Open carry at Occupy Atlanta protest gets it shut down.

[Atypical Liberal]

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/mayor-ends-occupy-atlanta-when-second-amendment-exercised-with-first

“Scores of Atlanta police officers moved in overnight -- some clad in riot gear, some on horseback, all under orders to clear the park of protesters,” NBC 11Alive.com reports. “The order came from Mayor Kasim Reed, who says the last straw was a man walking around Woodruff Park Tuesday afternoon carrying an assault rifle.”

Here is why open carry at such things is a bad idea. It was an unnecessary escalation, and it provided a convenient excuse to shut down the protest.

Obviously the carrying of the rifle was purely for show (and likely, controversy) as he did not actually use his weapon to defend the protesters right to peaceably assembly, after all.

Edit to add:

Video of the Mayor speaking on the event:

http://downtown.11alive.com/news/news/87786-downtown-armed-man-spurred-decision-end-occupy-atlanta

[xchrom]

1. recommend

[Turbineguy]

2. Teabagger?

[Atypical Liberal]

5. Almost certainly

He had posted on an online forum stating that he did not agree with the message but intended to go to show support for protesting.

If earnest, I applaud his intent. But in reality he helped sabotage that which he professed to be supporting.

[jpak]

32. Yes he was - an unemployed accountant that "didn't support" the Occupy movement

he just showed up to make trouble - and he succeeded

open carry = teh suckage

yup

[rl6214]

52. You don't understand what you read, do you?

or did you even read the link? From the story:

"
Porch told Stouffer he was there, "to support the people that deserve to be in the park. They shouldn't be thrown out for peacefully protesting. They've got a right to be here just like anybody else."



Continue reading on Examiner.com Mayor ends ‘Occupy Atlanta’ when Second Amendment exercised with First - National gun rights | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/mayor-ends-occupy-atlanta-when-second-amendment-exercised-with-first#ixzz1c5x10TZM"

How you go from this to "he just showed up to make trouble" is really quite a stretch but then again, it's you so it's come to be expected from you. I talked about another member here who displays a great amount of intellectual dishonest. I would say that describes you to a T.

[SteveM]

93. Agent provocateur for "progressives." Play to "Puppet on a String"...

Why, what better way to quash a demonstration -- especially if it seems progressive -- than to blame it on someone somewhere who was carrying an AK-47; works every time, just as MSM.

Some strange bedfellows giggling in the corner suites.

[TheCowsCameHome]

3. 5-4-3-2-1

:popcorn:

Some will defend him, some will say it was his right, but it certainly did no good in this case.

Leave the goddamn thing home next time.

[RKP5637]

4. K&R !!! n/t

[YllwFvr]

6. ugh

what a bad idea. I support open carry but that was tossing a lit match onto the haystack.

[wtmusic]

11. Then you don't really support open carry

you support the argument against it.

[MedicalAdmin]

33. Hogwash.

One can support the right to carry without also supporting the idea that in order to support it one must also agree with the wisdom of every occurrence of carrying or of advocating that in order to support CC one must always carry no matter what.

Are you always this rigid in your thinking or did I miss something. Seriously. I would like to know if I understood your position correctly because it seems to me to very radical.

[wtmusic]

54. You're confused.

You're claiming you support the way some people exercise that right, but not others. Aren't you?

[MedicalAdmin]

152. No I'm not claiming that.

What I'm claiming is that not everyone will think it is a good idea given the circumstances. Think of it as a further support of the 1st amendment.

And not everyone will agree with the wisdom of any particular action in every particular circumstance. That doesn't mean they don't think that someone should have a right. No right is absolute. Walk into a cop shop armed and then draw. Is it your right? Is it wise?

I hope that helps.

[YllwFvr]

48. i oc regularly

and have gone to OC "rallies" or meet n greets as we call them. I will give you an example of another OC encounter I disagree with. Man carries an AK47 pistol into a park wearing combat boots, a black ski cap, and camo BDUs. He painted the muzzle of the gun orange. He wandered all over the park before being confronted as he was about to leave.

Was it legal? Up until recently no. The law had been changed a few days before. Plus, not many know the difference between an ak rifle and an ak pistol, which could easily have been a cut down, and very illegal, rifle. I support folks going to starbucks while OCing. I support the black guy who carried the AR15 to the rally.

This I do not support. OC is about going about our daily lives, exercising our rights, and showing the public that we are just normal folks. Walking around with a maybe illegal gun in camo.... IDK what that is. I doubt it has the same goal however.

[wtmusic]

56. You support OC if someone exercises their right in a certain way

but the law has to be clearer than that. Will it include the color of paint used? A legal definition of "normal folks"? This is interesting.

[rbixby]

81. I think the argument is more that

the guy walked around, practicing his right to do that, and then the police used it as an excuse to shut the thing down. You don't really think the guy walks around everywhere with his assault rifle, do you? Sure, you're within your rights to do it, but I have a feeling that the intention of his little stroll through the park was to get the thing shut down.

[KansDem]

7. Wow! I don't remember Tea Party rallies getting shut down because someone was carrying a rifle!

...who says the last straw was a man walking around Woodruff Park Tuesday afternoon carrying an assault rifle.”

