel comfortable around both, but not comfortable enough to leave their deadly weapons at home.

[PavePusher]

55. So, you have evidence that crimes don't occur at those events?

We'll wait while you assemble your presentation....

[SteveM]

72. "Insecurity," "frightened," "not comfortable," etc. Sure you are not like this?...

Too many times I have read gun-controller remarks like these which assign these feelings to 2A-advocates. Often, however, those "feelings" are what motivate the gun-controllers, having brought up the subjects in the first place.

[jazzhound]

77. Precisely. Classic case of projection. NT

[cleanhippie]

64. So in order not to be "put off" as you say, we should suspend a constitutional right?

Please explain that to me.

[PavePusher]

44. You could start by dropping the profanity and vitriol...

and bringing some rational talking points to the table, based on facts and data, not feelings and hyperbole.

Just sayin'....

[oneshooter]

50. They have no facts or data, so insults and profanity are all they can give. n/t

[cleanhippie]

60. Get professional help, thats your answer.

[SteveM]

83. Please see #82 below. This may explain the phenomenon.

[msongs]

2. people also have a right to be free from gun users nt

[pipoman]

4. Really? Where is that right enumerated?

[proteus_lives]

8. Really?

How is a peaceful, legal gun-owner threatening you?

[Statistical]

28. You have no such "right".

Please indicate what makes you think you have this "right". Be specific.

[GreenStormCloud]

37. No, they don't have that right.

You seem to have wishes and rights confused.

[PavePusher]

46. Cite, please.... n/t

[SteveM]

73. Okay, let's see what you got. Which document? Law? Anything?

[marmar]

9. Right on cue.......

[pipoman]

11. What the fuck are civil libertarians doing on a liberal foum?

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[X_Digger]

26. Riiiight.. like the OP wasn't..

??

[asdjrocky]

10. Dicks behaving dickish. nt

[elocs]

12. Well, the Gungeon would celebrate the idea.

Their only problem with the Second Amendment is that they resent it wasn't made the First Amendment.

[proteus_lives]

15. Actually.

Maybe they resent the somewhat baffling desire of fellow "liberals" to strip the rights away from their fellow citizens.

People can be odd like that.

[SteveM]

74. Actually, the "Second Place" position may be the most desireable...

After listing such radical stuff as the right to free speech, assembly, redress, religion, the real deal-maker is the RKBA to back it all up. I like the back-up position.

[NBachers]

17. Plenty o' Guns over in Afghanistan

Join up & strut, homies

[pipoman]

21. 'merica...love it or leave it!!1!!1

[Berserker]

22. Plenty o' Guns over in America

strange isn't it. I have lot's of them and I am a liberal.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Berserker]

23. And what is that?

[katandmoon]

30. Intelligence.

[cleanhippie]

68. So we can assume that you too, are packing a pistol then?

Because if what you say is true, then you must have quite a gun collection.

[proteus_lives]

24. Sex canard that would get deleted in the guns forum.

My, my. Look feels braver when there are no rules. Typical.

[katandmoon]

31. ROFL -- Hey, I'm not the one who's so pathetically desperate to display a pistol everywhere I go.

[proteus_lives]

34. Still so willfully ignorant.

It's about the right, not the weapon.

You'd understand that if you cared about your rights or the rights of others.

The discussion has moved now. I doubt we'll be hearing from you again. You have nothing to say.

[katandmoon]

35. No, it's about pathetically insisting on displaying a weapon when (1) you don't have to and

(2) You know it is not welcome.

It is just sheer overkill - in all sense of the word.

But that's what guns are all about.

[rrneck]

36. You're half right.

You have no idea whether anybody will have to or not. You cannot possibly know, therefore you don't know what they may need.

Given the nature of the event, guns probably aren't welcome. It will probably do more harm than good to the open carry cause.

[proteus_lives]

40. Have to?

Not welcome?

What happened to choice in your America?

Gone I suppose, sacrificed for control and the illusions you hold so dear.

"But that's what guns are all about."

Once again you display your lack of knowledge.

[DonP]

52. Like sitting at the lunch counter when 1. You don't have to and

2. You know you're not welcome.

The audacity of some people not to know their place.

Thank heavens they have their "Betters" to help them understand how they should behave.

Do you have relatives in Alabama named Connor?

[cleanhippie]

70. No, its about pathetically insisting on displaying ignorance when (1) you have no rational argument

(2) you know we do have one.

Its just sheer lunacy - in all sense of the word.

But thats what willful ignorance is all about.

[cleanhippie]

69. No, you are not, but then again, we are not the one who is so pathetically desperate to display

ignorance in every post.

[PavePusher]

47. Alerted for slander and inuendo.

Don't be a jerk.

[slackmaster]

51. katandmoon has done an extensive personal survey

:rofl:

[cleanhippie]

65. Oh, please do tell........

[Canuckistanian]

25. America is quickly becoming a land where...

... "if it isn't illegal, it's mandatory"

[Statistical]

27. Mandatory? WHo is requiring anyone to carry a firearm.

I think you mean if it isn't illegal than it is legal.

Isn't that how it is suppose to work?

[PavePusher]

48. Cite to your evidence, please.

No-one is suggesting arming people against their will.

Hyperbole, much?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

29. The pro civil right people are most likely legally correct

[rrneck]

32. Hm. A private event on a public street.

They're charging admission to get in and it will be fenced.

Does public property become de facto private property if it is being used by a non profit?

I'm guessing since the the property is owned by the city, the city can define it any way they want for the duration of the show.

I expect they'll decide to ban guns.

[AtheistCrusader]

39. State pre-emption

They can only try and license it as something that the state prohibits firearms to, or suck it up.

