Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Clayton Cramer reminds us that he really, really doesn't like open carry of longarms.

Long-time readers may recall Clayton's previous allergy to open carry as political expression highlighted in my post here. Well, he still doesn't like it. It scares the kiddies and causes librarians to wet themselves.


Dick's Dad said...

Anyone with a blog identity want to give Breda the heads up on this?

I'm guessing that as a librarian, she probably has some well considered replies to his straw man image of a pants wetting librarian.

Dr.D said...

second link is no good ( forbidden)


Anonymous said...

Mike, the newer link doesn't work, a "you don't have permission to access this page" shows up when the link is clicked.


Sean said...

One of the things that needs to be said here, is that a great many people will NEVER be ok with open carry.Outside of Cramer. They're not bad people, they just don't want to see long guns everywhere they go. I understand the position that there really is nothing wrong with carrying a long gun in public. But it is a matter of perception and attitude. While a wide concensus that open carry is fine is concievable, it isn't now. This has got to be finessed, somehow, and I think time will help. Hell, millions think Obongo is just great now. There is no magic wand to change their minds about open carry, or Obongo. And no law, either.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, I used to think that way but then two things happened.

One, I realized that the people pushing gun control and disarmament as well as bans, were lying.

Two, I realized that those who were telling and repeating the lies, weren't lying due to a mistake of facts, ignorance or disorganized thought processes. They were out to disarm everyone they could and were lying to achieve that result.

I then asked myself why they would do that and the answer smacked me in the face like a 2x4. I was truly staggered by it because I began to realize just how long and organized this process has been and then by whom. AND, I realized that our "government" is helping "them" not "us" or the average American citizen.

There is nothing you can do that will appease these people but surrender everything to them. That is their price for stopping. Mr Cramer is under the delusional fixation that these people can be "bargained" and "compromised" and "educated," when every piece of evidence I have found, indicates they will never stop until they have won because when they do, they will own everyone and everything in a grand socialist utopia, where they will be the leaders and masters.

It is happening before our eyes and there is only one remedy left us.

otterhauser said...

It's typical of long-winded clowns like Cramer to create a problem in order to advance a generally smarmy solution. Bringing shotguns into a library?? Now there is a TRUE national emergency...happens all the time, no doubt. Can hardly check out a book without bumping into someone's reloading press. Concentrate on something of importance next time, Clayton. You might look less silly.

TPaine said...

Open carry is open carry. No "long guns open-carry." Oh, you can wear that hogleg on your hip, but park the shotgun, please. Or maybe, "the shotgun is okay, but you have to put away your AK." Which leads to "no open carry of anything."

I am against open carry for one reason only - I don't want the moron who is looking for a victim to know that I am armed. I do not deliberately go walking through ghettos at night with benjamins hanging out of my pockets, so I'm never looking for trouble. But I don't want Mr. Crack-head to shoot me right away because I'm armed and the first person he wants to eliminate.

Other than that, if open carry is legal, do whatever you want. You want to pack your Mossberg when you go to Wally World, be my guest. It won't bother me...well, maybe at Wally World it long as you're not painting the customers with the barrel in the ammo aisle.

The 2nd Amendment (not the government) gives each of us the right to carry anything, openly or concealed, with no permits needed. Since the government doesn't entirely agree with me on this, I use self good judgment in my travels. Usually, I keep my Abrams vehicle in the garage, and only carry my XD-40 tucked into my waistband.

Anonymous said...

Clayton Cramer filed an amicus brief in the Heller decision. Portraying him as a being wishy-washy on gun rights is disingenious, at best.

Lately, your political instincts seem to be a little skewed. Are you feeling O.K., Mike?


Bad Cyborg said...

The man is really not a friend of RKBA. He talks like he is but when putsch comes to shove he doesn't really want anyone to carry at all - handgun or long gun, openly or otherwise - It's called incrimentalism, ladies and gents and it is just another tactic with the ultimate end of disarming the populace.