Like this?


...or this?


...or this?


I'm...I'm...CONFUSED!!!

[rl6214]

9. Good point

Sounds to me like the mayor just wanted to shut down the protest and saw this as his opportunity.

What does that tell you about the mayor?

[MNBrewer]

17. Exactly. It wasn't a reason, it was an excuse.

These Democratic mayors (and other pols like Dianne Feinstein) are scared shitless by this movement that they can't comprehend, and will stop at nothing to eliminate the threat.

It was clear that the Tea Partiers supported Republicans, so their guns were tolerated. People knew where they were coming from; they fit within the established paradigm of the two parties.

OWS doesn't do that. It supports neither of the two parties that got us into this mess, so the two parties both feel free to squash the movement.

[Atypical Liberal]

75. It tells me that you shouldn't give him an excuse. n/t

[Straw Man]

14. Well, maybe like your second or third photo.

The first one is obviously a prop -- a fake rifle.

[KansDem]

36. I see your point

A fake rifle for a fake rally. Perhaps the KochBros provided them like they did buses and professionally printed signs?

[SteveM]

96. The Right Wing knows how to play most any "liberal" politician, now...

You could have had the AK-47 (or a plastic one with an orange muzzle made by Mattel) float in on a cloud of reefer: Same result.

[Donnachaidh]

20. Did the baggers have an event in Atlanta with guns?

This was probably the one thing Reed could jump on, because there are no *open carry* laws intown. And some dumbass decides to bring one.

:eyes:

Regardless of how you feel about guns -- this was one IGNORANT thing to do in Atlanta.

[Starboard Tack]

Try getting in without one.

[SteveM]

94. The mayor was shutting down a "liberal" demo, not a "conservative" one...

By now we should all be aware that "conservative" stands for strength and bullyism; "liberal" for weakness and cowing. That's the bright-line parameters defined by the Far Right that have now become convention. Throw in an AK-47 (could have been carried by a well-trained Labrador retriever), you have an excuse to shut down a "liberal" demonstration.

Like I said upstream, some strange bedfellows giggling in the corner suite.

[slackmaster]

131. Very astute observation. I think the Atlanta PD was looking for an excuse to shut down Occupy.

:toast:

[yodermon]

8. signal to other teabaggers of the effectiveness of this well-poisoning exercise

expect more of it

[SteveM]

97. Esp. in cities/locales governed by Stimulus/Response "liberal" pols.

[DesMoinesDem]

10. ".It was an unnecessary escalation"

"It was an unnecessary escalation"

Looks to me like the unnecessary escalation came from the police in riot gear, not the man legally carrying a gun.

"Obviously the carrying of the rifle was purely for show (and likely, controversy) as he did not actually use his weapon to defend the protesters right to peaceably assembly, after all."

Since when is using your weapon to defend someone else rights a requirement to exercise your rights? By openly bearing arms he was defending his rights, and that is enough. If nothing comes out of OWS are you going to say the protestors that assembled and spoke freely were obviously doing it purely for show and controversy?

[wtmusic]

18. The purpose of carrying the rifle was intimidation. Intimidation is a crime.

"In most U.S. jurisdictions, the crime (intimidation) remains a misdemeanor unless a deadly weapon is involved or actual violence is committed, in which case it is usually considered a felony."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimidation

One day SCOTUS will come to its senses and declare open carry unconstitutional, in the meantime we have to put up with the cowering fear of the NRA crowd as our policy guide.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

22. Really?

You know why he carried it? You believe that a rifle slung on ones back is intimidating?

The weapon was not used. It was not brandished. It was merely sitting there.

Just because you don't like people having and/or carrying firearms doesn't mean those people have done anything wrong. If you're intimidated by the sight of an inanimate object being displayed in a non-threatening manner, that's your problem.

[wtmusic]

23. Read my post. It doesn't have to be used. nt

[We_Have_A_Problem]

25. Legally, to be considered brandishing or intimidating...

...it must be presented in a specific manner. The mere sight of a legal item cannot be legally considered intimidation.

Thanks for playing. Try a source other than Wikipedia for your legal information next time.

[wtmusic]

27. And you have no idea whether it was or wasn't.

I love playing, especially when I'm kicking your ass.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

38. I read the OP...

And the associated article. The mere fact that the man was not arrested makes it pretty clear he did nothing illegal.

You're not kicking my ass either. What you are doing is making yourself look pretty foolish.

[SteveM]

101. Was he arrested? What was the charge? Still waiting. nt

[beevul]

146. But you do?

much?

[SteveM]

100. Was the man with the gun arrested? We'll wait. nt

[Atypical Liberal]

80. Yes, I know exactly why he carried it.

Go watch the video interview of the man. It's very clear that this was a veiled threat against the government interfering with the rights of the protestors to protest.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

85. Good enough reason right there.

There is nothing wrong with letting government know it should not violate the rights of the people it serves.

[Atypical Liberal]

82. THE CARRIER EXPRESSLY SAID WHY HE WAS CARRYING HIS RIFLE

When the reporter asked him what the gun was for, he said:

"it's a symobol of the the last line of resistance against a government that is going to try and push people out because of their ideals."