[Euromutt]

33. It's an interesting question what the legal status of the terrain is

I'm not unsympathetic to the organizers' point that, since they've leased the terrain, it's fenced off, and they're charging an entrance fee, that that makes it private property for the duration of the festival. And if we were talking about something like, say, the county fairgrounds, I'd say fair enough (no pun intended).

But the terrain in question isn't the county fairgrounds; it's a bunch of streets in downtown Royal Oak, MI, i.e. public thoroughfares. And I'm wondering whether the city government even has the authority to rent out the public thoroughfare to a private organization, thereby rendering it inaccessible except upon payment of the entrance fee, and suspending at least some civil liberties that apply on public property for the duration. I'm actually bridling more at the idea that you could be charged $3 merely to walk on a street that is maintained with your sales and property taxes than I am at the idea that you wouldn't be permitted to carry a firearm there.

I also find it a very scary notion indeed that a government could theoretically circumvent citizens' constitutional and statutory rights by renting out public property to a private entity and declaring that property to be "temporarily" private.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. Michigan has State Pre-Emption of firearms laws.

Cities can regulate only the DISCHARGE of firearms.

They can get in, unless the whole thing is licensed as one giant beer garden or something.

[Euromutt]

76. Well, that's kind of the question

See, I'm thinking of a case a couple of months ago in which Twin Cities Pride came into conflict with Minneapolis Parks & Rec. TCP had leased the use of a city park to hold a two-day Gay Pride event, and this year, MPRB told them they had to let some fundie homophobe preacher named Brian Johnson into the park during the Pride event and allow him (and his family) to distribute leaflets and display signs with the message that homosexuality is sinful and should be condemned, not accepted. Twin Cities Pride pointed out, not unreasonably in my opinion, that since they were paying MPRB $36,000 for the lease of park (not to mention being required to spend several more thousands of dollars for insurance, security, and cleanup afterwards), they didn't really see why they should have to abide by the obligation held by the city to respect Johnson's freedom of expression, particularly since the message Johnson wanted to convey was antithetical to the spirit of the event.

And frankly, I agree: when you're shelling out $18K a day just to be able to use the property, you should be accorded a veto over what happens on the property while you're leasing it. If MPRB had been granting MCP the use of the park for free (and just requiring them to pay for security, insurance, cleanup, repair of any damage incurred and the like), then I'd say the city could reasonably require TCP to respect the city's rules.

But there are, of course, certain differences between Twin Cities Pride on the one hand and Arts, Eats & Beats on the other. The first and foremost is that carrying a firearm for self-defense is not conveying a message that is diametrically opposed to the purpose of the event. If this was about a bunch of people demanding access to the festival so that they could parade around with signs and hand out leaflets asserting that fine art, good food and funky music were all of the Devil and should be outlawed, then we'd have an analogous situation. I'm also inclined to say there's a difference between an event in a city park (TCP), and one that occupies several downtown streets (AE&B).

[onehandle]

42. What a tightly packed street fair needs are guns being brushed against your kid's scalp.

'Perfectly normal.'

[Euromutt]

57. So the police should stay away, then?

Sounds reasonable. After all, if it's private property for duration, security should be the responsibility of the organizers, not the taxpayers of Royal Oak.

[SteveM]

75. What a tightly-packed mind needs: the belief a law will stop that. nt

[Remmah2]

54. My wife is an artist.

Many of the outside festivals and shows are drunkfests with some of the guests becoming unmanagable. A fight broke out near her tent one year. It took the cops near 30 minutes to respond. Inventory losses could have been $3K to $4K. The events are advertised as "family friendly" with no alcohol or pets allowed. If it's in a plastic cup, nobody cares (NOT POLICE ENFORCED). Many people put rum or vodka in their Pepsi or lemonade. It has the potential to be anarchy.

At the end of the day when the show closes security goes home and we're packing up our tent and product as the drunks mill around trying to impress themselves. Artist have had product stolen as well as had their cash boxes stolen. It's every man-woman-child for themselves.

Some artist or artist significant other regularly pack at these shows and I'm glad they do.

When the police can not provide protection for yourself or your loved ones it is your responsibility.

[SteveM]

82. You are seeing the complete blow-out victory in a culture war...

Could you imagine folks pushing for open-carry at a festival 40 years ago? Concealed-carry being pushed in all states? Concealed-carry on college campuses, and any number of other proposals? I couldn't then, but I can now. Why? Because the modern gun-control/prohibition "movement," begun some 40 years ago, was essentially a hateful culture war which by design set out to smear, denigrate, shame and ridicule gun-owners. Read up on the way the gun-control lobby (and an enthusiastic MSM) did this in the works of Kates & Kleck. Pure culture war. Pure.

Now that the so-called gun control/prohibitionist "movement" has made mince meat of many Democrats, and cost (by Bill Clinton's estimation) Al Gore the presidency, and now that the movement is merely a paper-shell office kept on life-support by a MSM (which is in critical condition itself), the "forces" supporting the Second Amendment have burst through the lines and are having their way. Which is why the U.S. went from a few states with concealed-carry laws in the 1970s to over 40 with such laws now; which is why local anti-2A ordinances and laws have been and are being attacked; which is why there is a movement to make firearms (either concealed or openly-carried) a presence in almost all walks of life in this country. Frankly, I don't particularly like seeing some folks carrying guns around; but that is a style thing (after all, if the gun was concealed, I wouldn't have much to base my fears and prejudices on, right?). But you will continue to see a wide-spread consolidation of victories, and forays into other areas.

This is the danger of basing social policy on prohibition and culture war: if you lose, you lose OUTRIGHT. And Democrats have never been very good at culture war.