Jim Cooley and the 2d Amendment
As you can imagine, I’ve had quite a few emails about this Jim Cooley guy who dropped off his daughter at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport while he was carrying a scary black long gun strapped to his bony chest.
Mr. Cooley was confronted several times by law enforcement, even though the Georgia legislature last year made it legal to carry properly licensed weapons at airports in the state.
Cooley took affront to the attention, citing a common refrain among public-carry advocates: that he doesn’t need to account for other people’s feelings or fears when conducting lawful activity. He’s correct, and he was not arrested.
No one is more pro-2d Amendment than yours truly. I carry a handgun in my house and every time I leave the house (unless I find myself in a State that doesn’t allow my firearms – I usually avoid those places, though). I’ve even carried a firearm when I go to the airport, because airports seem to be favorite targets of those who want to create terror. But, no one stops me at the airport and questions my motivations because I carry my weapon concealed, because my motivation for carrying a weapon is personal safety, not being an exhibitionist.
There is no good reason to carry a long gun in public. Self-defense engagements are usually at a distance of less than ten yards, well within the range of handguns. People like Mr. Cooley are just carrying long guns in public spaces because they like the attention, it has nothing to do with 2d Amendment or with personal defense. The article linked above says that Cooley “took affront to the attention” he garnered, but, actually, that’s what he was hoping would happen, so he could get his fifteen minutes in the media.
Openly carrying a long gun is also going to make you the first target of someone with malfeasance on their mind giving me time to bring my concealed weapon to bear on the situation.
Everyone is making a big deal of the new legislation in Texas that allows open carry, but, the law requires that anyone who openly carries their weapon in Texas, under the new law, would be required to attend training and get licensed – just like carrying a concealed weapon. So why not carry concealed? Unless, of course, you’re just a drama queen and looking for attention. Like Jim Cooley.
Category: Guns
Nicely said. It’s good to flex your rights, but there was no need to be such a dick to the cops.
Bingo.
And memo tO all you open carry anywhere you please types:
It’s like sticking your dick in a light socket. It’s legal, and you can do it, but that doesn’t make it smart.
A dick, absolutely, but he made his statement.
But, but, he was not being a dick. It was a short gun, looks like a M4 with a 14 inch barrel. It got rails but I can see no optics, so it is intended for short range, as in under 300m.
Basic self defense does NOT include doing things that antagonize the bad boys and draw them to you.
The Left has spent years and years attempting (often successfully) to train Americans into recoiling at the sight of a firearm and treating guns of any type as inherently bad, not merely harmful. Hell, it has gotten to the point that squirt guns and pictures of guns are banned from schools and doctors in some states are bound by law to ask whether there are any guns in our houses. This is all by design with an obvious end game: ban the gun. That’s a lot of indoctrination and propaganda to overcome and were it not for that pesky 2nd Amendment, few of us would be legally possessing, let alone carrying, firearms today. It has been and continues to be a massive effort to change our thinking regarding guns. It has happened with other issues in our culture that what was regarding as good or bad, right or wrong, became just the opposite after years of both subtle and obvious efforts to change the view. Language (e.g., assault weapons, gun nuts)become commonplace and horror stories of some lunatic’s murderous rampage pound home the points. So, when someone legally carries a firearm openly, yeah, it might be upsetting to some people. I certainly get that. What I also get is that his message is that guns are not bad and neither are 99.99% of people who legally carry them. Just the thought of what this sort of thing does to the gun grabbers warms my cockles.
Good article.
The favorite food of a Leftie when it is hungry for chipping away at the Constitution is a far Right Winger.
Yeah, he will be famous, all over the lib blogs.
Jackwad he is!
” I carry a handgun in my house and every time I leave the house …”
Reminder to self: don’t cometh to Jonn’s
Its one of the reasons I am comfortable at Jonn’s.
That and the TAH World HQ has a great deck.
Jonn’s house IS the safest house in West Virginia.
I know, every time I turned around there was a reminder …
As long as you’ve been vetted and have read your Kipling, no issues should arise should you ever show up at TAH world HQ.
Change to read “Don’t cometh to Jonn’s uninvited.”