There is just no way to interpret that except as a threat against the government.

And when the government DID push the people out because of their ideals, where was our fellow with the gun? Nowhere to be found. He left long before the police evicted the protestors.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

87. Perhaps it was

Do you have a problem with the people reminding government exactly who works for whom?

Being anti-government is not a BAD thing.

[Atypical Liberal]

95. He needlessly co-opted and damaged the Occupy Atlanta effort.

I have no problem with the guy's sentiments. I share them.

But you don't see me toting a rifle to the Occupy Huntsville protests. It would not, and did not, help.

[Oneka]

109. Your interpretation is not the only one

"it's a symobol of the the last line of resistance against a
government that is going to try and push people out because
of their ideals."

"There is just no way to interpret that except as a threat against the government"

This act, of open carry, is protected first amendment speech, nothing more nothing less.

No different than carrying any other sign or placard at a political protest, provided that it's
Legal to OC , which it was in his case.

[Atypical Liberal]

112. OK, then...

You tell me how you would interpret:

"it's a symobol of the the last line of resistance against a
government that is going to try and push people out because
of their ideals."

How exactly does a gun represent such a symbol without representing the means to resist said government by force?

This act, of open carry, is protected first amendment speech, nothing more nothing less.

This is about as legitimate as the claims that all the financial chaos the banksters caused was completely legal. I have no doubt it was all just as legal as their accountants and attorneys could make it.

When you have a man, at a political protest, carrying a gun and claiming it is a symbol of the last line of defense should the government come and try to shut down the protest, the mayor was exactly right. You are on the road to something bad happening.

And the indisputable fact remains: This man harmed the cause of the protest he claimed to be there to protect.

[Oneka]

118. Symbol:

Same as a burning an effigy of a sitting president,which while distasteful
and most likely counter productive , is still protected political speech.
So long as no one is in danger of getting burned by the fire.

[Atypical Liberal]

124. Riiight.

If the guy wanted a SYMBOL of armed resistance against the government he could have carried A SIGN, or a TOY gun.

Instead, he carried an actual firearm capable of not just symbolically doing what he said, but ACTUALLY doing what he said.

The implication was clear as fucking crystal.

And, of course, turned out to be a lie.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

126. Does it bother you...

...to know there are people willing to remind government that it answers to us, not the other way around?

Why does it trouble you so much? If someone is not actively making an effort to cause harm, the presence of a rifle, handgun, whatever, should be no more troubling than the presence of a political sign or t-shirt. It is an inert object - nothing more.

[Atypical Liberal]

132. Doesn't bother me at all.

Does it bother you to know there are people willing to remind government that it answers to us, not the other way around?

Doesn't bother me at all, until they fuck up something good going on, which is precisely what he did.

Why does it trouble you so much? If someone is not actively making an effort to cause harm, the presence of a rifle, handgun, whatever, should be no more troubling than the presence of a political sign or t-shirt. It is an inert object - nothing more.

I'd hardly call his rifle inert. In the end, this guy provided the excuse to shut down something good. Guess his symbol didn't count for much in the end.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

134. He did not fuck it up.

His actions were used as an excuse by the police to do something illegal and break up a protest.

The rightful target for your anger is the police department, not the man who broke no laws and caused no harm.

[Atypical Liberal]

139. He was the precipitant. He provided the excuse.

My anger is at the police department, and our government in general.

This does not mean Mr. AK-47 is blameless. He provided the excuse.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

141. That we can agree on entirely

Yes, his actions provided an easy excuse, but the police department was completely wrong for taking the bait.

[Atypical Liberal]

168. But anyone smart enough to own a gun should have known that bait would be taken.

[PavePusher]

174. Huh?!

If the police (and their controllers) were doing their proper jobs, they would not "take the bait".

[Atypical Liberal]

184. Anyone who is smart enough to own a gun and is up on current events

Anyone who is smart enough to own a gun and is up on current events should know exactly how the job is going to be done and know precisely what bait will be taken.

[PavePusher]

185. So, it's O.K. for the police to violate Civil Rights, simply because people are exercising them?

I have no idea why you seem to be siding with the police on this.

I do hope I'm missing something, but I just don't grok it.

[Atypical Liberal]

186. I never said it was OK for the police to violate civil rights.

So, it's O.K. for the police to violate Civil Rights, simply because people are exercising them? I have no idea why you seem to be siding with the police on this.

I never said it is OK for the police to violate civil rights, nor am I siding with the police.

I am saying that anyone smart enough to own a gun ought to have known what carrying one to a political process would provide an excuse for the police to violate civil rights.

I don't know why you seem to be siding with people who are actively damaging the effort.

[PavePusher]

166. Or perhaps the police waited until he left....

They do so hate to confront legally armed Citizens.

[DesMoinesDem]

28. It was in no way intimidation. If it was he would have been arrested.

And how is the supreme court going to find open carry unconstitutional when the constitution specifically says it is a right that cannot be infringed?

[wtmusic]

31. Blah blah blah.

It wasn't infringed here, but it caused the infringement of everyone else's freedom of speech.

That's intimidation. That's illegal.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

Did it?

