Are you wearing orange this weekends?

@therealjrn

You could wear this

Of course, you would have to seriously upgrade your allegiances toward a superior “state of being”…

Ok, I shouldn’t be making any light comments re this topic. My apologies to all.

I somehow missed knowing that wearing orange was a “thing” re this

@f00l I was being sort of jokey too…it’s a very sad subject…I had never heard about this “wear orange” thing either.

@f00l @therealjrn
A lot of folk didn’t. I heard about it casually and asked a few other people here and there who hadn’t heard either.

@therealjrn Orange seemed like a strange color to me, but I think they’re intending for people to make the connection to hunting gear. By putting a lot of people in orange, it emphasizes how vulnerable we all are with guns haphazardly owned, sold, unsecured etc etc

On a super personal note, my younger sister was able to buy a handgun in Kentucky (where she lived) with no waiting period, license, training, etc etc, and killed herself soon thereafter. Various regulations have been proposed that might have an impact on the very high gun suicide rates in the US, and if you’d have asked me in 2015 (when it happened) about the odds of them becoming law, I’d have said Near Zero. But I do feel like perceptions are changing in the US, and at least mandatory background checks are becoming more likely. Maybe further progress after that, too.

And maybe maybe maybe, just like with gay marriage, dramatic change will happen more suddenly than I expect.

@UncleVinny I’m terribly sorry about you losing your sister. My thoughts and prayers go out to you and your family.

@therealjrn @UncleVinny

That’s beyond heartbreaking.

@therealjrn @UncleVinny
why orange?
Orange is the color that Hadiya Pendleton’s friends wore in her honor when she was shot and killed in Chicago at the age of 15 — just one week after performing at President Obama’s 2nd inaugural parade in 2013. After her death, they asked us to stand up, speak out, and Wear Orange to raise awareness about gun violence.

@Cerridwyn

just one week after performing at President Obama’s 2nd inaugural parade in 2013. After her death, they asked us to stand up, speak out, and Wear Orange to raise awareness about gun violence.

Why are they so late in getting the word out? We’re almost into President Trump’s 2nd term…

@therealjrn
they’re not, they just started small and are growing larger

Everyone’s favorite Bill the hippy is spreading the word with spices and cooking luv, for example, oh and an orange apron

@narfcake
works for me

@narfcake Didn’t they print Making Biscuits on orange at some point?

@Nate311
that is sorta awesomesauce

@Cerridwyn @Nate311

Thank to @ACraigL for the design, and to mediocritee for the offering.
Do I have that right?

Unfortunately, these are no longer up for order? Wish they were.
Know someone who /likes.

Hey, @narfcake? Amy chance of back catalog ordering at mediocritee?

@Cerridwyn @f00l @narfcake @Nate311
Nice to see folks enjoying it IRL. Unfortunately mediocrtitee has no notion of a back catalog so it was a limited offering. I still have the rights to the art though so I may put it for sale elsewhere at some point. I’ll let folks know if/when that happens.

And just an @dave to make him aware there’s interest in previously offered designs.

@thekob shouldn’t one always be in control of ones firearm?

@Nate311 @thekob Gun control is hitting your target.

@thekob

not exactly as inclusive as one would be led to believe by your post

Can you explain that?
Did a brief Google search and couldn’t find any controversy around this group. But, like I said, I didn’t exactly do an exhaustive search.

@Nate311 oh absolutely. Sounds like you should be a fan of the nra in that case, given their education, especially youth education, namely their Eddie eagle program.

@DennisG2014 depends on where you fall on the 2A spectrum I suppose. Their suggestions strike me as reactionary and ineffective.

@thekob Well, I believe I fall squarely in the middle.
I don’t think the 2A should be abolished, don’t think anyone should come and try to take your guns.

I do believe that many/most fervent 2A supporters only focus on the phrase, “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, while conveniently ignoring the very first words of the amendment: “A well regulated militia…”
Never mind what constitutes a ‘militia’, that’s open to debate. But the 2A makes it quite clear, at the very beginning, that the right to keep and bear arms does not mean a free-for-all. It is to be well regulated.

Most sensible folks on the left (and I understand that they’re not all sensible) want just that, for the keeping and bearing of arms to be well regulated.

A common argument among 2A advocates is that cars are just as dangerous as firearms…
It’s a very bad argument because the automotive industry has, for decades, been far more well regulated than firearms.
Loads of strict manufacturing regulations for the sake of safety, and drivers are required to be licensed with their cars registered and insured.
Not only that, but the argument that a gun is “just a tool” - every tool has a specific purpose and function; a car is a tool meant to transport from point A to point B. Can it be used as a weapon? Certainly, but that is not its intended purpose.
What is the intended function and purpose of the tool that is a firearm?
It is to fire a projectile which is meant to cause grievous bodily harm and/or death.
That’s it. Some claim it’s purpose is “defense”. That’s not honest - it achieves that end by doing the only thing it is made to do - kill and/or maim.
They can also be used for sport - I don’t mean hunting, that still falls under killing. They can be used for competitive, non-lethal sport, but that’s entirely separate from the intent of the 2A.

