Racist Open Carry in Ohio is not a Bloomberg False Flag

Over the weekend, this video of some Open Carry scumbags in Ohio went viral (for gun community levels of virality):

I originally saw it at Bearing Arms, which notes that now 2 of the 4 idiots in the video have been arrested. Good. But that’s not what we’re talking about today, because if you read the comments at BA or any of the other sites, you’ll see a repeated theme pop up. People assume/accuse the folks in the video of being plants, or a false flag operation. I have sour news for you, Jack: it’s not.

The gun community loves the No True Scotsman logical fallacy as much as we love the shooting sports. The extension of loving that fallacy is when we see aggressively bad behavior, it’s natural to want to assume that it’s enemy action instead of “our own” acting in such a manner. The problem with accusing this sort of thing of being a false flag is that it deflects the conversation that we really need to have about such people; specifically that they are stupid assholes and we don’t support their actions.

Here’s the thing that’s important to remember – we should be leading the charge of policing our own ranks. Gun owners should be the first people to decry the actions of clowns like those from Ohio in this video. They’re not Bloomberg plants or a false flag operation, they’re just assholes who happen to own guns. If they weren’t using AR15s to get famous on YouTube, they’d be making amateur sex tapes or something else.

I feel like this is something as a community that we struggle with, because we want to present a squeaky clean image of the average gun owner to the general public. That’s good. But saying that something is a false flag, or that those people “aren’t real Scotsmen” doesn’t actually help our image, it makes us look like we’re trying to sweep bad actors under the rug. Here’s the truth: Not everyone who legally owns a gun is a good person. There are a lot of jerks, idiots, and assholes in the world, I can guarantee that some of them legally own guns. And as long as they don’t do anything that hurts gun rights, we shouldn’t have any problem with that.

But when people like the fools in the video start doing things like this, and act in a way that’s directly detrimental to our right to keep and bear arms, we should absolutely call out their actions. Are those people gun owners? Yes. Do they have a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms? Yes they do. Does that mean we support, or approve of their actions? Absolutely not. This is why I don’t like OC, because this is the end result of “OC” activism. People who crave attention will use it to get the attention they so desire, at the expense of your and my ability to carry guns in peace.

44 thoughts on “Racist Open Carry in Ohio is not a Bloomberg False Flag”

  1. There is certainly a civil issue involved as they are creating a nuisance and a lawsuit from the neighborhood against them would seem appropriate. As for the gun issue, I don’t think that the pro-gun rights community has any need to do more than you have done–condemn the action for the stupidity and rudeness it is. Perhaps this is where concealed carry laws begin to enter the picture, but I have mixed feelings. All good men perhaps feel the need to react to “fix” things but I think that must be avoided if we are not to encourage and spread the false belief that government laws concerning such things fix anything. They don’t, despite appearances. At the community level, it seems that the local government can address such things based upon local issues. A concealed carry law might be appropriate in a neighborhood with unusually high gun violence and racial tensions. Expanding that law to all communities would likely be a mistake as there are places where people do not face this issue. I live in a rural area in the mountains and we have our local “I like attention” neb-nazi of 80 years of age who has packed his .38 in his pants pocket since I can remember. He was arrested once when he visited the DMV that way. He loved the year of attention he got arguing his own case in court. Hasn’t ever hurt a flea despite a lifetime of flying swastickas and spouting racist epitaphs at every black or hispanic tourist coming through. We have no OC in California but we are rural enough that nobody cares much except the liberal retirees that retire out here, and they generally keep low because they like their peace.

  2. Which black person did they call a “nigga”?

    How is it a racial slur if their words were not directed at someone of a different race?

    This will fall under the doctrine of “fighting words”. If I say “F*ck IT”, those are not fighting words, but if I say “F*ck YOU”, they are.

    The people in this video are simply exercising their First Amendment rights in both their speech AND their display of arms.

    No. It’s not classy. It’s just their right.

      1. No…not the people; just their RIGHT to act however they deem fit – so long as their actions are not injurious to others. You know, the whole “your right to swing your fists ends at the tip of my nose” thing.