Did the carriers actions cause the infringement of speech or did the actions of the police department cause it?

The actual cause was the actions of the cops. What they used as an excuse is not the same thing.

That's like saying a woman who is beaten by her spouse should keep her mouth shut instead of saying things that make him hit her...

[beevul]

147. Thats gonna leave a mark.

Well said.

[SteveM]

102. Checkmate, music. nt

[rl6214]

30. "The purpose of carrying the rifle was intimidation."

BS. Who was he trying to intimidate, the protesters or the cops? He said he was doing it to show solidarity with the protesters so who was he supposed to be intimidating?

[wtmusic]

39. A hypothetical for your 2A Fantasy World.

Give everyone at the protest loaded AKs, perfectly OK by you.

A Tea Party counter-demonstration forms across the street. They are all carrying AKs too.

Do I have to connect the dots any further to get you to understand we're one degree of separation from a bloodbath?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

45. Just because they have them...

...doesn't mean they have to use them.

You're equating the possession of an item with unlawful use of it. The two are not the same thing no matter how much you try to say they are.

[wtmusic]

60. So the bloodbath would be unfortunate, but a necessary evil

inherent with the right to carry...

I sincerely hope when that happens (and it will) a loved one of yours isn't killed. It would change your tune in a heartbeat.

[PavePusher]

66. Dodge. n/t

[We_Have_A_Problem]

74. Not at all..

The right to carry does not mean one has a right to use it without consequences or responsibility.

If you cannot control your impulses and would use a gun simply because you have one, then perhaps you should not have one. You should not make the mistake of thinking we are all that way.

Many people exercise self control or self limiting behavior. Take me for example. I ride motorcycles. It is what I do for fun and for transportation. However, I also know that I LOVE riding at speed. It is as much an addiction for me as drugs may be for another. To that end, I make a point not to own a supersport. Why? Because I am fully aware of the fact that triple digit speeds have no place on public roads. So, since I know I could not resist the temptation to ride at 150+ down I-10, I do not allow myself even the possibility to do so. I would not for one second suggest that others should take the same course of action I have.

Acknowledging that you have the same limitations with a firearm is not wrong. In fact, that would be a very mature course of action. Believing others have the same problem you do and advocating for them to be held to the same restrictions on the other hand, is a very immature behavior. You're no different than the kid who whines and says "I can't do it. Why should they get to?"

[ProgressiveProfessor]

53. Nice strawman and you have already abandon your debunked "its intimidation" meme

[wtmusic]

57. I include the scenario as a bonus, because you can't respond to that either. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

63. Its clearly not intimidation or the police would have intervened

Open carry is legal and is not prima facie intimidation.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

76. Clearly we responded to both

And just as clearly, they were easily dismissed as the ramblings of someone completely uninformed on the issue.

[rl6214]

58. Your hypothetical is just stoopid

First, the OC movement is unloaded guns, just like this guy. And are you that delusional to believe that anyone would start firing even IF they were loaded guns? Talk about day dreaming.

[wtmusic]

62. Until you inform yourself you're wasting my time

"Open carry: The act of publicly carrying a loaded firearm on one's person in plain sight."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry_in_the_United_States

[rl6214]

69. You don't read well

I said the OC movement, not the act of open carrying. The OC movement when done as a protest is almost always done with unloaded guns.

Try again.

[PavePusher]

67. Unloaded only in California.

Most places, long guns may not be carried loaded in public.

It does get confusing at times....

[SteveM]

103. You give us "hypotheticals;" you got this fact: A "liberal" mayor shut down OWS...

for not other reason than an AK-47 was carried, carried by someone who wasn't even arrested.

You have anything else?

[beevul]

149. Are you...

Are you extrapolating from your own inability to control yourself, or simply imagining it on the part of others?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

50. Police did not stop or charge him

It was in fact legal for him to be doing it.

[PavePusher]

65. You're telepathic?

Cool!

What am I thinking... now!?

[SteveM]

99. Perhaps you helped create the atmosphere for this shut-down...

"The purpose of carrying the rifle was intimidation. Intimidation is a crime."

Wrong.

The only crime associated with carrying a firearm, if the exercise is legal as in Georgia, is "brandishment." Did the individual brandish, music? If you felt intimidation, you should have called for the shut-down of OWS yourself.

Perhaps you now see how very paranoid and fear-bound gun-controller/prohibitionists have been; now, you have hoisted the Atlanta demonstration on its own petard with a Mayor who -- voila! -- agrees with you.

"...cowering fear of the NRA crowd."

Your projection is utterly phenomenal -- to the point of being a caricature.

[Atypical Liberal]

79. The gun is in this scenario is an implied threat.

Looks to me like the unnecessary escalation came from the police in riot gear, not the man legally carrying a gun.

The mayor said that the armed man was the straw that broke the camel's back.

Since when is using your weapon to defend someone else rights a requirement to exercise your rights? By openly bearing arms he was defending his rights, and that is enough. If nothing comes out of OWS are you going to say the protestors that assembled and spoke freely were obviously doing it purely for show and controversy?

Porch told Stouffer he was there, "to support the people that deserve to be in the park. They shouldn't be thrown out for peacefully protesting. They've got a right to be here just like anybody else."

