Huh, Lookit What Was Strapped To This Guy's Leg At The Gun Control Rally Yesterday


It's there for protection.
No big deal, for the most part open carry is legal here. I agree that this guy selected a crappy holster. Still any holster that covers the trigger is better than a pocket or waist band.
Rally round tha family! With a pocket full of shells.
If you had been pointing a gun rather than a camera at him, he would not be dead, because he also had a gun.
It's there for projection.
There were a bunch of 'em. They had a banner and everything. At the rally by the mural, they staked out positions across the whole place and were making weird nods and hand signals at each other. Kooks.
@4 are you high?
You mean it didn't shoot anyone? I thought guns were evil and dangerous!
I personally think that guys who feel compelled go wear a gun must have the saddest, saddest micro-penises
Funny. I didn't hear about any shootings...
How many children were killed this time?
There were several "open carry" people at the rally. Standing around making a statement or something. My favorite was the guy with the Guy Faukes mask and the sign that looked like a traffic warning sign with a figure of a woman tripping over a handgun and a caption that said "bitches be trippin'" He was really special.
of course they were there filming and exercising their rights right up in the faces of those constitution-hating libtards and their children. opposition research. today they're down in their mom's basements editing down to that perfect james o'keefian video that they'll put up in the RW media.

@10: what a hilarious child-massacre joke.
Yeah, this particular one was walking around before the speeches trolling for people in the crowd he could blather with about it. He'd just walk around until somebody took the bait and then blah blah blah. Thankfully nobody gave him the angry shouty response he was fishing for.
None of the news reports have mentioned these counter demonstrators until now. They just got added to the head count for the size of the march. Saps.
There were some kooks, for sure. My favorite quote was, "Guns don't kill people, Have you ever seen a gun jump up and shoot someone?"
Seriously. Idiocy 3-D!
Gun owners for gun control! Let's assume the mandate for reasonable legislation just got the backing of the NRA.
@12, one of them was this short, demented-looking fellow who kept scrunching his face up. He interviewed one of the members of my group on video for his blog, but the only question he wanted to ask was the meme of the month, "can you define what an assault weapon is?", which they use to congratulate themselves on how ignorant of the finer points of gun design and manufacture we are -- gotcha!

The weird thing was, the whole time he was videoing my friend, he was playing with his knife -- he had a small pocketknife clipped to his pocket, and he was caressing it, taking it out of his pocket, moving the clip, just sort of stroking it. He also looked like he was going to pass out from fear, and self-admiration of his own spectacular bravery for entering the lion's den and talking to a person of color -- oh my!

I'll bet the discussion on his blog is fascinating.

Just a bunch of hillbillies comin' down to the big city for a fun afternoon of paranoia and sight-seeing. The fat guy in the black shirt was a little disturbing.
@10, it will always be too soon for jokes about the kids shot at Sandy Hook. Kids are killed with guns everyday in America. You've really illustrated the concern for human life from the other side of the debate on responsible gun ownership. Profits for manufacturers and Walmart are obviously a lot more important to you and the people who pay you to astroturf here.
@18, so were you able to come up with a good definition?
@4 = nicely done.
That sure looks easy to steal.
Since it's a desert tan FN in left-handed, level 3 retention, thigh holster, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that's Eric Miller (jsanchez on, who just won an $8000 settlement from the city of Seattle for the SPD's reaction to him walking around a park with his wife just like that:…

As for your question about "did anyone notice" - most people don't notice even if you've had it on you the entire time you've been hanging out with them. Most people who notice and express surprise comment along the lines of "wait, is that a gun? How long have you had that on you? I didn't even notice!" I'm not even sure if mine was noticed when I was doing phone banks for Approve R74. If it was, nobody brought it up, and it really shouldn't matter either way.

I've seen a few other open carriers in Redmond, Sammamish, Bellevue, etc. They just go about their business normally and it's not a big deal, but I'm not really bothered by people exercising their rights (provided that exercise isn't in the attempt to suppress the rights of another - I get frustrated, though understand it's their right, when I saw "reject 74" signs or "ban guns" signs or anything from Westboro Baptist).

The point? I don't really have one, but I don't find this behavior shocking nor aberrant nor abhorrent. It's a guy peacefully exercising his rights in a way that makes some people uncomfortable, but their lack of comfort shouldn't be blamed on him.
@20, who gives a shit? I can come up with one that's plenty good. Far better men and women than me have already spent countless hours figuring out the flaws in the 1994 definition and correcting for the gun industry's efforts to get around it.

