This is what happens when politicians only hear from gun fearing snivelers

24 Oct
This is what happens when politicians only hear from gun fearing snivelers

Since the state of Kansas does not have preemption with regards to firearm laws, any town or city can pass their own infringements on the Second Amendment leaving the state a nightmare to try and traverse.

Recently though, the Attorney General of Kansas,  wrote an opinion stating: ““A city may not completely prohibit the open carry of a loaded firearm on one’s person.”

That served as a wake up call to places like Wichita and Overland Park to hop on the trolley and retract their unconstitutional ban on open carrying.  Overland Park just recently enacted the legalization of open carrying a few weeks ago.
Even though the streets did not run red with blood and there WERE NOT daily shoot outs like the fictionalized old west, don’t tell that to gun haters.  They have been out in full force to decry the attack on their sensibilities in seeing a law abiding citizen with a pistol on their hip.
To quote Jim Hix, City Council Member, directly, “The public has not been pleased.”
I strongly doubt “the public” has not been pleased but rather a group of whiny gun hating servile government sycophants have been vocal about their irrational fear.  As such, since they are the only voice being heard the city council of Overland Park is now reconsidering the Open Carrying law that they passed some few scant weeks ago.
What do they want to change?  They want to force open carriers to pay the state in order to practice their 2nd Amendment rights, ie get a concealed weapons permit in order to open carry.
What the city council wimps don’t realize is that those infringements won’t placate the few people who are pedaling their irrationality.  Just listen to some of the “concerns” these gun haters have:

Laveriss Steadham of Overland Park thinks the city made a mistake to allow open carry of weapons in the first place and wishes that residents had been given a chance to vote on the idea.

“I would love to see some restrictions,” she said of the proposed changes.

She says she wants restrictions, but what does that mean?  It means she wants guns to go away because the only way to restrict open carry to remove the main issue that gun haters have with open carry is to outlaw open carry.

Another resident of the city, Florence Erickson, said the open carry law, with or without the proposed restrictions, is “ludicrous” in the way it could make guns more commonplace. She and her husband, Gary Erickson, worry older people carrying weapons may have “a mental lapse” or that they may fall victims to young people wanting to steal a weapon.

The keeping and bearing of arms is “ludicrous” to Mrs. Erickson.  Not only does she allow her gun hating side to beam through she backs it up with basic gun control fear mongering and ageist bigotry saying that old people  are helpless and frail and fall victim to young criminals.

Well, to that I say this and this and this. (links to old people being awesome)

Then you have Paul Lyons who initially voted against the change and wanted to keep the ban on open carry in place.  He is of the ilk that states that someones feelings trump another’s constitutional rights:

“People who would see that would be concerned and might be somewhat intimidated by a person doing that,”

I know old Jewish people in Squirrel Hill Pennsylvania that are intimidated by black people.  Should we ban black people from that part of Pittsburgh?  Your feelings are your own and you have a right to them, but they do not trump my Constitutionally enumerated rights and for the council to even consider the revocation of a law they just passed because of baseless and irrational fear of ninnies is just pathetic.

Lyons would go on to say that there’s no reason for a person to need to openly carry in Overland Park.  I guess the Constitution doesn’t hold much pull with Councilman Lyons.

Lyons is quoted as saying this though, since the Government trumps the Constitution and knows better:

“It certainly is not for self-protection because if they wanted it for protection, they would have the option of obtaining a concealed permit.”

So, instead of an inalienable right that we are born with, Councilman Lyons believes that the Second Amendment is not a right but rather a privilege that can be given or rejected at the governments whim.

This is what happens when there is a sound vacuum and only one voice is being heard.  Weak willed politicians go with whatever the way the wind blows.

If you live in Kansas, especially if you live in Wichita or Overland Park, I suggest that you contact your local government and decry the outrage at their consideration of infringing on your right to keep and bear arms openly.  Overland Park will move on the matter next month so you do not have much time.


Here is the contact list for every city council member of Overland Park:  Contact info Overland Park

Here is the feedback form for the Wichita City Council:  City Council Feedback Form

Let your voices be heard


Posted by on October 24, 2012 in Uncategorized


14 responses to “This is what happens when politicians only hear from gun fearing snivelers