        And this, Caleb, is what is so frustrating about your position on the OC subject: You are incapable of differentiating between rights and people. In your first sentence, you say that it’s good that these people were arrested. I would argue that it depends what they were arrested for. If they were arrested SOLELY based on what we saw in this video, then I say that it’s not good AT ALL! Are they obnoxious and an embarrassment? Absolutely! But, in America, we don’t arrest people for being obnoxious or embarrassing; ESPECIALLY when their way of living differs from what we perceive to be correct or “normal.” On the other hand, if they were arrested for some other crimes that they likely commit on a daily basis, then yes, that is a good thing.

        We don’t have to defend anyone’s message, but as Americans, we should defend everyone’s right to speak and act as they please. No, that’s not a popular position to take, but that’s what it means to defend Liberty. I would just as quickly defend the rights of these sausageheads to act the way they did in the video as I would defend the rights of the Brady Campaign and the Million Mom March to voice their anti-gun gibberish. Does that mean that I’m defending the people or the Brady Campaign? NO! It means I’m upholding my Oath to defend the Constitution – to include the 1st and 2nd Amendments even when what I’m seeing and hearing offends my sensibilities.

        1. Precisely, Europazone. I might not support what a person says, what they do, or what they think, but I do support their rights to have and express those views…. As you noted some people think otherwise, foolishly so.

        2. Caleb is not calling for government action against these jackasses. He is calling (as do I) for peer pressure against these jackasses.

          Nobody is arguing against the Constitution. Sure, these OC “Activists” have rights to be assholes. Robert Mapplethorpe had the RIGHT to shove a bullwhip up his ass, take a picture, and then display it in public and call it art. That doesn’t mean we couldn’t shake our head and demean him for being an idiot.

          Apologists for the bad OC activist types always fall back on the same tired straw-man argument: “if you oppose our dumb and damaging actions in public then you hate the Constitution and ‘Merica — Because: Bill of Rights!”

          No. There is the perfectly logical option of calling these OC jackasses out and telling them they are dumb. We can make fun of them, deny them access to our private clubs and generally shun them all we want, because we have the right to not associate with them. They think they are part of a community and a family, but then they do the equivalent of showing up for dinner drunk and making lewd comments to all the minors in the room. We are not required to accept this behavior.

          Stop defending these idiots. They deserve ridicule and they deserve to be ostracized. Nobody here is calling Congress asking for a law. We are setting our own laws based on peer pressure, and we can expect anyone who calls themselves a member of our community to abide by them, all without denying anyone’s “right to be an asshole.”

          1. Wrong. Caleb IS calling for government action against these individuals. The first sentence in the article is:

            “…now 2 of the 4 idiots in the video have been arrested. Good.”

            Which is akin to saying, “Gee, I’m glad the government arrested (in effect, threatened violence and captivity) those people for doing something that I don’t agree with.”

            That is entirely different than simply calling the people asshats….which they are.

          2. So saying that these idiots were unconstitutionally arrested is defending someone??? Outstanding…

            Do tell, how does that work?

            Interesting argument though. You say no one is arguing against the Constitution, yet you are against someone stating that the Constitution was violated and that civil rights were not upheld…

            So if you are against someone who says that Constitutional rights were violated how does that make not arguing against the Constitution? Especially in light of the video where nothing illegal was done??? Incongruent much?

          3. Yes, burn the witches . . . . just kidding. I agree with Europazone & Paul K., what you are doing is akin to bullying. The best thing you could do is just ignore them and ask the media to ignore them.

    1. And did you see ALL of the video footage that police and prosecutors reviewed, or just the bit that made it onto the news? Because if you don’t know the whole story, it’s kinda of foolish of you to make blanket proclamations about whether or not a crime was committed.

  3. We’re not arguing about what’s classy, we’re arguing about civil rights. You’re never going to get a clean-cut case, ever. Just remember that we only have the right to remain silent read to us because they had to let go of a rapist named Miranda.
    Rights are not up for a popularity vote. They are not democratic. The only rights worth defending are the unpopular ones.
    I’m only defending what needs to fending, if you find a situation where you can convict somebody of being an asshole, fine, levy that charge and let them do their sentence.
    Just remember that what they did is probably less illegal than Rosa Parks getting in the front of the bus.

  4. That is not the end result of OC activism. That statement makes me believe you are anti-gun. Do not do as the anti-gunners do and blame all OC people for the actions of a few fools. Many in Idaho OC on a regular basis and we aren’t all Aryan Brotherhood living in north Idaho.