So in what way does his rifle "support the people that deserve to be in the park"? It's pretty plain that this was an implied threat. If you watch the video interview of the man it is even plainer that it was an implied threat against the government trying to stop the protesters from protesting.

But in the end, as expected, he did not make good on his threat, which means it was all for show.

[SteveM]

98. He called it "unnecessary escalation," I call it "convenient excuse." nt

[Exultant Democracy]

12. It is only ok if Teabaggers do it. Is this a violation of both the first and second now?

[SteveM]

104. Yeah, and it took a "liberal" mayor to do it. nt

[kayakjohnny]

13. Just find a way to get the guy out of there.

Who ever has to do it. The protesters, the cops. Just get him out, and let the event go on.

[cui bono]

15. I'm sure the NRA will come out strongly and loudly against this action.

As will the gun toting Tea Party participants.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

19. Everyone should.

The man merely exercised his rights.


Pretend he was carrying a koran instead of a gun and you might start to see why what the cops did was wrong.

[wtmusic]

21. Successfully stick up a 7-Eleven with a Koran

and I'll concede that what you just posted was not the most idiotic post I've ever seen on DU. Hands down.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

24. If he stuck up a 7-11 you would have a point.

However, he did not. He merely stood there with an unloaded rifle in a non threatening manner.

[wtmusic]

26. #1 You will go to jail for holding up a store whether the weapon is loaded, or not

#2 You have no idea whether he "merely stood there with an unloaded rifle in a non threatening manner". Do you?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

29. I agree

I would go to jail for holding up a store whether the weapon was loaded or not.

However, in this case, there was no hold-up which took place.

As far as your 2nd question, even the article acknowledges the man had done nothing threatening.

[DesMoinesDem]

34. You will go to jail for holding up a store with a koran, too.

The guy didn't hold up any store. He exercised his constitutionally protected rights.

[wtmusic]

40. LOL you've jumped the shark

and I'm done :hi:

[We_Have_A_Problem]

42. Somehow that comes across as...

...shit, I'm busted and i don't have an argument. Let me go ahead and ridicule someone and high tail it out of here so i don't actually have to defend my absurdity.

[DesMoinesDem]

49. Of course you're done. You have no argument.

I dare you to go into a 7-11, point a Koran at the cashier, and demand all of the money in the register. Let's see if you go to jail.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

51. Before or after...

...the cashier stops laughing?

[DesMoinesDem]

55. Go ahead and try it.

You obviously think they'll just laugh, so go do it. Let's see who is right.

[rl6214]

61. "and I'm done"

Yes you are.

[PavePusher]

83. You were done a while ago.

It just took you way too long to notice.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=kjrmc&cp=10&gs_id=t&xhr=t&q=zombie+pictures&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&site=&source=hp&pbx=1&oq=zombie+pic&aq=0&aqi=g4&aql=f&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=1c82949ca002f577&biw=1280&bih=869

[SteveM]

105. Declaring victory and pulling out? Been done many times, here. nt

[Marengo]

173. You were done from the start, never having had a legitimate argument. N/T

[cui bono]

44. My comment was directed at the probable hypocrisy of the NRA, etc...

I agree what the cops did was wrong. Personally I also believe the person carrying the weapon could have not brought it. No reason to instigate anything in that manner. I know it is that person's right to bring it, I won't argue it isn't. It just wasn't a very smart thing to do.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. I am for more, not less of that

At the very least empty holsters. Remind *everyone* of the power of the 99%.

Other sources said that the person in Atlanta was doing it legally.

I want to recall there was at least one other place where someone open carried, also without incident

Major thread on this recently in GD

[jpak]

35. Yeah - more douchebaggery - less sense

yup

[ProgressiveProfessor]

46. You tend to forget the role that active armed resistance played in the civil rights movement

[jpak]

151. Yeah - MLK, the NAACP and the SCL were toters - NOT

revisionist history fail

yup

[Oneka]

156. how bout this for history.

call it revisionist if you like. of course you would be wrong ,,yet again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for_Defense_and_Justice

[ProgressiveProfessor]

159. Your revisionist history is a fail

Deacons for Defense and Justice were the bodyguards and active defenders of black hamlets for MLK and others so they could wear the mantle of non-violence and yet survive.

Its not all that well known, or particularly politically correct, but in the south it was certainly there. I had family in the Deacons.

[Starboard Tack]

37. 99% of us don't carry guns in public.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

41. So what?

99% of us are not homosexual males either. Does that mean THEIR behavior should be criminalized?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

47. I think the empty holster approach is a good compromise

No "icky" guns, but it is a clear statement.

In many parts of CA, open carry is the only option given the capricious nature of the issuance of CCWs.

[ileus]

72. a good compromise is unloaded carry...or maybe FMJ's only.

[Starboard Tack]

91. Why not carry a sign? Most people would not recognize a gun holster.

We wear all kinds of holsters nowadays. I have several and none are for handguns, though most would accommodate one.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

108. Wearing an empty holster is being used as a demonstration/protest tactic

in several places.

A military style holster is distinctive enough to not be confused for a water bottle or phone holder.