These dudes who think it is their right to carry any and all manner of firearms openly in public - that is not my idea of well regulated.

If it were up to me, my interpretation would be to allow properly vetted and licensed gun owners to keep whatever arsenal they want (within reason - no full auto, no grenade launchers or anything like that), within their home.

You feel the need to defend your family from whatever threats you perceive? I understand that need. You do what you need to, within the law, to safeguard your home.

I have a serious problem with open carry in public.
With all the training they have, we can’t even trust the police to exercise proper discretion as to when lethal force is necessary.
I - we - also have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Some yahoo running around town with a round in the chamber and an itchy trigger finger is a threat to those rights above.

Also - there is an undeniable racial element when it comes to open carry. White guys walk through town with AR-15s slung over their shoulder and, if they are confronted at all, it is with calm and respect.
You put those same rifles on the shoulders of licensed, legally carrying black men, walk them through town and see how calmly and rationally they’re dealt with.

Anyone who wants a license to carry in public should undergo training at least as rigorous and often as the police.
And, I think a licensed gun owner, whether they carry outside the home or not, should be obligated to carry insurance in the case of unjustified harm to another.

Anyway, I could say more but I’m out of time.

I hope you find my points to be rational and reasonable. I’d be happy to discuss further when I have time.

edit: moved a paragraph for clarity.

@DennisG2014 I appreciate the long response (seriously).

Regarding “Well Regulated”, the term actually didn’t mean back then that it needs to have regulations (laws) passed. It actually meant that something should be “in good working order”.

Regarding a firearm as a tool, it’s function is to control an explosion that’s intended to send a projectile as accurately as possible. That’s it. If the point of a firearm is to cause grievous bodily harm and/or death, all my firearms are terrible at their jobs (notwithstanding the two ww2 ones I have…who knows about them, all I know is that I need to keep the mosin nagant and the mauser on opposite ends of the gun safe after they get along so well for 3 or so years, go figure). Different firearms are used for different purposes…even AR15s, (the most popular rifle in the country) can be set up to shoot anything from a soda can to a golf ball to lil ole 22lr to a much larger caliber.

I’d ask what you’d say you believe the intent of the 2A to be.

By the way, if you don’t mind my asking, what state do you live in? You seem to think licensure is required, but in most states, especially those that allow open carry, it’s not. I don’t know of any circumstances where non-white people have been shot for carrying in the open (which of course is when the firearm is holstered, not when it’s out and perceived to be a threat…pointing a gun at someone isn’t really protected by any open carry statutes I’ve seen). I remember a video of a black man with an AR15 on his back during a BLM protest where an officer got shot in Texas…nothing happened to him. The police asked if they could have his firearm so they could secure it for a short time only because there had been an ambush of police officers (which I kinda get). I will say with all your concerns about “a yahoo with an itchy trigger finger running around town with a round in the chamber”, there hasn’t really been any incidents stemming from it, have there? I’m genuinely asking. I’m not a big fan of open carry myself, I’d prefer it though since then I don’t have to worry about a slip of the shirt tail exposing my firearm while I’m carrying concealed and getting me in a whole heap of trouble.

I wouldn’t really compare guns to cars for a multitude of reasons, the two which come first to mind are that driving a car is a privilege that can be revoked, owning a gun is a right. Also, firearm is a lot less complicated than a car.

Forgive me for saying so, but between believing that the 2A indicates firearms should be heavily regulated, to believing that firearm licensure and insurance should be required (thus decreasing the access to this right for those who are unable to due to time and/or cost) I wouldn’t say that you’re in the middle of the gun control debate…I’d say moderate left. Somewhere in the middle is wanting to have background checks on all firearm transactions I’d figure.

@the_kob Ok. Let me see if I can address your points.

You won’t be surprised to learn that I live in MA, which requires completion of a firearms safety course before applying for either an FID (firearms ID) to own and/or an LTC to carry. Applications are submitted to your local chief of police who makes the final decision whether to approve the applications. Each town or city has their own list of qualifications/disqualifications. Felony convictions, involuntary treatment for substance abuse or other mental health issues and several other conditions will disqualify you. A full background check is also performed.

This is the first I’ve heard that ‘well regulated’ means ‘in good working order’ - not sure I believe that, a better rebuttal would be that ‘well regulated’ applies to the militia, not the arms, which I admit is the case, but then we’re back to debating what constitutes a militia.