Have a look at (California's definition) and… (the Lautenberg/Corzine definition that's been reintroduced ever since it was first submitted in 2003).

I have no interest in taking away your hunting rifle, unless you think you need an AR-15 to hunt with.

I think it's hilarious that gun nuts think that this discussion exists in a vacuum with no history, and that we must always start from scratch with no information on either side. We know what you're up to. We know what your arguments are and why you make them.
Yes, I saw him and others, but it wasn't a big deal, and they weren't all that visible from the stage at Seattle Center (I was up there with my sponsor group) and they weren't disruptive. We kept a look out for the yellow hat just in case.

For me, the point isn't really open carry, it's licensing and training and registration and background checks and no guns while intoxicated, things like that. For now, the more low hanging fruit are war weapons - should they be allowed to buy bazookas and shoulder launched missiles and hand grenades?

Yes, we should be able to properly define the war weapons, close the purchasing loopholes, minimize magazine size, and track large scale ammo purchases, as a start - we can move into handgun issues farther down the road, since that is where there will be the most resistance.
They don't need guns to fight tyranny; they are the tyrants.

No kidding. Why worry? I lose more sleep trying to define the difference between truck and a car. Or how you tell a station wagon from an SUV. Or a quesadilla from a taco. Madness.

There are currently nine states with restrictions on assault weapons, and the world hasn't ground to a halt because of the supposedly flawed definition. And the whole country had an assault weapons ban for 10 years. Democracy survived, and the nation stumbled on, somehow, flawed definition and all.

And now 51% want to ban semi-automatic handguns. That's right, handguns. And 65% support banning large capacity clips (Oh God the poll said clips! Aiiiiiieee!), and 58% support the assault weapons ban.

This "you can't define assault weapon" argument is a loser. They need to think up something better.
The man shown in the photograph is clearly making up for his small package. (and by package, I mean penis.)
Must be it, @28. Only reason anyone ever exercises a constitutional right in a visible manner, such as carrying signs and holding a public event...

Just like the First Amendment protects the right to shout, "My penis, it is small!"

Everyone has the right to shout it, but only some of us need to.
@24, well I think if you're going to ban something, you should understand why you're banning it. And have a reason.

An AR-15 is a rifle. Can you explain why people shouldn't hunt with it?

What does hunting have to do with the Second Amendment?

And why can't you go hunting with the functionally identical but cosmetically different rifle that you keep saying the assault weapons ban doesn't touch? Are you trying to scare the animals?

It makes no logical sense why you would care bout the assault weapons ban unless you believed, as the Army does, the banned weapons are more effective. More deadly. Hence the ban.

And why hasn't the sun set on freedom in the 9 states that ban or limit assault weapons in some way? Has any terrible thing happened in those 9 states? Or during the 10 years we had the assault weapons ban nation wide?

I've seen your rhetoric and immature engagement before; you're not worth my time. That post just further reinforces what I already have found through examination of previous evidence on record.

Sheesh, your posts make me feel like I'm talking to a Christian who claims abortion is murder and evolution is a deception of the devil
@32, the Army uses a selective fire/full automatic version of the AR-15. It's not the semi-automatic hunting rifle they sell in sporting goods stores for civilians.

Did you really think they were the same thing?

"It makes no logical sense why you would care about the assault weapons ban unless you thought they were more deadly."

If I thought they were more deadly, I might support the ban. I don't see why they're more deadly. So the whole idea strikes me as stupid and misguided as banning video games. Do you think they're more deadly? I'd love to hear why.
Seriously, I'm gonna touch all the guns at the next rally. Run right up, touch 'em and yell "BANG YOU'RE DEAD!"

Of course semi-automatic rifles are necessary for hunting, for when that first shot doesn't get there (after all, it doesn't have the accuracy of a bolt action), and your target stands perfectly still while you fire off another round at them without having to manually cycle the weapon yourself.

No but really, semi-automatic rifles are necessary to protect your home from the jack-booted government thugs. You know, those guys with the fully-automatic guns, better logistics, teams, and drones (cause that sort of resistance worked so well for bin Laden). Or in the wind-torn afterscape, to fend of the roving rape bandits who won't think to pack any firearms.