Rights granted under our Constitution are absolute. Period. However, this is so functionally dangerous its absurd, and if these men and women who want to prove a point would stop for a damned moment and think they’d realize it. God forbid this man or anyone carrying a rifle be put into a situation where they must defend others in public. Even if they survive the initial attack wherein the gunman trains in on and neutralizes them first, what do they think will happen if they start lobbing 5.56 (or similar intermediate) rounds at assailants in a crowded airport? Aim and training matter little to a bullet that has nothing to do but expend its energy. Handguns are and will remain the best and safest tools for the job. The rifles can stay on the ranch, at the range or on the wall until they are truly needed.
Simply my opinion of course. I hope all of you are having a great weekend.
And I should say, rights PROTECTED under our Constitution, not granted. I need more coffee…
Rights granted under our Constitution are absolute. Period.
No they are not. Period.
You are correct, they are not absolute.
Rights can be legally violated.
Legally being the key word.
Plus one can have rights legally removed temporary or permanant.
So let’s be technically people!
That is all!
PS: Law abiding citizens need not concern themselves too much about the above comment.
MCPO,
I was thinking more about when rights “clash.” One of Madison’s writings talks about how as a member of society, we have to relinquish the idea that rights are absolute – an idea that might work in an unsettled or inhabited area.
For example, does my freedom of speech / expression / religion extend to belting out music or a message at 2:30 AM in neighborhood which seems contrary to the right of my neighbors to live in peace. (Right of pursuit of happiness.)
The Supreme Court just ruled on “real threats” which are not protected speech. (Neither are libel and slander for that matter.)
There is an old saying that “your rights end at my nose” and there is some truth to that.
But the real bottom line is that everyone claims that their rights are “absolute,” even when they interfere with the “absolute rights” of others.
my comment implies the citizen be a law abiding one. Blasting music at early morning hours is illegal in most places. ; )
I agree that blasting out music is against the law in most places. It is a “legal” restriction of a “right.”
Hard to say that rights are “absolute” when we agree to restrictions on those rights.
That’s all I am saying and I hope your smiley wink means you get my point as well.
My carrying a weapon does not in any way infringe on anyone’s rights, whether concealed or open carried. Unfortunately, too many people have the thought that they have this fictitious right to “feel” safe. They do not. Their incessant bitching about “what ifs” and their desire to infringe on my rights simply to make themselves comfortable or to “feel safe” is getting old. It shows they don’t know a hell of a lot about the Constitution as well.
Indeed. My comment implies the citizen be a law abiding one.
But you are all missing the most important thing: all those ‘what ifs’ from the terrified wienies on the left have more to do with their own fears of what THEY might do than anything else.
Those who want no one to have guns do NOT want the responsibility of protecting themselves from crime. They want someone else to do it, because if that someone else shoots and kills a bad guy, then THEY are not responsible for it. And not only that, if the level of melanin in the dead bad guy’s skin comes up as a question, they can automatically blame the trigger-happy, bad, bad, bad, bad, po-po, because…. (fill in the blank).
Think about that for a minute.
After thinking about it……I have to agree with you. You bring up a good point. Those who tend to be left of center want someone (government) else to take care of things.
I have always noticed that about many liberals. They are used to having someone else do things for them. Cities tend to have these kind of services and rural areas or small towns do not.
To my knowledge most major cities are where the left get their votes. Some of these services may very well have merit in an urban environment. The problem come in when they try to force those programs on the rest of the country.
JMHO, Thanks for the post.
I’ve heard it equated to the second amendment version of the PC Nazi who is our screaming about everything because it’s “offensive.” These guys do the same thing, walking around like morons and screaming about how people are interfering with their 2nd amendment rights.
Well said. Kind of like the jackdaw in Texas that went viral videotaping his own arrest when hiking with his boy and his AR-15. This guy is acting like a drama queen, and will quickly go viral on the left side of the web when he is completely unreflective of 99% of the gunners out there.
The only time really anyone I know carries a rifle or carbine in public is when they decide to walk to the range. In most cases, nobody cares. In one case a guy was charged with a whole slough of things that all boiled down to “carrying while black.”
Personally, as Jonn said, you make yourself a target for carrying something that big; from both bad guys and anti-gunners. It’s better to carry a pistol and call yourself prepared. I’m sure you’ll have a little warning before the zombie apocalypse reaches you.
