Caption This

Carla Axtman

Worth 1000 words? You decide. Write your own caption for this photo in comments. (And use the "like" button to vote for your favorites! -kari.)

Andy Olson and Bruce Hanna

A little information about what you're seeing:

On the left, Oregon House Republican Minority Whip Andy Olson (Albany) and on the right, Republican House Minority Leader Bruce Hanna (Roseburg). They appear to be standing in one of the legislative offices in the Capitol building in Salem.

Comments

  • (Show?)

    It looks like Rep. Hanna is holding a water gun and Rep. Olsen is holding a real gun

  • (Show?)

    They whipped them out to see who's was bigger!

  • (Show?)

    Democratic process unproductive, GOP leadership resorts to tried-and-true legislative option

  • (Show?)

    "I'm pointing this gun at Stupid."

  • (Show?)

    Did these guys just out themselves as conceal and carry permit holders? If they did then they just violated state law.

    • (Show?)

      Huh?

      Are you suggesting that if you have a conceal and carry permit, you have to not publicly divulge that you have said permit, under penalty of law?

  • (Show?)

    From a friend in email:

    "Half-cocked".

    HAHAHA! I love that.

  • (Show?)

    The state capitol is not a weapon-free zone?

    • (Show?)

      Nope. You can walk right in as there are no security checks in the state capitol building.

      • (Show?)

        It doesn't necessarily follow that weapons aren't allowed, rather that there is no security to check for them--but I suppose the Minority Leader standing there proudly with his gatt, answers my question.

  • (Show?)

    The caption is:

    "We are laughing about President Obama's joke about predator drones"

  • (Show?)

    They look loaded to me.

  • (Show?)

    I guarantee if I walked into the Capitol building and whipped out my Glock I would be arrested by an OSP trooper within seconds. Why aren't these clowns wearing steel bracelets? Why aren't metal dectectors in operation at the statehouse in order to prevent armed and potentially violent people from having easy access to the Governor and other legislators? What the hell is this kind of crap?

    • (Show?)

      Kind of a long caption, David.

      :)

    • (Show?)

      within seconds? hardly. you could do a lot of damage before anyone stopped you. it's pretty cool that it's open so freely to the public, yet kind of scary. it's far harder to get into any county courthouse -- or out of a store.

  • (Show?)

    Our wives won't let us have 'em at our houses, but we'll pack 'em in THIS House, Dammit

  • (Show?)

    gives a whole new meaning to the term 'minority whip'

  • (Show?)

    If only we believed in same sex marriage...

  • (Show?)

    "The Road-Apple Dumpling gang."

  • (Show?)

    I am not completely against open carry, except for people convicted of violent crimes, people taking psychoactive drugs, and of course, Republicans.

  • (Show?)

    Dumb and Dumber

  • (Show?)

    "Olson and Hanna ready to go bar-hopping in Tennessee"

  • (Show?)

    Hi Ho, Hi Ho, Off to Starbucks we go.

  • (Show?)

    "THIS is my compensator."

  • (Show?)

    Go ahead, Governor. Make our day.

  • (Show?)

    Wow tiger! "Kill the bill" is not supposed to be taken literally.

  • (Show?)

    "Double your pleasure. Double your fun."

  • (Show?)

    Bipartisan means you shoot right AND left

  • (Show?)

    ...how about an alliterative, six word story? as in plural, triple grrrrrr...

    teabag fingers, nearby triggers, it figures...

    ooops...got verbose there...don't really need six words for this one...

    two squared equals four, right?...two guns, two guys, equals four pricks, more or less...so...

    ''nearby triggers,

    teabag fingers...''

    four words is plenty for this story...

    ;-)>

  • (Show?)

    "See, I told you, Bruce, mine really is bigger."

  • (Show?)

    I just find this incredibly sick. Captioning it? We have leaders that bring their guns to work? And someone takes their picture, and we're supposed to laugh about it? Is this what the Republican party is about these days, bring your gun to work day? Guns: no scandal, but if they were naked and arm and arm? That would be a scandal. yeah.