In any case, the 2A is a very outdated and imperfect document. Not only has it become antiquated, but it was poorly written in the first place. The comma before “shall not be infringed” makes it unclear what it is that shall not be infringed. If it were the right to keep and bear arms, then that comma should not be there.

Anyway, I believe most 2A proponents believe the purpose of the 2A is to guard against a tyrannical government. Back when it was drafted, that was reasonable. Today, if the government wants to oppress you, no firearm will protect you from tanks, fighter jets, drone strikes, etc., etc., etc.

The 2A should really be re-written to fit the times and more clearly state its intent.

There have been many cases of licensed carriers attempting to be a hero and either shooting the wrong person or shooting someone whose threat did not warrant lethal force.

I’m not willing to hunt down the stories right this moment, but I’ll give you a couple from memory and provide the documentation later if necessary.

One case from just a few years ago, was a man trying to stop a car jacking who ended up shooting the owner/driver of the car instead of the car jacker.
More recently, a less-than-stable white man was menacing a black woman because he didn’t like where she parked. Her husband came out of the store to find this man shouting at and threatening his wife and shoved him away, the man stumbled and fell to the ground. From the ground, the old white guy drew his gun and shot the unarmed black man dead, as he was backing away from the gun with his hands raised. There is video and it is clear as day that the black man was defending his wife and after shoving the guy with the gun away from her, he did not advance or pose any further threat.
The local police at first declined to arrest the man with the gun. It was only after the video was released and there was public outcry that they arrested and charged him.

There is a video I have seen of an intentional experiment - a white guy walks down the street, legally carrying a rifle slung over his shoulder.
A police officer pulls over, approaches the white man calmly, they calmly and politely discuss the legality and purpose of his carrying the rifle - IIRC, the man even refuses to provide ID, stating why he is not required to - and the police officer wishes him a pleasant day and leaves.
Next, they sent a black man walking down the same street, legally carrying the same rifle in the same manner.
A police car screeches to a halt, the officer takes cover behind the open door of the cruiser, draws and aims his weapon at the man and orders him onto the ground. The man complies, while calmly stating that he is within his rights and legally carrying. The officer stays where he is, keeps his weapon trained on the man, orders him to remain where he is and not move, while they wait for about 6 more police vehicles to arrive to provide a cordon and back up.
Once they see the woman filming with the cell phone and hear the repeated, calm statements that the man is within his rights, an officer comes over and very gingerly and politely takes the rifle off the still prone man. IIRC, they stand him up, cuff him behind his back, and then proceed to have a calm discussion.
In the end, they gave him back the rifle, explained to him why people would find it very scary to see a man openly carrying a rifle (slung over his shoulder across his back) down the street, explain that they’re just doing their job and send him on his way.

I think the right of U.S. citizens in good standing to keep and bear arms should be preserved. But I also think it should be limited.
As I said, I’m against letting anyone carry in public, concealed or open, unless they are extensively vetted and trained in tactics and discipline.
As 2A folks like to say that it’s the people, not the guns that kill, it’s not the guns I’m afraid of, it’s the people carrying them.

All it takes to turn a good guy with a gun into a bad guy is a few pounds of pressure.
You fire that weapon accidentally, without justification, or at the wrong person - I don’t care how pure your intentions are - you’re now the bad guy and should immediately have your right to keep and/or bear revoked for life.

I don’t want to take anyone’s guns away, I just want them to keep them behind closed doors; same way I feel about religious and sexual practices.
What you do in your own home is your own business.
When you bring it out into the public square, you involve me, and I want nothing to do with it.
Don’t disrupt my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and I won’t disrupt yours.

Sorry if my points are a bit disjointed, I was rushing.

@llangley I’ve got the same issue since it’s the colors of Clemson and Tennessee.

@mehbee
this group here has often tended in the past to have a vocal set of
/image gun nuts

@Cerridwyn @mehbee as history has shown, the best way to bring about positive change is to attack and insult people who have different opinions than you.

@mehbee @thekob
is why trump will be infamous for all eternity

@Cerridwyn @thekob Most rednecks, which used the way you used it is insulting, are Christians not heathens. If you think rednecks are the only ones against gun law changes, you should do more research. Oh, and coming from a “Redneck” state and as a gun owner myself, don’t assume that just because we’re from the South, that means we don’t care about people, especially children. Put away your biases and present facts, you’ll sway more people speaking with respect than ruling them up with insults.

@mehbee @thekob
Old English hǣthen, of Germanic origin; related to Dutch heiden and German Heide ; generally regarded as a specifically Christian use of a Germanic adjective meaning ‘inhabiting open country’, from the base of heath.

@Cerridwyn @thekob Well if that’s how you meant it, you are right.

@Cerridwyn @mehbee @thekob Yeah, I bet you get big giggles by talking about people “farding,” too.