From the look of that guy, if I wanted to take that long gun from him, I could flick him in the forehead and he’d fall over.
But since I’m a lover, not a fighter, he’s safe…for now.
For the last several years I have carried at least one firearm every place I possible could within the limits of the law.
99 percent of that time it was concealed.
I cannot think of a valid reason to carry a long gun in public unless it is a blatant display of force.
I was in Norfolk not to long ago at the NATO festival at Nautica. The Police were walking around with M4s. It put me on edge.
Like I said above, unless at a range, there is really no need for a long gun in public except to draw attention to one’s self. I don’t have a CCW, but know several that do, and you never know when or where they are carrying. As it should be. This guy was doing it strictly for the attention. And now he is going to be a walking example on the left side of the web to show that all their paradigms of gun owners are fringe kooks are true.
I’m an agnostic when it comes to stuff like this.
No I don’t think it is a smart thing to do, but I also agree that the public has been so pussified they turn into idiots with 911 cell phones pre dialed whenever they see a gun of any kind.
They have gone over the deep end so maybe we need to go off the other deep end of the pool.
Like I said, an agnostic.
The pussification of America is a separate but related issue.
With respects to pussification, look at the type of man that is used in most consumer related commercials on TV.
Skinny pants wearin’, unshaven, chicken chest to leg physical appearance, unrecognizable from an ethnic point of view, eco, climate change and polar bear friendly, left leaning, stay at home dad-mom, anti-war and anti-bully, who is for ever socially sensitive for everyone and all to hear.
Yeah, pussies all of them … I tell ya’.
You’ve been hanging around NYC way too long, Master Chief.
Hey,
The world I work in they are all strong men and good women … I am talking about TV commercials.
But what do I know.
It’s a valid point, Chief. The advertising business kicks this kind of thing around all the time, and the rationale generally is that commercials targeted at women generate a better return-on-investment because they are the demographic who makes most of the buying decisions for consumer goods.
At the risk of going out on a limb, I’d argue that women, to a far higher degree than men, consider going to the mall a contact sport.
Funny you should say “pussification” when lately the news has reported multiple people being attacked by their cats.
So, people are calling 911 to say “my cat attacked me and won’t let me in my house!”
Yeah, its a cat. If you “scruff” the cat, it makes no movement whatsoever. You might get scratched up a bit doing it, but its a kitty cat.
Not like you’re trying to get into your house and there’s a freakin’ tiger in there…
Pussification = Calling the police because you’re afraid of the pussy in your house attacking you…
Special Note. If there’s a Tiger in your house, throw him a raw steak with pepper on it. I hear they like pepper, but don’t like cinnamon.
I think that was a documentary or something.
I’ve see videos of cats gettng between a baby and the mother because the mother was drinking alcohol.
My cats would be more likely to let you in, get you a cold one, and turn on the TV as long as you scratch their backs.
How many people recoil when they see a police officer carrying a firearm? Most of us are conditioned to regard police officers as our allies who will help us in times of peril. Despite the fact that there have always been bad cops, some of whom worked great evil, our positive image of police remains. It’s reinforced on TV and few mothers warn their children to run from an armed police officer because he’s carrying a gun. The fact is that police officers carry firearms because the law allows them to carry firearms, no matter what the nature of their actual duty. There are many people in our country who would like only police to carry guns and some who would like to see them carry only under certain circumstances, in accordance with the restrictions effected by other countries . Cooley here is not a police officer. He is a private citizen. He carried a firearm openly and legally. He is now the poster boy for stupid. Why? He didn’t commit a crime. He threatened no one. He drew attention to himself on purpose. It’s what he does as a proponent of open carry. According to the Washington Times, “FBI Special Agent in Charge Britt Johnson told ABC that although Mr. Cooley did not break federal law, he was questioned why he felt it necessary to exercise that right.” Questioned as to why he felt it necessary? I suppose the FBI now questions people leaving the voting booth or speaking from a soap box in the local park. Cooley’s point is well made. I would never, ever do what Cooley did. That’s not the point. I just won’t join the ridicule chorus out of fear or concern of what the Left and other gun opponents will do with his lawful exercise. He’s out of the closet, so to speak.
How many people recoil when they see a police officer carrying a firearm?
