Friday, August 18, 2017

New York Times Calls For Outright Ban On Open Carry

Because guns are fucking scary man.
This latest bit of panty wetting was caused by someone noticing several people exercising their absolute right to protect themselves during last weeks little tête-à-tête in Charlottesville.

That someone would be a Mr.John Feinblatt, who it says in the fine print at the very bottom of this Op-Ed by the way, is the President of Everytown For Gun Safety.

I'm not linking to the fucking assholes.

This absolute horror and uncivilised practice is, according to this Op-Ed, a " legal loophole" that is prohibited in several states specifically already when done while protesting, especially political protesting, as it is a form of terrorism.

When militia members and white supremacists descended on Charlottesville, Va., last Saturday with Nazi flags and racist placards, many of them also carried firearms openly, including semiautomatic weapons. They came to intimidate and terrify protesters and the police. If you read reports of the physical attacks they abetted, apparently their plan worked.

They might try to rationalize their conduct as protected by the First and Second Amendments, but let’s not be fooled. Those who came to Charlottesville openly carrying firearms were neither conveying a nonviolent political message, nor engaged in self-defense nor protecting hearth and home.

Plain and simple, public terror is not protected under the Constitution. That has been the case throughout history. And now is the time to look to that history and prohibit open carry, before the next Charlottesville.

Historically, lawmakers have deemed open carry a threat to public safety. Under English common law, a group of armed protesters constituted a riot, and some American colonies prohibited public carry specifically because it caused public terror. During Reconstruction, the military governments overseeing much of the South responded to racially motivated terror (including the murder of dozens of freedmen and Republicans at the 1866 Louisiana Constitutional Convention) by prohibiting public carry either generally or at political gatherings and polling places. Later, in 1886, a Supreme Court decision, Presser v. Illinois, upheld a law forbidding groups of men to “parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized.” For states, such a law was “necessary to the public peace, safety and good order.”

Someone grab a mop, there is piss all over the floor now.

Let me point something out here to this cowering socialite scold,

When the violence broke out there due to the coordinated actions of the police and the thugs of ANTIFA,


Whoa Nelly!

What the fuck ya know Poindexter?

Someone actually had some restraint.

I could go on here and rip this stupid fucking cunt a new asshole four or five more times but I am going to let that fact sit right there and speak for its self.

Oh who am I kidding, Fuck You Feinblatt.

Open Carry is very much the law of the land in many states and it should be in all of them.
Limp wristed little pansies like you can even do it.
Better yet, Concealed Carry should be the law of the land, period.

That way those punk ass bitches with ANTIFA would have to think twice about attacking people in the first place.
When everyone can carry for self defense, who is going to say who is and who isn't?
If you decide it's a great idea to go smack someone you oppose politically with a baseball bat then it's going to be like playing the lottery, with your life.

But anti gun little pricks like you don't have to worry about ANTIFA now do ya?
They is your peeps, right? (Cough cough, COMMIE RAT BASTARDS, cough)

Remember this the next time your panties start chafing your tender little bits because you are afraid of guns you asshole,

Now go home and make your wife a fucking sandwich ya fucking pussy.

Fair Use Notice

Fair Use Statement: This site may contain copyrighted material, the use of which may not have been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: “” If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.