  • (Show?)

    His is bigger, but mine is easier to conceal.

  • (Show?)

    Hmmm...looks like Andy has a Glock 22 .40 caliber - a likely choice since it's the standard issue for OSP troopers. Bruce looks to have a Seecamp .32 ACP. The Glock is a bit more utilitarian, but utterly reliable.

    Quite frankly, it's amusing to watch everyone around here mess themselves because of a picture of a gun. I'm pretty happy these guys have firearms. People that are comfortable with the Second Amendment generally have a good understanding of the role and limitations of government are.

    • (Show?)

      Interesting.

      Why be "happy" that they feel the need to carry firearms? And how does the carrying of them demonstrate an understanding of the role and limitations of government, exactly?

      Your premises are odd, to say the least. It would be informative if you'd actually back them up with say, factual information.

      • (Show?)

        Wow, Carla. It's amazing how anyone who doesn't agree with your point of view lacks understanding and lacks facts. Not to mention has an odd premise.

        I didn't recognize Rep. Hanna's gun as a Seecamp. I thought it looked like a Walther PPK .380 caliber.

        But either way, much less of a risk to Oregon than the woman I saw yesterday on the freeway with three Obama stickers on her car, talking on her hand-held cell phone, smoking a cigarette (at least until she threw the cig out of her window and bounced it off my van).

        • (Show?)

          KenRay: Reading is fundamental. Nowhere did I say that anyone who disagreed with me lacked "understanding and facts". I asked them to please back up their premises with facts. I'm confident you understand the very fundamental difference there.

          • (Show?)

            Clearly I am referring to the aggregate responses I have seen from you and not this specific one.

            You're right, Reading is Fundamental. That is why I have always wondered why so many libs have trouble with "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

            • (Show?)

              Yes..I suspect that you've seen me often ask people to back up their premises with factual reasoning. I'm kind of a stickler for that sort of stuff..especially when someone posts rhetoric that appears to have been copied from bumperstickers. That has nothing to do with them necessarily lacking "understanding and facts". It has to do with me trying to understand how they arrived at their conclusions.

              Often I find that probing an individual's thought process this way helps me to understand where they are coming from and gives me context. Perhaps to you, that's a sign that I think they are full of crap (and sometimes the probing demonstrates that they are). But no--it's actually my way of trying to figure out why their thinking and beliefs differs from mine.

    • (Show?)

      What is even more amusing is your false claim that "everyone around here" is messing themselves at all, much less over a goofy photo of two legislators holding some guns.

      What is odd however is your blithe implied assertion that somehow being "comfortable with the second amendment" gives said person any more or less insight into the role and/or limitations of government.

  • (Show?)

    Sorry Carla...not sure that facts can be used to validate personal experience. I'm pragmatically happy to see our representatives with firearms, and since I know both these men are strong supporters of the Second Amendment, it isn't a stretch to say they have a much more republican view on the role of limited government. Moreso than perhaps yourself. The 2A isn't about hunting...it is about the supremacy of citizens over a government. I realize that notion is anathema to many readers here. A government, that as it tries to be all things to all people, will continue to grow out of control, consuming both freedom and resources at an alarming rate to provide decreasingly effective services for the people who should be free and motivated to provide for themselves. You may think this has nothing to do with guns. But philosophically, a citizen who has a gun (and for the right purposes) is providing for their own safety...complementary to and perhaps independent of what government may deem to offer.

    Firearms make me more secure in my home and my travels. Those same firearms make some liberals less secure, because they fear the unknown, and that someone is doing for themselves what they feel necessary for their own lives.

    There are bad people in this world. People of such undeniable evil who would harm you, me, and our families for no reason other than to watch our lives slip away while they watch. I absolutely respect our police officers and the job they do for us. But I will not, cannot, should not risk my life or the lives of family or friends by abandoning my ability to defend against such horrible acts just to hope government can do what must be done, and in time.

    That, in a nutshell, is how I view the role of the Second Amendment with limited government.