[ileus]

120. That's what they count on...

[Starboard Tack]

129. "They" being?

[one-eyed fat man]

43. It wasn't a reason, it was an excuse.

Open carry is legal in Georgia. It's been settled, in US District Court, with municipalities having been ordered to pay damages, court costs, and attorney fees. Cops were there when he was there. There was no confrontation between them. The cops on the scene determined he was acting lawfully. It was the mayor got his panties in a wad the next day.

But explain this, "as he did not actually use his weapon to defend the protesters right to peaceably assembly, after all."

Did you expect him to open fire on the police?

Just how was that supposed to work out? The mayor sent the cops in the next day to occupy Atlanta. If the truth be told, Sherman did it better.

[ileus]

59. Everyone needs to show back up open carrying now...grabbers use any excuse to shut the people down.

[kestrel91316]

64. What a moran.

ETA: He truly doesn't get the whole concept of peaceful protest and civil disobedience. Packing heat = overt threat of violence.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

78. No it isnt.

Simply having a firearm in your possession is not an overt threat of violence. You may be threatened by it, but that is not the same thing. Your irrational fears do not law make.

[PavePusher]

84. It's only a threat to you if you intend to do violence to him.

Is that your intention?

[Hoyt]

68. I agee 100% that open carrying at such events is a bad idea and unnecessary escalation.

[rl6214]

70. Of course you do

[Hoyt]

90. Of course you believe guns belong everywhere including a peaceful protest.

[rl6214]

115. Nothing wrong with his showing solidarity with the protestors

In other words he disagrees with why they were protesting but supports their ability to do so.

[ileus]

71. Wonder what other rights the mayor is afraid of?

[Hoyt]

73. I think I grew up with some of the Aholes making comments on the examiner link.

This guy sounds exactly like the bigoted gunners that I grew up with: "Mayor Kasim Reed looks like a poster child for the Nation of Islam...........same bow tie, same clothes, same arrogance and disregard for both the state and US Constitutions..........another step closer to Civil War.......Kasim's actions are the reason no one in their right minds should trust the Left anywhere on the planet............"

[ProgressiveProfessor]

77. He has a point about Farakahn...between him and George Will, I only wear them with a tuxedo now

Bow ties? Seriously...

[PavePusher]

86. Hey, don't let others co-opt things.

I think I've said that before... B-)

[Hoyt]

88. If he'd left it at "bow ties," I'd agree. Never could tie them. But don't get caught in gun action.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

106. Bow ties would be very hard to get caught in the action of a firearm

Regular ties could be if you were less than careful

[rl6214]

117. You would need to have a very odd way of holding your gun

to get your tie caught in the gun action.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

122. M-1 style top bolt with a long tie

Don't ask me how I know

[rl6214]

116. You support Farahkan?

Do you have any clue what he is saying about the President?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

123. What about his haberdasher?

[Hoyt]

153. Nope, I'm against some redneck bigot gun lover referring to Atlanta's mayor that way.

[rl6214]

182. And since when did you love atlanta's mayor?

An idiot is an idiot, regardless of what you think.

[oneshooter]

145. I think you did to. n/t

[Hoyt]

154. One reason I suspect people sporting guns -- too many are racist, right wingers out to intimidate.

[Callisto32]

89. Wow, they actually called in the cavalry.

Military tactics on display from the "peace officers" once again.

[PavePusher]

92. Please don't imply that those were "military tactics".

Really bad and highly insulting comparison.

[Callisto32]

111. Why?

What great honor is there in military tactics that I am not giving due?

No, war and the tactics of those that carry it out, are among the most base and disgusting of all human activities.

War is full of brutality, wanton destruction, rape and all manner of horrors. I will ascribe no honor to the tactics that produce such out comes.

By their fruits shall ye know them.

P.S. Using trained horses to break up groups of people on foot = military tactics.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

121. Because they are not

What we saw was police/crowd control tactics used to excess. Did we see a cavalry charge with drawn sabers?

Hyperbole does not help things.

[PavePusher]

176. We're not talking about "honor".

We're talking about legality and rules.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2205142

Better than I can probably explain it.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

107. It they had used military tactics...

[Callisto32]

113. What using warhorses to escalate the level of violence is somehow NOT militaristic?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

119. Was it a calvary charge?

True military tactics would have resulted in a blood bath with few survivors. Not minimizing the police violence which was uncalled for and wrong, but your hyperbole is not helping either.

[Euromutt]

137. Two words: Peterloo Massacre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_Massacre

Conducted with bare sabers, that resulted in (best estimate) 11 killed on site and 400-700 wounded, out of a crowd of 60,000-80,000.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

144. Peterloo was a very interesting incident, but not at all like OWC

But still of great historical interest.

My real point is that the hyperbole over "military tactics" is just that. The warhorse meme is just laughable.

[Euromutt]

164. I should have been more clear: I brought up Peterloo as a contrasting example

I.e. "this is what happens when you use cavalry tactics for crowd control" as opposed to using mounted police for crowd control. Crowd control involves using the horses' mass to push the crowd in the desired direction, ideally gently but firmly; there's really no room for mounted charges in crowd control (as opposed to charges by riot cops on foot, which is largely a question of adding momentum to their shields to achieve much the same effect as the horses).