    1. >That statement makes me believe you are anti-gun.

      Oh for fuck’s sake. The first response the SNBI idiots have to anyone criticizing them is to call the critics anti-gun. It’s completely ridiculous.

      1. It’s the no true scotsman all over again! “You don’t agree with me in every way, therefore you’re not a real gun owner.”

        1. If the mark of an educated mind really is to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it, and these people can’t even conceive of a like-minded person who doesn’t agree with them on every single thing, I can only conclude that they are some kind of genetically engineered super-idiot.

        2. Trying to handle this hot potato is a bit like trying to respond to the “Do you still beat your wife?” question. There is no winning. Do the jerks have the right to do what they did? Yes. Is it something that those of us that support gun rights should jump to defend? No. In the court of opinion of the American sheeple, who can’t spell liberty, this is a losing platform. Those that favor OC and are simply OC’ing all over the place to make a point may be shooting themselves in the foot, but they certainly have a right to, and all humans have the right to carry their weapons of self-defense with them. Any restriction on those weapons is a usurpation of the right. But nobody wins by jumping to the defense of these jerks as to their overt behavior. I think it is more clear if we take guns out of the picture. Let’s arm them with axes, spikes, and chainsaws and send them down the street acting the same way. Would they not be equally disturbing to the neighbors? I think this points out that the problem is not the guns, it is the unspoken projection of violence. And that is the issue, not the guns. I hope the neighbors sue the pants off of them but I don’t think they have committed a crime.

    2. ” That statement makes me believe you are anti-gun.”

      That statement makes me believe that you are not a person to be taken seriously. If you can entertain the belief that Caleb is anti-gun then there is no limit to the mental contortions you will undertake to disparage those who don’t dance to your tune.

      1. Anti gun no. Simply Only 2nd amendment. Why else would he enjoin himself to the Unconstitutional arrest of others???

        “I originally saw it at Bearing Arms, which notes that now 2 of the 4 idiots in the video have been arrested. Good. But that’s not what we’re talking about today,”

  5. These kid are not racist. They are low educated street walkers. This is how low educated street walkers speak. The N word has no negative meaning when spoken from one street walker to another. It is just street lingo.

    If you are not a low educated street walker please do not try this. You will get your ass handed to you.

  6. I can’t really tell what they did that’s wrong. Ill-advised…yes. Offensive…probably. I wouldn’t defend them if it all went south on them, either – they’re practically looking for trouble.
    But there’s nothing illegal about being a d-bag.
    I wouldn’t associate with them or anyone like them, but at the end of the day, if you’re only allowed to carry so long as you are politically correct, your rights are at risk. Glad the police didn’t interfere (but I do wonder why they went back and arrested them/issued warrants for them after the fact)

    1. I’m sure the police reviewed the video of them acting like d-bags (it was awful considerate of them to post it publicly for the police to view), and found charges that they thought might at least stick. If they made any comments that could be viewed as threatening, etc., then they could be charged. As the saying goes, you may beat the charge, but you’re still going for a ride.

      Menacing and Aggravated Menacing is what they were charged with.

  7. What is the serve initiative the newscaster spoke of? This is what they were later arrested for. If it is for what it on the video, then it is wrong. But it may be something completely different. It wouldn’t surprise me with as ignorant as these three are. But last I knew, being a dumb fuck wasn’t illegal. If it was, we would have to imprison about half the country, or at least 51% of the voters.

    I think OC is asking for problems when concealed is easy and keeps you off the radar. But as long as it is legal to do so, there will be those who think it’s a good idea.

    1. CIRV–Cincinnati Initiative to Reduce Violence
      Pronounced “serve”

      They were arrested for Menacing, and Aggravated Menacing. Ohio Code on Agg. Menacing:
      A) No person shall knowingly cause another to believe that the offender will cause serious physical harm to the person or property of the other person, the other person’s unborn, or a member of the other person’s immediate family.
      Ohio Code on Menacing:
      A) No person shall knowingly cause another to believe that the offender will cause physical harm to the person or property of the other person, the other person’s unborn, or a member of the other person’s immediate family.

      If their words and actions (while openly armed) caused others to believe that they were there to intimidate, cause harm, cause physical harm, cause serious physical harm, etc–then they did it to themselves.