Interesting point.
In thinking about it, I would say that I don’t give most cops a second look when they have a holstered weapon on their hip.
When they walk around with a long gun that somehow “feels” different. and I generally try and walk across the street.
That’s conditioning, gitarcarver. If uniformed police officers walked around with long guns as a matter of course, eventually we wouldn’t think much of it, just as we don’t think twice about their holstered handguns. But we aren’t conditioned to see that, which explains why seeing such in foreign airports strikes us as odd or even threatening.
It may be conditioning, but not for the reason you think, Air Cav.
When I see a cop with a weapon on his hip, I think the weapon is there for possible use. When I see a cop with a long gun in his hands, I see that as a response to a threat or more.
I don’t want to be around in that case.
I give them a second look…but that’s only because I’m curious about what the LEO flavor of the month is in handguns, .40 or 9mm, and what make.
That’s funny, I do the same thing. I’m always curious what they carry.
Sometimes I fade out and don’t even pay attention because I’m checking out the pistol to see what it is and what rounds, brand, etc. lol
If an LEO is carrying a weapon, social conditioning has nothing to do with it. First, I know he has fingerprints on file, Is not a felon, is trained in using the weapon, and has some training in when not to use his weapon.
He may walk around with his AR in plain sight, he probably is not aware that many of us with CCW’s have shifted our posture to an alert.
He may walk around with it all he wants, he should be aware that there are eyes on him and if he makes an aggressive move one of us will probably drop his ass.
It has only happened to me once and I am sure the guy had no idea there was a weapon pointed at him the entire time.
One of the many reasons I carry 24/7 is I have no idea what the intentions are of others that can legally carry.
Semper Fi.
I’m guessing that long before you knew what a felon is and that police officers undergo extensive background checks before being entrusted with a firearm and badge, you were taught positive things about police officers at home and school and that no one you knew gasped when seeing one with a firearm on his hip. That’s the conditioning I was referring to.
Meh. If Mr.Cooley wants to impress me by exercising some constitutional rights, wear a “white power” shirt through Harlem at 0200 hrs. If he survives, then I’ll be impressed.
I do not understand why you think Cooley is trying to impress you personally, but I’ll bite. In the first place, if he were to walk anywhere in NYC carrying that weapon and that much ammo, he would be arrested and charged with so many violations of city and state laws that the charge sheet would be multiple pages. (Most of those laws are being challenged as their collective effect is to prohibit general firearm possession by private citizens.) In the second place, if he were interested in furthering the cause of white power, rather than 2nd Amendment rights, and he did what you said while unarmed, it wouldn’t be the government that harmed in his Harlem stroll. And that’s the point—that it is the government which may not infringe upon our Constitutional rights. If he got the shit beaten out of him, the criminals would be those who beat him, not him.
I guess my point is, just cuz you CAN, it doesn’t mean it’s prudent that you DO.
And yes Mr.Cooley was trying to impress someone with his display of silliness. Maybe not me personally, but definitely someone.
Further proof you can be 100% legal and still be a dick.
Absolutely, I can be a Richard at about any given moment and most of what I do is legal.
This whole matter boils down to the type of gun Cooley insisted on carrying to demonstrate his 2d Amendment rights. Even as too many Americans have been conditioned to recoil fearfully from those evil “black rifles”, more and more Americans are being conditioned to seeing fellow citizens open carrying handguns.
Had Cooley been carrying a Desert Eagle on his hip or even in a shoulder rig, he would have attracted some interest but not the amount that he did by openly displaying that long gun.
The point is that it really just boils down to mental and emotional conditioning of the public by our hysterical, liberal media. With more states allowing open carry, the novelty and fear factors will decline to the point the media will ignore it.
And with more and more law enforcement displaying long guns, I’ll wager that the public will become more accepting of that practice as well. When that happens they will eventually become more accustomed to seeing long guns borne by civilians.
Of course, none of this is applicable to states and municipalities controlled by Democrats.
The culture war tilted towards the progressive through exposure and awareness. At first they were (rightly) thought of as hippies and freaks. Now there is nary a TV show or movie without the token Gay.
Maybe the secret to brining society (us) back to normalcy; back to reasonable, rational citizens is exposing them to the thing they’re scared of?