[SteveM]

110. To fellow Second Amendment supporters:

I note that gun-controllers/prohibitionists have, by and large, not turned out to argue some point about this incident in Atlanta. Perhaps they see the problems, here:

1) The one (1) man with an AK-47 was legally carrying and not brandishing;
2) The demonstration was shut down by a "liberal" mayor because of alleged "escalation" (1 above);
3) The man legally carrying the firearm was NOT arrested;
4) The atmosphere created for above was created by the overwrought fears of gun-controllers; and
5) This mayor (others, perhaps?) was played like a fiddle for these overwrought fears;

Strange, how the gun-controllers have hoisted the OWS by the controllers' own petard, even as they point to someone or something else to blame.

[Atypical Liberal]

114. The main problem here.

The main problem here is that this man sabotaged the Occupy Atlanta protest.

1) The one (1) man with an AK-47 was legally carrying and not brandishing;

And yet by his own admission the gun was there as a symbol of the last resort should the government try and stop the protest. Doesn't this sound just the teensiest confrontational?

2) The demonstration was shut down by a "liberal" mayor because of alleged "escalation" (1 above);

We all know that all governments everywhere are pretty much against these protests. So here's a clue: don't give them a fucking excuse.

3) The man legally carrying the firearm was NOT arrested;

And conveniently he left before the police came in and started arresting people. So much for his claim that he brought the gun as a symbol of the last resort should the government try and stop the protest.

He was all hat and no cattle.

4) The atmosphere created for above was created by the overwrought fears of gun-controllers; and

When you have a man carrying an assault rifle in public, publicly proclaiming that he brought the rifle as a symbol of the last resort should the government try and stop the protest, I think you could say that there are some valid concerns.

Hell, it's entirely possible that this guy, who already said he doesn't agree with the protesters, came simply to act as a disruptor.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

125. It is being cited as a cover for the mayor, but it was clearly already in work

Next time have lots of open carry or at least empty holsters. That strips the fig leaf the mayor used.

[SteveM]

127. Thanks for your post...

1) Yes, a symbol. Confrontational? Hardly.

2) I'm sure "governments everywhere" are against these demonstrations, but you cannot hold demonstrations without someone giving these governments an "excuse." It could be a hundred people lighting up weed; a dozen getting nude; someone holding up a Nazi sign with the predictable results. You cannot avoid this, any more than the punk "transient" at Occupyaustin who threatened someone with a knife, and was arrested without shutting down the demo.

3) Hey, no one is conferring hero status on this guy; a lot of people cut 'n' run in demos. when the cops close in. But you think they don't know who he is if they wanted to arrest him?

4) Of course he could be a provocateur. Why fall for it? Hence my comment that there are strange bedfellows in the corner suite. The "all hat and no cattle" comment could apply equally to the mayor.

Why, why does a mayor so willingly play the fool? Intoxication with his own anti-gun rhetoric? An excuse (bound to appeal to SOMEBODY, somewhere) to shut down the demo? Both?

[Atypical Liberal]

133. Not confrontational?

When a man wears an assault rifle at a public protest, and then publicly declares that the reason he has it is as a symbol for the last form of resistance should the government try and stop the protest, that is pretty confrontational in my book.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

135. His words my have been confrontational

His ACTIONS however, were not.

[Atypical Liberal]

138. You cannot separate one from the other.

His words my have been confrontational His ACTIONS however, were not.

His words were part of his actions. They are inseparable in this context. The reporter asked him specifically about the gun he was in the act of carrying at the moment. His words were his own explanation for his actions.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

140. Really?

One cannot separate words from actions? So when someone in a protest says we should burn it all down, then that person should be treated as an arsonist? The ones who held pictures of Bush with crosshairs over him should be charged with attempted murder?

No my friend, we have to separate words from actions to at least some degree. He said it was done as a symbolic act - not an actual act of violence.

[Katya Mullethov]

150. They bring a knife

We bring a gun

[Oneka]

155. Thus

SYMBOLIC

In both word and deed.

[SteveM]

136. I guess I don't see it that way...

If he was there in public, not brandishing, and talked openly the media about his "symbolism," then I am not threatened, I don't see the confrontation. Frankly, the only thing I see confrontation so far in the OWS rallies is the increasingly aggressive police actions. I realize LEO has to be present, but this is where the confrontation lies, not in a pumped-up "All AK, All the time" confection which too many liberal pols have fallen for. I am not insensitive to the problem of out of kilter symbolism, but that is the risk of assembly and redress. Perhaps a bunch of libs and progs should show up with empty holsters? What do you think?

[Atypical Liberal]

142. He wasn't threatening you.

If he was there in public, not brandishing, and talked openly the media about his "symbolism," then I am not threatened, I don't see the confrontation.

Well, for starters, he wasn't threatening you, he was threatening the government should they try and stop people from protesting.

There is no doubt that the police are being aggressive.

But if you think walking around at a protest with a rifle, publicly proclaiming it as the symbol of the last resistance against government if they try and stop the protest is not confrontational, man, I don't know what else to say.