But really, it's so your kid or neighbor can steal your gun and kill a bunch of people, perhaps including yourself.
Dumbest comment goes to #4 above, who apparently doesn't realize that a holstered handgun does not make one immune to bullets fired at you from behind.
Someone could walk up behind this asshole and grab that gun right out of his holster before he knew what happened. Then him or others get shot.
Real men conceal carry.
Knee holsters are the stupidest thing I have ever seen. It puts the gun directly in reach of the smallest children. Not to mention: no style at all with that thing clunking and wobbling around your knee with every step.

Also seems like poor access to something you think you may need in a heartbeat, especially for a right handed shooter.

@38: Dude, you should stop to recognize irony/a joke before you call someone dumb. Because nothing makes you look dumb like a huge whoooooosh.

Feeling bad? Maybe you need a bigger gun.
As a Canadian, who recently visited a state in America in which a lot of people were carrying guns, I felt extremely uncomfortable being around so many people who were ready to kill another person at any given second. It was really unnerving.
What a moron, wearing a shitty holster like that. Do you know easy it would be to disarm him and grab that gun in a fight? There's a reason cops use what's called level III holsters, there are 3 things that have to be done to dislodge the gun from the holster. Even for casual carry I have a level II holster. Idiots like that give the rest of gun owners a bad (worse) name.
@34 well are muskets less deadly than bolt-action? they surely are. You're ignoring (or rather conviently denying) the capacity and speed that semi-automatics/automatics afford would-be murderers.
Isn't one of the provisions of having a CONCEALED carry licence actually concealing your weapon while you're carrying it, or are we just doing whatever we please out of fear?
@45, I'm not arguing that semi-automatic rifles are more dangerous than muzzle-loading muskets.

I'm trying to understand why fnarf and Cthulhu think that some semi-automatic rifles are more dangerous than other semi-automatic rifles.

Fully-automatic rifles don't enter into the equation.
@44: That is at least a level 2 retention holster. I think his other one is level 3.

@46: He's open carrying. You don't need a concealed carry license when you open carry (unless loaded in a vehicle, or in a certain class of building - see RCW 9.41.300). There's nothing that says having a concealed carry license means you must conceal, any more than having a driver's license means you may not bicycle anywhere.
This is about as newsworthy as a 17-year-old driving with a license.

It might scare some people, but it's legal nonetheless. Except, this guy has a constitutional right to have a gun and there is no right-to-drive part of the Bill of Rights. So it's actually even less newsworthy. Those who fear the very sight of a gun (which is safely and legally being carried, even) will never be able to effectively argue with people who oppose any and all legislation of them.
I don't have a problem guns or those of us who carry, concealed or otherwise.
BUT, there is something of the energy of the flasher in this kind of thing.
"It's the look in your eyes when you realize my gun is showing."

Also, the self-conscious military wannabe wankage of the carelessly slung thigh holster. "You guys! Look at how inured I am of this thing! I can't even be bothered to adjust it so it rides right! You guys!"

The pistol-packing samurai from Yojimbo comes to mind.
Fuck that fuckin' guy. What a clown. Might as well wear a Stormfront shirt to Temple. Douchebag.
Seeing that gun must make the children feel so very safe.
Clearly a toy gun.
@34: You said, "The Army uses a selective fire/full automatic version of the AR-15. It's not the semi-automatic hunting rifle they sell in sporting goods stores for civilians. Did you really think they were the same thing?"

The civilian AR-15 functions EXACTLY like the military M-16 does in "select fire" semi-automatic mode.

In both, the rifle fires one bullet for each trigger pull.

The AR-15 will fire AS fast as you can pull the trigger. As an assault rifle, it it has a high "cyclic rate of fire". It will fire about 800 rounds per minute. Semiautomatic pistols and hunting rifles have a lower cyclic rate of fire and shoot far fewer rounds per minute.

This video shows how fast. Mind you, this is a legal, semi-auto AR-15. One bullet per trigger pull. Who needs full automatic fire?…

They both fire a round that is more likely to kill you, because it is the product of extensive research into creating a bullet designed to inflict maximum injury.…

"It is derived from, but not identical to, the .223 Remington cartridge (used by the AR-15). When the bullet impacts at high velocity and yaws[3] in tissue, fragmentation creates a rapid transfer of energy which can result in dramatic wounding effects.[4][5][6]"

These typically are not used for hunting, if for no other reason than that they cause too much damage to the game animal being hunted.

I wonder how many people are aware that the Second Amendment was all about keeping slavery alive and well.
How 'bout those clowns who open-carried a couple of semiauto rifles down the street here in Portland? Yeah, nice going, guys. Way to make yourselves look like you care more about you and your gun than the safety and well-being of your community.