Cooley was making a point. I think it was dumb but less offensive than the draw-mohammed Tacticool guys.
Walking around in public with a long rifle and a “tough guy” facial expression that says, “I’m Billy Badass, don’t f__k with me”…..is asking for trouble. It’s his right, but his responsibility if he runs into some fool who just has to try someone like that. Those trained in martial arts are almost always the quiet ones who are the last to open their mouths. It’s not like wearing a sign that says, “I know karate”. Self confidence comes from within. If you are that unsure of your manhood, why not carry a machine gun with you when you want to impress others? My secret fantasy has always been for some punk ass pimp to come up attempting to rob me, feeling my pocket, and saying, “Is that a .357 in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?”
I find it ironic that most gun ranges would not allow anyone to carry a loaded rifle in the same manner as the guy that is the subject of the article. Ranges that allow “Tactical” training would allow carry in this manner while within contained training area, but would consider it dangerous within other public areas particularly crowded ones. See what happens if you go to a three gun match and try to carry a loaded AR in that manner.
What this all boils down to is Where we are going as a society. Do I think what Mr. Cooley did was unnecessary? Yep. Do I think what the draw Mo crowd did was unnecessary? Yep. Do they have the right to do it? Yep. Are people getting their panties, whether women’s or men’s, all twisted up over both? yep. All the comments on both subjects show that. The anti-draw Mo crowd want to show how peace loving they are, to those that did the drawing, by handing out death threats. With the anti-gun crowd; if they see a handgun or long gun being displayed, they wet themselves and start calling for bans, or at least that’s the worry of everyone around here. We use pharses like “well, just because it’s legal doesn’t mean you should do it”. Why not? Because the anti-gun leftists will use it as an excuse to try and ram through a ban? If doing something legal automatically runs the risk of some chucklehead wanting it banned, and the other side quickly jumping to caution and appeasement that the said violator of someone’s sensibilities is somehow wrong, shows that our side really doesn’t want it to be legal, either. Just like the argument of open carry vs. conceal carry. I, personally, don’t give a rip which way a person goes. There are valid points to both sides of the discussion, but it all comes down to personal preference and I find it disconcerting that those that favor conceal carry are quick to criticize those that prefer, or want, to open carry. I don’t care either way, since I am legally able to do both. We have to stop letting the other side carry the narrative and all this bitching and moaning from our side gives them just as much of an excuse as we think that Mr. Cooley gave them. What we should be saying about Mr. Cooley is “so what?” Instead; we wring our hands just as much as the other side does. We feed their hoplophobia with our comments. They point and say “see,… Read more »
While I think what he was doing was asinine, it does not negate the fact that it should be completely legal under our constitution.
Long Guns were the target of the British, first they banned their import, then they tried confiscating them…
Our forefathers sought protection for the People from the government ever taking away their right to self defense from an oppressive government, not the local car thief or mugger. It was not a protection written for hunting, or home defense, and most definitely not for “target shooting”. It was meant to be a protection for the people from the Government, as was Freed of Religion and Speech, etc…
So, while I agree he was being an ass do not forget that he is actually obeying the Law. It is the rest of us, who get a bit uncomnfortable with it, or those who want to restrict firearms, are the ones who are not following the Law.
In my opinion, he has no reason to garry a rifle into an airport…, but he does have that right.
“We have to stop letting the other side carry the narrative and all this bitching and moaning from our side gives them just as much of an excuse as we think that Mr. Cooley gave them.” Really, I should have consulted with you before my comments. That’s what I was trying to get at.
“There is no good reason to carry a long gun in public.”
Fits right in with:
There is no good reason to own an “assault rife.”
There is no good reason to own high-capacity magazines.
There is no good reason to have hollow point and “cop-killer” bullets.
There is no good reason to own body armor.
There is no good reason why private sales shouldn’t be subject to a background check.
There is no good reason why all guns shouldn’t be registered.
There is no good reason why there shouldn’t be a waiting period for a gun purchase.
There is no good reason why there shouldn’t be limits on the purchases of firearms and ammunition.
There is no good reason to permit online sales of ammunition.
Some people in the gun community are our worst enemies. If every person with an “I support the Second Amendment, but…” attitude had their ways, they’d create a gun-controllers’ paradise.