    • (Show?)

      Dan:

      First, you again make a lot of premises--and now add generalizations, that are both insulting and honestly either misinformed or uninformed.

      I have a working understanding of the Second Amendment--please don't presume that myself or other liberals/progressives don't. Just because I don't agree with your ideological view of government doesn't mean that my knowledge is any less than yours. In fact, its entirely possible it could be greater.

      A citizen who has a gun may or may not be "providing for their own safety". Some citizens who own guns clearly aren't making their own safety the priority for having them, else armed robbery or murder via firearms by citizens wouldn't be an issue.

      You may feel more secure with a firearm in your home--and if that's what gets you through the day, fine. But there are many others (myself included) who feel much less secure under those circumstances. I'm no less a proud citizen who embraces the Bill of Rights than you are. I just choose to live my life differently.

      Yes, there are bad people in the world. And some of those bad people are citizens who own guns. Having a gun to shoot back at them doesn't make me more secure, IMO. It makes me a greater target. That's my call to make, just as owning a gun is yours. But IMO, you're no safer than I am. You're just a lot more scared.

      I choose not to live that way.

      I don't believe that it's in my best interest or that of my loved ones and friends to be "defended" in the way you describe. What I see you doing is creating more fear and frankly, more violence. That puts me and mine at greater risk to be associated with that. So I choose to pass.

      To me, this picture doesn't show two proud Americans embracing the 2nd Amendment. It shows 2 guys who live in fear and make themselves targets.

    • (Show?)

      What nonsense. The ownership of firearms is not about the supremacy of the citizens over their government, unless you think that armed insurrection is a viable option afforded under the Constitution.

      I have no problem with private ownership of firearms, but this notion that you and your Glock are the last safeguard within our Constitutional form of government is pure drivel as it not only conveniently ignore the explicit rationale on why private ownership of arms was protecting within the bill of rights (i.e. in order to maintain a well-regulated militia). It most certainly was not for purposes of make sure that the citizenry can carry out armed insurrection if it disagrees with our own self-government as constituted via our founding documents.

      • (Show?)

        Please. http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm

        Your comments have no basis in fact. You are saying the founding fathers only wanted folks to be able to have guns in case they were called upon to defend the country? And the fact that they came from a society where they were unable to protect themselves from their government had no relation to the second amendment? I think you know what the truth is and are intentionally saying something else. You may argue whether the same conditions relate to our society today, and that it should not apply, but the facts do not support you on why/how the 2nd amendment came about. At the same time, maybe Carla can post some data on how many law abiding gun owner citizens are shooting up the place catching innocent folks in the crossfire? I think the data shows that concealed carry folks are some of the most level headed folks on the planet.

  • (Show?)

    Safety and security are matters of opinion, both yours and mine. It seems we are both living our lives within the comfort of what we both believe and understand. We may have perceptions of each other that may or may not be correct, but either way, our lives are ours to live as we see fit.

    To that end, I won't try to put a gun in your hands, so don't try to take one out of mine.

  • (Show?)

    Guns make us all more secure, which is why we can carry them on airplanes, so as to stop terrorists. Right?

  • (Show?)

    Brandishing firearms in a political setting such as in the ridiculous photo above is a tacit statement that the rule of law has failed and martial law is instituted. I don't think it's funny.

    D. E. gives the knee-jerk extremist reaction to the fact that a civil society has the right to regulate the use of weapons; his compatriots are howling for sanctions (or worse) on Iran for unacceptable weapons possession, but they are exempt? Oh, because they love freedom...

  • (Show?)

    Guns aren't a panacea to the ills of the world. But I'd wager there were at least four airplanes full of people on September 11th that wished they had one. Pretty sure the result couldn't have possibly been any worse than what happened. Things might be a lot different today.

    My mom always said "better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it." Grated, she was usually talking about a handkerchief or cough drops...but the principle still applies.

    • (Show?)

      Nonsense. The outcome would not have been different since until that time, no high-jacking of an airliner was ever used as self-guiding missiles. Nor would allowing passengers would have altered the outcome since the high-jackers would have been armed with more than box-cutters. Perhaps your idea of improving safety on airlines is a shoot-out at 35,000 feet.

      And sorry to inform you but your mom is simply not correct when it is "better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it." since a person who may very well be mentally disturbed on a airliner with a gun is an unwarranted risk that can and should be averted by barring firearms on aircraft except in cases of law enforcement officers (i.e. sky marshals) being on board a flight.

  • (Show?)

    Thanks for the attempt to derail any actual discussion. My contention is that you refuse the notion that control of weapon usage in a civil society is tantamount to banning possession; an extreme and dishonest position.

    As far as the 2nd Amendment, it gives you no right to armed insurrection against a duly constituted government, even if it isn't being run by your party.

  • (Show?)

    "Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right, Here I am stuck in the middle with you ...."

  • (Show?)

    Not sure I understand. Are you saying that I DO believe that gun control is equivalent to banning possession? Not sure how that's possible. We currently have good laws that govern the purchase, possession and use of weapons. If there was a point you were making, I had hoped I would find it by now.

    As for the armed insurrection comment, I have somehow managed to survive democrat and republican administrations alike without ever feeling such a need. To do so would be treason at the least. The key, as you stated, is in a government that is duly constituted...and I don't mean any crap about a dangling chad, or some rumor about being born in Kenya. I may not be a fan of democrat policies...but I am a fan of democracy, even it it means I don't always get what I want. Democracy means more to me than that. But we can agree that history is replete with examples of governments that have turned on their own citizens, abandoning such democratic principles that I hope we both share. These examples have come from both the Left and the Right sides of the political spectrum, and they both use wonderful justifications for their tragic abuses of power.

    • (Show?)
      As for the armed insurrection comment, I have somehow managed to survive democrat and republican administrations alike without ever feeling such a need.

      Yet that is the implicit argument underlying those who use the armed citizenry is the best defense against their own government position vise-vis ownership of firearms.

      Seems many who are staunch "defenders" of the second amendment talk out of both sides of their mouth. They are not saying that armed insurrection is legitimate, but we need to have our guns in case we need to have an armed insurrection because "big government" might become tyrannical.

      Which is it?

  • (Show?)

    Mitchell, please allow me a question:

    Is armed revolt against a government EVER a legitimate option for a population?

    Clearly this option has been used before. But it appears that you have somehow ruled it out. I understand you are sensitive to charges against "Big Government"...your emphasis, not mine. But government doesn't have to be big (or democrat-run) to undo the underpinnings of a legitimate democracy and abuse the very citizens from whom they derive their just authority.

    No one wants to think it would or could ever happen here. We have a great system, with good people, by and large. But things don't always stay the same. And part of the checks and balances of our system - beyond the three branches of our government - that that governments, both legitimate and illegitimate, ultimately answer to the people. History shows that tyrants only respect force. If the notion of people prepared to use such force to preserve legitimate governments and democracy in this nation keep tyrants from becoming ambitious...great. You may find this notion anachronistic in today's modern age...but history repeats itself.

  • (Show?)

    I was short of time in my last comment, obviously left 'not' out of the phrase 'not tantamount'.

    I fear I have diverted the thread, which was not actually about gun control. As I said, I don't see humor in the subject, only thinly veiled threats.

  • (Show?)

    "Ya know Andy, if I pack heat, and you pack heat, and Kevin, and Jackie, and Vickie, and Kim, and, and EVERYBODY starts packin' heat, why we wouldn't need no stinkin' capitol security!" "Yeah Bruce, who says Republicans don't have fresh ideas!"

  • (Show?)

    Why is the Republican Mafia always smiling?

  • (Show?)

    Wait I can hear him...Hans is saying... "Double your pleasure. Double you GUN!"

    (at times the ghost of bloggers long gone speak thru me I have sought help for this....but like Hurley on LOST I have started to see it as a gift)

connect with blueoregon