  1. MarkC

    October 24, 2012 at 11:07 am

    I’m a US Navy Veteran. Disabled Veteran. Endowment Life Member NRA. I’m as pro-gun and pro-CCW as you’ll find anywhere. I have far more guns than I need and I love being able to say that. But to tell you the truth I don’t like open carry at all. CCW does the job of giving every qualified American the ability to protect themselves. And it keeps criminals wondering if you are carrying. Deterrence. That’s what it is. Open carry has a lot of bad points to it. The first one is that it is an intimidating thing to see. You wonder if the guy with the gun is a detective or something. Of course nearly all detectives carry concealed. Then you think OK, the guy is doing open carry. But why? Just to intimidate and piss people off that are anti-gun? We don’t need to piss off anti-gunners. We need to sway them over to our side. The second big problem with this open carry is just how capable of retaining that weapon is the carrier? I know the cops use Level 3 SERPA Auto Lock Duty Holsters that keep people from just yanking the weapon out and using it on them. How many of these guys out here practicing Open Carry spend the money to have one of those holsters? Probably very few. We need to carry our weapon CCW. We need to convince anti-gunners that guns are cool. We could do that by just getting them to a range and letting them pop off a few rounds. Most of them would probably buy a gun that day. But doing open carry in a highly populated area like Overland Park is just poking the bear. Just asking for controversy and more gun haters. I’m going to carry CCW and I’ll be able to protect myself just as well as the Open Carry guy. It’s just that I won’t be pissing off and scaring the crap out of potential gun lovers. Or having to try to get my weapon back when someone yanks it out of the holster.

    • Tony Oliva

      October 24, 2012 at 11:16 am

      If a person must compromise the manner in which they exercise a right in order not to offend another’s irrational paranoia then it really wasn’t a right to begin with. If you prefer concealed carry that’s nice. But your preference shouldn’t override mine. And on top of it all…in most states you can open carry because it is a right. In all but 4 states you must ask the government for permission to carry concealed.

    • Bryan

      October 24, 2012 at 12:34 pm

      I may not always care for the type of person where I live that carries openly, but any restrictions placed on our rights widen the gap allowing more and more ludicrous laws to be put into motion.

      Now, I personally use a SERPA retention holster when I carry my 1911 openly, and just about everyone I know that carries openly does so as well. The flood of ‘tactical’ shooting enthusiasts has reduced the formerly prohibitive cost of a good retention holster from the price of a cheap handgun down to the same level as a couple boxes of good defense ammunition–something most gun store owners around here point out. Yes, I have a piss poor Uncle Mikes soft holster for IWB carry as well; but I prefer to have a solid lock on my sidearm, as do most of the shooters in my area. Even the cheapest shooter here has a thumb break retention holster.

      This may be different in densely populated cities, since the local area is mostly populated by those who spend time outdoors and are familiar with the issues that arise from being on an ATV or trail with no retention on their firearm.

      Price as of last week for both a good Blackhawk holster and a drop-leg base was about $90 total; $45 for the holster and $45 for the base. Good friend of mine picked them up to go with his new handgun.

      • Tony Oliva

        October 24, 2012 at 12:43 pm

        Absolutely reasonable Bryan. I’m not going around saying that people HAVE to open carry, but as you said, when you start placing restrictions on such things and determining what people “need” to do then it opens up the floodgates.

        And a good holster is a very good idea. I live in Pittsburgh and it is still populated enough to be considered a city. When I started to open carry there was some grumblings, had the cops called a few times, but after a while, people became acclimated to the idea that other people may carry a firearm and when the streets don’t run red with blood (like gun control zealots prognosticate they will) people understand that they have little to fear from the law abiding open carrier.

        Now, unlike Mark, I don’t think we should sacrifice our rights to accomadate that fear, because personally if we keep guns out of sight then the gun control crowd can keep spinning stories of how guns are dangerous. If a gun neophyte never see anyone with a gun then they buy into the fact that only bad people have guns.

        We need to get it out there, not to (as Mark suggested) to intimidate or piss people off, but rather to show them that we are their neighbors, friends, and law abiding citizens and the evil mystique that the gun control crowd has lowered on guns is a scam.

        But you’re absolutely right Bryan, a good retention holster is a good idea and have become much more affordable.

  2. Steven Ortiz

    October 24, 2012 at 11:30 am

    The RIGHT of the people to keep AND BEAR arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Need it spelled out to you? ^^^ There you go.

  3. Dave

    October 24, 2012 at 11:34 am

    Not exactly sure where you buy your cool aid, but CCW does NOT give “every qualified American the ability to protect themselves”. DC bans carry completely, New York and Illinois suck for trying to defend oneself, and if I recall correctly, in Maryland you have to have a good reason to believe you need protection to get a permit. You sir are not “as pro-gun and pro-CCW as you’ll find anywhere”, you are on the fence concerning your constitutional rights. Your entire argument screams gun control fear-mongering. It’s a right, not a privilege requiring permission to exercise it.

    • Tony Oliva

      October 24, 2012 at 11:41 am

      Dave and Steven, you both hit the nail right on the head. Whenever you ask the government for permission to exercise your rights they stop being rights. Imagine if you had to apply to vote. You have a background check, pay a fee and then it was up to the voting board of your state whether you can cast a ballot or not?