      If one is going to openly carry a firearm, they should conduct themselves with better manners than that.

      1. Thank you for the clarification. I can agree their behavior meets the criteria for the statute. Although, as a 25 yr LEO, I think the statute itself has the potential to be a “catch all” for LE to use when they can’t really come up with a clear violation. Much like Careless and Imprudent Driving is for traffic violations. In this case, I can see the intimidation factor being exhibited due to the verbal sewage spewed by Mr Badass while openly armed. It is also possible the arrests were more a show to discourage this type of behavior in the future. Kind of a “You want to play stupid games? The Cops have an App for that”.

        I don’t personally think OC is necessary. It is so easy to carry concealed that it seems silly to stir the pot. Most people have no idea how many other people are packing and that is probably good. They are the sheep that go through life unaware. Usually it is best to leave them that way because once they start to realize what is going on, they start whining and complaining to legislate things back to the level they can go through life unaware again. These are the ones that cry “GUN” at every OC, call the cops, waste the time of the cops, and the taxpayer’s money. Believe me, the cops don’t like these calls because they know most are a waste of time. And the media thrives on the panic.

        I do see the OC people, not as first responders, but as first targets. Were I a bad guy looking to rob a place or become the latest mass shooting sensation, I would take out the OC people first. They already advertised that they were armed and a threat to me being able to complete my chaos. Thank you OC for volunteering to be the first casualty.

        1. First off, you’re welcome.

          Secondly, overall, I find most people’s objections to OC to be based on a strawman argument or personal feelings of “I don’t do that/like that, so they shouldn’t do it.”

          I don’t OC. Like you, I don’t find it necessary, but I totally get it. I have a concealed carry permit, and I prefer to carry it that way. That said, I am 100 % in favor of OC.

          The argument of “they’ll be first to be shot” is certainly a concern, but it has never happened anywhere ever that I am aware of. I’ve only ever heard of one instance where a particular person was targeted for his handgun (he was robbed at gunpoint, surrounded by several armed suspects, IIRC).

          In fact, the only trouble most OCers encounter comes from fellows in your line of work, which is why so many of them (OCers) carry a recording device and do their best to KNOW the laws inside and out before stepping out the door. They also are generally polite and willing to spread the good word about gun ownership and carrying firearms. The whole idea behind the OC movement is to get people (in general) used to the idea that people carrying guns is not illegal, not worthy of police interaction and, in fact, normal.

          Idiots like the ones in the video do more to set the movement back than anyone could guess, but if they are dumb enough to menace and threaten and intimidate while visibly armed, then I guess they’ll sort themselves out.

        2. Craig, recent history of robberies and mass shooting tells us a different story than your “first target” theory. The fact of the matter is that 99% of criminals avoid armed conflict; other than the most recent shooting in Las Vegas, it is EXCEPTIONALLY rare that a perp attacks a good guy with a gun (and nearly every single time that it has happened, the criminals specifically targeted cops…not because they had a gun, but because they were an authority figure).

          On the contrary, as we know, criminals instead try to find the softest targets available rather than pick a gunfight that they might lose if they miss their first shot.

          1. I didn’t post it as a theory. I said it is how I would handle the situation were I intent on commiting the crime. I realize most criminals don’t have a plan of action beyond walk into a “Gun Free Zone” and start shooting. And if history is an indication, most shooters were pretty pathetic shots considering a large number of their victims did little to make themselves a difficult target. This is what saved the shootings from being an even worse slaughter.

    2. They were arrested for Aggravated Menacing, which actually is a real crime. Essentially, they led people to believe that their intent was to cause harm or disturb the peace.

      1. Ah so something that is unconstitutional is okay just as long as it is “legal”? I get it now… Like Resisting arrest without violence nearly everywhere??? Going to the Terror of the public like in NC? Scaring people like in Missouri? Those are “real” crimes too, in fact one does not often see arrests for Fake Crimes… Dial 1-900- inventa-crime….

        Justifying unconstitutional acts as legal simply because you disagree with them makes you no different than those who use similar methods to eliminate gun rights. Same methods. Different Goals.

        What is most telling is that you were happy they were in Arrested BEFORE you knew what the charges were…

        That means you did not care what the reason was. Just as long as they were arrested.