And then, when push came to shove, and the government DID stop the protests, where was Mr. AK-47 with his symbol?

[Oneka]

157. why is it

that you continue to assume that this mans, SYMBOLIC ACT, should have stopped the police? Symbolic acts are just that,,,, SYMBOLIC, and in this case non threatening, like this one, they carry no real power.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/blogs/122585704.html

[Atypical Liberal]

169. The implication was plain.

He carried a rifle to a political protest, and asked by a reporter why he was carrying a gun, he said:

"It's a symobol of the the last line of resistance against a government that is going to try and push people out because of their ideals."

Maybe if he had been carrying a fake rifle, or a picture of a rifle, the "just a symbol" argument would carry more weight with me.

But it wasn't. This was a real rifle quite capable of doing what he said it was supposed to do.

[Oneka]

177. You are right about the implication being plain.

the implication was as plain as the nose on your face. ONE man carrying what he claimed was a symbol to a political protest
wasn't capable of stopping an entire herd of police, bent on shutting down said protest. Why?? because his gun, strapped across his back,
was a symbol.. not brought to be used as a weapon.

Your argument here is starting to sound eerily familiar.

" Maybe if he had been carrying a fake rifle, or a picture of a rifle, the "just a symbol" argument would carry more weight with me.

But it wasn't. This was a real rifle quite capable of doing what he said it was supposed to do."

Familiar, like that of most of the anti rights advocates that post here,who talk about EVIL GUNS, that have special powers over
otherwise responsible carriers.

You have quoted his words to a reporter in this thread several times. please read the first three words he says ,, then read them again, and ask yourself, did he really bring his gun to do anything but be a symbol?

Then ask yourself, should his actions,exercising his rights, protected by the first amendment, garner support from progressives, or just derision?
Then ask yourself one last question, should we support all rights, for all Americans? or, just some rights for all Americans?

[Atypical Liberal]

183. We will just have to agree to disagree.

and ask yourself, did he really bring his gun to do anything but be a symbol?

It is clear that, as expected, he did not have the nerve to make good on his implied threat.

[PavePusher]

167. If it was so "confrontational"...

why did the police wait until well after he left, to break up the demonstration?

[mistertrickster]

128. Yeah, only Teabags get to carry assault weapons. Everybody knows that. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

130. Liberals have no gun rights

what is scary is that some liberals like it that way

[mistertrickster]

143. Heh, they haven't seen the inside of my gun safes . . . nt

[ileus]

175. They must think I'm a repuke down at the gun shop also.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

180. They probably don't care

The shooting community is not nearly as right wing as some here think

[oneshooter]

148. Damn I didn't know that they could all afford "assault rifles"

With the price of legal M-16's approaching $15,000 each.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=257644155

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[mistertrickster]

158. But there are cheaper knock offs. Century Arms has these AKs

for under 600. http://www.centuryarms.com/

Also they offer .223 caliber M16A1 knock offs for 650.

*****

I prefer old military weapons like the M1 and the Lee-Enfield. I stay away from the "black rifle" stuff, but there's nothing wrong with them . . .

[gejohnston]

160. I always liked the M-1 carbine

but the ARs are easy to field strip.

[mistertrickster]

161. ME TOO. Haven't scored one of those yet.

My dad bought one in the 1960's from the back of an Outdoor Life magazine ad for 25 bucks, but my brother snagged it . . .

Now of course they're like 650 for a beat up one.

[oneshooter]

172. Have you tried the CMP? good prices for inspected original weapons.

http://www.odcmp.com/

[spin]

162. I qualified with both the M16 and the M1 carbine in the Air Force ...

back in the 60s and while it was great fun to shoot the M16 on full auto, I preferred shooting the M1 carbine for score.

[mistertrickster]

163. I think the M1 carbine was basically developed for the Air Force.

Something lightweight to use as a defensive weapon if planes were forced down.

I've been surprised to see, when I watch WW2 footage, of how often you see the marines using them in the Pacific. Not a lot of firepower with that little .30 cal pistol round.

But they're great to shoot . . . not a lot of kick, but you know it's no little old .22 either.

[Euromutt]

165. No, it was developed for truck drivers, radio operators, cooks, etc.

Basically army personnel who really didn't need a full-sized battle rifle, but who, in an emergency, really could use something with a bit more range than a handgun. The M1 carbine became popular for jungle fighting because it was much lighter and handier than an M1903 or a Garand and thus less likely to get caught on vines and all that, even though it lacked power.

[mistertrickster]

170. I knew somebody would give me the full story, heh. Thanks for the info. nt

[gejohnston]

181. They were developed for support army troops

although the Air Force security police (called air police then) used them for guarding planes etc. While the others adopted the M-14, the AF went to M-16 first because Curt LeMay thought it was more useful for the AF's use.

I know a WW2 guy (worked on a LST in the Pacific) was first issued a Thompson, but dumped it for a carbine as soon as he could.

[oneshooter]

171. That was not a "knock off" but the real thing. It was built with the happy switch. n/t

[ileus]

178. I bet if it had been an AR instead of a AK things would have been ok.

[aikoaiko]

179. As long as he wasn't breaking any laws, he was fine.