CEC:"you can draw and fire a handgun in less than a second if you are under attack"

BZZZZZZZZZZZT!!!!! WRONG ANSWER!! It has been proven experimentally that the AVERAGE is closer to 1.7 seconds. It has also been proven experimentally that, on average, a person can cover 7 yards from a standing start in 1.5 SECONDS! Hence the "kill zone" for a knife is 7 yards. If someone weilding a knife is 7 yards away and you have not ALREADY drawn your sidearm, you are as good as stuck. Me, I don't wait for Jeopardy (as in Ability + Opportunity + Jeopardy AOJ). As soon as someone with A approaches closely enough to have O, I am already drawn (and have actually drawn my sidearm while on duty as a Security Officer - despite the shitload of paperwork involved) and ordering them to put down the weapon. So far no one has been stupid enough to actually come close enough to me so that I was in their kill zone. If someone DID get that close - i.e. complete the triad of A+O+J - I would open fire. Twelve beats six any day of the week and twice on the weekends.

Bad Cyborg X

Mark Matis said...

Just exactly what part of "shall not be infringed" is so difficult to understand?

Stang said...


By your argument, cops should be shot all the time, since they have exposed firearms.

Hint, the 2d Amendment doesn't give anyone jacksquat; it guarantees and protects pre existing rights.

Anonymous said...

He's from Kalifornia!
He moved to Boise, Idaho to work for one of the software companies and started writing his libtard articles for Shotgun News.
I left Boise 17 years ago today to get away from his kind, and now people read his crap like he's an authority on guns. Go the Fuck back to the Bay Area where you belong Kramer!! You are no friend of gun owners or the 2nd Amendment.


pdxr13 said...

Mr. Cramer has a hard time with my "rights". He'd be a lot more comfortable as a "reasonable dictator".

My position on long-gun carry in town is that it is self-enforcing by how much of a PITA it is to carry 12 pounds of FAL everywhere. It does make a person STRONG though.

If carrying a long gun was mandatory for male citizens over 21, betcha we'd all be packing Kel-Tec ultra-light folding plastic with chamber flags in the library. A policeman might approach you and ask if you are carrying the minimum number of rounds with that carbine. Yes, sir: 10 rounds in the magazine (flush/short magazine) and 3 thirty rounders (standard capacity) on my belt.

Folks who lack cash for a long arm (and still wish to be respectable in public) could check out an extra-heavy all-steel BAR from the Police armory lending locker and pull a weapon cleaning shift for the charges. Padded sling extra.

Society would become safe and very polite. Upper body strength of the body politic would be improved. Terrorists would be by-default suicidal.

Packs of feral dogs and wrongly-introduced non-native wolves would remember their fear of man.

Marxists-Islamists who want to kill 800 properly armed Catholics would face high losses and would likely end the planning stage with giving up in favor of heavy drinking (or hash smoking) and griping about "well-armed infidels". see GardenSERF 6 apr2011.

The Portland Oregon bus system is legally considered a "private organization" which does prohibit the carrying of firearms or "other dangerous objects" on busses/trolleys/light rail/platforms/etc. BUT permission is granted to permit holders/law enforcement/etc. as well as people who have (the right person after going past a dozen "no, that's not possible" folks) an authorizing letter. The other option is to carry your rifle in a case and refuse a search (no PC, no search, but they can ask you to leave the bus for no reason and you have to). That doesn't much sound like a right, just like the bus .org is not really private.


RKV said...

Cramer has done more for guns rights than Mike has. Period. He's the guy who shot down Bellesiles you assholes. Maybe he disagrees with you on a point. That does not make him your enemy. F______g pharasees. Holier than thou my RIA.

Justthisguy said...

Ah, Bad Cyborg, I think an empty long arm slung across one's back would take a lot longer than 1.7 seconds to bring into action.

Now that I am effectively de-wheeled in a motorized way, if I want to go anywhere, I have to walk, or take the bus (which doesn't go anywhere near a good place to shoot anything, here) or ride a bicycle, or hire a cab.

I live in Florida, where it is still theoretically legal to carry openly when on the way to a lawful hunting, camping , target-shooting, or fishing venue. I can imagine slinging my (empty) piece over my shoulder and stopping in at the public library to check out the game laws, maybe.

I don't think that would bother a reasonable person.

Justthisguy said...

P.s. Y'all have heard of Political (non) Smoking, right? (holding an empty tobacco pipe in your mouth in a smoking-forbidden area)

Well, there are some people in FL who are doing Political Fishing, that is, going fishing with pistols on their hips.