          1. In other words, when someone says that thing about “if your worst enemy isn’t free, nobody is”, you’re not buying it?

      2. And if Joan Peterson is “led to believe” that I intend to do others harm SIMPLY because I’m open carrying (which I don’t do, BTW) and an uneducated cop agrees with her that I “should know” that carrying a gun, in and of itself, is considered offensive and *gasp* terrifying to some people, then I could potentially be arrested for it since it’s not the arresting officer’s job to determine intent. Then I would be forced to battle this out in court because I chose to exercise my rights. Awesome.

        Furthermore, under the right (or wrong, depending how you look at it) circumstances, one could argue that almost ANY form of OC could be considered disturbing the peace simply because many people in our society cannot fathom that guns aren’t the devil. Should we arrest people who do a legal open carry march in front of a state capital building? Surely, one could argue that their armed presence alone can be construed as a veiled threat of violence and thus disturbing the peace.

        Again, I’m not defending or condoning their actions in ANY WAY. They are sausageheads who are an embarrassment to all mankind, not just gun owners. But this just tells me that the cops in that town are clearly very bad at their job; if they weren’t, they would’ve nailed these people months or years ago for any number of other crimes that I bet they commit every day. But no, let’s “make an example” of them only now that they are carrying guns…that’s a great precedent to start.

        This “law” is wholly unconstitutional, and these people were arrest SOLELY because the way that they chose to exercise their rights was offensive to people. I know that makes some people happy…and that makes me sad for my country.

        1. Sad indeed. It reveals the depth of change in this nation. In some part there is the issue of a population of which most have never held a real gun nor used one for sport or saw it as a form of self defense. Likely it has been made even worse by the move from rural areas to cities over the past century. And even if education and political movements were to improve the legal condition, it may not improve the social condition. And the bottom line is the state of the government, if it is merely legality that we seek. It seems that the only true defense of our rights is defense of our rights at the level of the individual. Pro-gun political groups usually compromise on issues of practicality, e.g. it is not practical for people to carry openly in a crowded area as it will simply be too disturbing, or the NRA’s misguided, “Enforce the laws on the books already.”

        2. woops, was trying to put ‘endorsed’ on THIS comment. Am too dumb, didn’t read. -.-

  8. This kind of behavior annoys me greatly, precisely because the behavior of these guys is almost legal, but their behavior puts our rights in jeopardy. I’ve only seen what I saw in the news story above, so I cannot say that the acted blatantly illegally, but if they were acting in an attempt to increase our rights, then they should have been on their best behavior. Clearly they weren’t.

    I am one who not only believes that OC should be legal, but Constitutional Carry as well: it’s too easy to accidentally expose your gun; there are times when OC is more comfortable, and even the only option; and there are even times where you may have to OC a rifle. To do so as a political statement is tricky at best, and pointless if it’s already legal; if you are convinced that you need to do it to advance gun rights, then you need to be on your super-best behavior.

    Clearly, these yahoos weren’t on their best behavior; I’m not even sure if they give a darn about their rights one way or another (gun or otherwise). If they did, this certainly isn’t the best way to express their concerns.

    And yes, if they were intimidating and harassing people, they deserve to be arrested! While OC may be a Constitutional right, threatening and harassing is not.

  9. Are there actual examples of U.S. government sponsored/directed “false flags”?

    Does the state where this occurred have special licensing for OC?

    1. That’s a no on the second. I have to say, that’s the problem. If you have people who’ve gone through the licensing of CC, they have more of a sense of the responsibility than some idiot who just bought a gun at a gun show.

      1. Sorry, but MORE regulation is never the answer. You’re talking about taking a right, and licensing it. Which moves it from being a right to a “granted permission.” And who grants that permission? Government. Do you see where that is going? Do you not see how utterly bad that ends?

        There will always be idiots, a**holes and stupid people. And they all have the same rights you do, until they do something that violates the rules (laws) and have their rights forcibly taken away. If these morons did something stupid and illegal, then they should be punished for the illegal part, and chastised for the stupid part. If they did something stupid, but did not do anything illegal, then they should be chastised for the stupid part, and otherwise left alone. But the absolute worst thing we could do would be to punish everybody because of the stupid people.

Comments are closed.