      It would no longer be a right. But for some people they don’t mind hypocrisy. Mark says hes an NRA life member, and as pro gun and as pro ccw as we’ll find anywhere. I’ll grant him the first and the last statement. But he absolutely invalidates his pro gun stance by suggesting open carriers compromise to the whims of whiny gun hating babies.

      If you look at the banner of this blog, you can see where I and GOA stand in terms of compromise.

    • blkthorn

      October 24, 2012 at 12:48 pm

      I m from MD and your right about Maryland.

      • Tony Oliva

        October 24, 2012 at 12:51 pm

        Hopefully not for much longer. The court is hearing the challenge to the shall issue change today. Not sure when they will rule but its the last hurdle that the citizens of Maryland have to jump and then Maryland will become a shall issue state. One step closer to Constitutional Carry :o)

  4. MarkC

    October 24, 2012 at 11:56 am

    I guess I made a mistake to think that people would understand my statement. For that you faggots with your stupid, bone headed attitudes can suck my ass. I’ve been a gun owner since I could own guns. I’ve hunted deer and small game. I’ve served in the US Navy for over 12 years. You who think I’m on the fence about my beliefs are nothing short of fools. Also at no point did I ever say that anyone should compromise. If you idiots could actually read and undertand the fucking English language you would have understood that. Tony Oliva- I never even remotely said that what my preference was other than we should try to turn gun haters into gun lovers. I never said that I wanted to have my preference over ride any others. And that pisses me off that you said that. How you manage to be employed by a gun institution is amazing to me. Steven Ortiz- I understand rights better than you do. And I don’t need anything spelled out to me. Dave- you can just plain suck my ass you fool. If anyone who responded to my comment proves that they are a total idiot it’s you. All 3 of you jackoffs can suck my ass. It’s a goddamn shame that fools like you are part of the gun world.
    By the way Tony Oliva you do have to apply to vote. It’s not just handed to you. Fucking idiot. And I never said that open carriers compromise anything. But then you fucking blockheaded fools would cut of your nose to spite your face. Literally. Stupid motherfuckers. Rot in hell all of you.

    • Tony Oliva

      October 24, 2012 at 12:12 pm

      Way to keep it classy mark.

      And so you don’t go pedaling misinformation, you do not need to apply to vote. You simply need to register to vote. It doesn’t cost anything. There is no waiting period. And ultimately, the government cannot arbitrarily bar you from voting in any manner that the US Constitution has not all ready limited (age requirements etc)

      But I guess when ever anyone disagrees with you, you like to throw out bigoted words and such. I guess that just goes to show how much depth you have in the English vernacular.

      The NRA must be real proud to have lifetime members such as yourself on the rolls.

      And, while you are at it, why don’t you go ahead and take yourself down from the cross. No one misunderstood you, to tried to marginalize open carrying by saying it is done because: “Just to intimidate and piss people off that are anti-gun”

      Then you went on to say that: “We [b]need[/b] to carry our weapon CCW. We need to convince anti-gunners that guns are cool.”

      So yes…we understood you perfectly. People shouldn’t compromise on their right to open carry and instead plead with the state like Oliver Twist for “some mo rights sir”.

      The fact of the matter is that YOU are the problem marc. You are the pig headed gun owner who will cut down other gun owners just because they believe in the right shouldn’t be infringed.

    • shawn wade

      October 24, 2012 at 12:52 pm

      You r 1st statement clearly was of the opinion that open carry is don’t like open carry..we get that. But not everybody shares your view. I prefer concealed carry also but like that I have the option open carry.

  5. George

    October 24, 2012 at 12:23 pm

    Tony and Dave; good job for exposing the mentally disabled sailor boy for the hate monger he really is. His second comment shows the hater he really is.

    • Tony Oliva

      October 24, 2012 at 12:32 pm

      Thanks George. Unfortunately, at times, I have found some of the biggest impediments to the 2nd Amendment cause are other gun owners. Sometimes they are hunters, sometimes they are collectors, sometimes they are people who rabidly believe that CCW is ok and asking permission to excercise the right is fine.

      It’s unfortunate, because such “allies” who are willing to sell the rest of the gun community up the river and give great sound bytes for the media that start with:

      “As a gun owner i fully support x,y, and z restrictions”. Be they bans on semi automatic rifles, open carry or extended magazines.

      The truth of the matter is that they are really just favor gun control to a lesser degree. Ironically enough, that is more harmful to the Second Amendment than any full out gun hating zealot can dole out.

      Feel free to check out my about section. Mark decided to throw some more vitriol over there. But after reading it, I don’t think he really grasped that Gun Owners of America is the pro gun lobbying group and he just assumed it was all me. Silly Mark.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: