Irresponsible Open Carry Activism Jeopardizes The RKBA

Rosa Parks was protesting a law. If there is no law to protest and you're stated goal is to make Joe Blow more comfortable, this is like the exact opposite of the smart way to do it.
Click to expand...

Bingo.


What strikes me as hilarious in this thread is thinking about the 1960s and 1970s when it was left-wing activists who were toting the guns in public. The conservative, get-a-haircut crowd was worried, and now look at us.
Click to expand...

Not even close.... at least not in my case. I am certainly not worried about these whackos and I don't think anyone on our side is scared of them. The thing people continue to miss is that THOSE activists in the 60/70s were actually fighting for something and just using the gun as a tool. The only thing the OC "activists" are fighting for is attention and they are using the gun as a tool to get it.
-RJP
 
Last edited:
The only thing the OC "activists" are fighting for is attention and they are using the gun as a tool to get it.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree.

There's been more than a few posts here over the years by some yahzoo that, in all honesty was doing more for the other side than anything else..

From just plain silly outright lies to someone acting like a first class jerkwad in a WalMart.

IMHO - the fight if there is one, is for the fence sitters.
I believe pushing them will result in just that - pushing them off the fence and onto the anti side.
 
There was a picture floating around the gun board a year or two ago; if I remember it right it was a pudgy guy in casual clothes with a cloth hat, smiling and carrying a happy toddler... with a holstered gun on his hip (the dad's hip, not the toddler's). There's no way anybody could feel threatened by that -- unless they meant to harm or steal the kid.

That's OC at its finest.
 
Keeping and bearing is 2A protected activity. In states where it is not illegal, and if done in a way that is not unnecessarily alarming, I see no harm. Activism is 1A protected activity. Are we entertaining the idea that these two rights should never be exercised simultaneously?

If open carrying is done in a manner that is confrontational or especially threatening or with an angry demeanor, then I would agree that it hurts the cause. But to flatly assert that one should never practice 2A and 1A activity at the same time is perhaps over simplifying the matter.

As usual the devil is in the details. For any public activism, rather than 'ambushing' police with a situation that presents an unknown threat level, perhaps it would be wise and prudent to initiate advance cooperation with police to help assure them that safety would be maintained . . . not seeking permission, but seeking cooperation. Lowering rather than raising the anxiety level of citizens and those charged with protecting the public just seems to be common sense.

My 2 cents.
 
maestro pistolero said:
Keeping and bearing is 2A protected activity..... Activism is 1A protected activity. Are we entertaining the idea that these two rights should never be exercised simultaneously?...
Click to expand...
And of course not.

Let's remember that the First Amendment protection afforded to activism only permits it. It doesn't guarantee that any particular activist activity will be effective. The challenge for the activist is to engage in First Amendment protected activities of a nature and in a way well calculated to achieve the desired result.
 
The only thing the OC "activists" are fighting for is attention and they are using the gun as a tool to get it.
Click to expand...

I disagree completely.

I OC every day. I have OC'd daily for years (since 1970) I am not looking for attention, I am looking to allow those that may do me harm, the ability to make an informed decision. I have never had a confrontation, been on the news, or been hasseled...in what...42 years of carry? (BTW, It works as a deterrent, I personally know that for a fact)

How about the last conversation I had about my OC? At Big R (a farm supply store chain in MT, ID and WA). What was the question? New manager from MT wanted to know why he saw so FEW OC'ers in WA as compared to his last store in MT. He asked about the WA law, and I helped him as I could. He was/is also not out for attention.

Are there those that are seeking attention by their OC activities out there? Of course, there are loud mouths in every crowd. Doesn't matter if it a woman walking down the street in NYC with no top (legal BTW) or someone carrying a .22 that just happens to LOOK scary (if any .22 could look scary). I've shot a real MP5, I don't think they are scary either...I don't particularly like the MP5, or any pistol like it, unless someone else is buying the ammo.
 
Although its getting to have been a while since I did OC my goal was to gain acceptance by showing that the sole act of having a gun did not make one a bad guy.. Ive posted previously my method which I wont repeat here... The bottom line is I tried to avoid shock...

All that said a "Right" is still a "Right" and has to be useable inorder to maintain that status. I do agree that some people go overboard and its easy for media to take a minor incident and make it into a monster... Alot of it has to do with political corectness.

Still all in all the "Right" must exist, we as a society live under this illusion that our basic needs are overall going to always be met and we have a certain minimum of police protection... We seem to ignore that civil unrest or disturbances may occur for any number of reasons... Flood, hurricane, power outage, disasters of every sort.... A single electromagnetic pulse from the sun is capable of knocking us back to having no electricity for years... In many of these situations a firearm is essential for defense, hunting, creating noise so rescuers can find you...

The protection of society is only a thin sheet, Open Carry is important to help people know as a society that guns are still important and not just for defense.
 
Some folks don't seem to understand that because something is legal doesn't mean it is wise and arguing that it is not wise is NOT the same as arguing that it should be illegal.
 
I agree with you Brian... One of the variables though is the number of cultures in our society... What many groups see is unacceptabe some groups see as being acceptable.. Being a melting pot of ideas has been anything but easy and I for one dont always agree that it makes us stronger or better... It only makes us stronger or better when there is a willingness to be flexible, a give and take....

I have a close friend who told me outright that he feels his cultural group has no need to respect our traditions or history and that the Bill of Rights is outdated and it has to take the meaning that the youth of today deem it to be... The question he offered in so many words was why should we expect to have guns as a "Right" when they apparently have no meaning to his thoughts about his culture.

I think the internet has added to a resurgence of gun culture as people who once felt isolated as gun owners now can connect all over the world with others... The downside is of course that some willingly choose to ignore common sense or maybe under my friends view, tradition need not apply and maybe we all need to get use to the idea that some our ideas about community and social contract are being thrown out and its anything goes... anything but tradition...

Some conceptualize a US where the 2A is absolute with few limits and they may not think about how they are presenting it, or in the new thinking maybe the structure of the social contract is changing...
 
Last edited:
I strongly disagree with my friend but I can (rightly/wrongly) see were some types of thinking are coming from in our society...

It seems to be truly "anything but tradition" goes... Our social contract seems to having in it people shouldnt feel threatened... In the new social contract its do whatever you want goes... I know this is a over simplification of a complex idea but its not an entirely inaccurate way to describe what I see happening in college..

Side note and not to divert the thread... But one thing I see happening is a new family forming... Constant communications and texting is putting the parents in a less influential group compare to peers as kids come into teen years.... Its effect now and in future years will be less than desirable on every part of our nation... Youth ideas being modified by peers instead of parents puts tradition in harms way, it also changes what the youth think is acceptable with guns and other ideas.
 
Last edited:
Brian Pfleuger said:
Some folks don't seem to understand that because something is legal doesn't mean it is wise and arguing that it is not wise is NOT the same as arguing that it should be illegal.
Click to expand...

Some such people may exist, but they don't seem to have posted in this thread much, if at all. Like free speech, the exercise of the right can be profoundly stupid, but still defensible as a legitimate exercise of the right.

Whether exercise of a right is wise, whether it is irresponsible, and whether it jeopardizes the RKBA all seem distinguishable.

What we do see early in the thread is the anxiety that exercise of the right in a manner that records the police response, referred to in this thread as "activism", to it will result in political curtailment of the exercise of the right. We are assured that there is a history of activism leading to statutory restriction, but we also have contrary experience of the activism as an outgrowth of the political support for a greater freedom for legal carry.

The proposition set forth by Rob Pincus in the OP strikes many as counter-intuitive and its support in recent history appears ambiguous.

What I believe we agree we do have is a history of POs responding to legal open carry agressively and even improperly, with a more recent trend of POs video of whom shows an intelligent, diplomatic and reasonable approach.

For those who are uncomfortable with videorecording PO responses to exercise of a right, what is the better way to educate PDs and the public about the benign nature of exercise of the right?
 
I totally agree with Brian, as I've stated... I'm 110% pro 2A but I think OC in certain environments is more trouble than it's worth.

Brian, are you Peetzakiller? I've been off board for awhile... Back in School.
 
Not even close.... at least not in my case. I am certainly not worried about these whackos and I don't think anyone on our side is scared of them. The thing people continue to miss is that THOSE activists in the 60/70s were actually fighting for something and just using the gun as a tool. The only thing the OC "activists" are fighting for is attention and they are using the gun as a tool to get it.
-RJP
Click to expand...

Correct, since many have obvious maturity issues , and can't wait to go to the mall, have an incident involving citizens or security, and then write a thread about it. Rubbing peoples' noses in the Second Amendment, especially those who were previously undecided on the issue, is selfish and immature.

Not saying there aren't environments where it's appropriate--just that there are environments where it isn't.:cool:
 
I have noticed that several posters have referred to RKBA as a 'cause' or 'movement'. Am I clear in my understanding that RKBA refers the right to keep and bear arms?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top