More open carry guys scaring the public
- Thread starter feets
- Start date
- Status
California.
The vast majority of people bought into the idea that only cops and robbers carried guns- it was not something that was done- not "the norm" ..... then when a few people actually tried to excercise their rights that they nominally had, it was considered "scary" enough that it was outlawed outright. It did not start like that, but little by little, one step at a time, California gun owners have been divided and marginialized ...... even now, there are people on this board attacking the OC advocates as hurting gun rights for trying to excercise the rights they nominally had...... this smacks of blaming a fellow victim for angering the attackers.
A Right IS like a muscle- unused, it will wither.
A good analogy is this: If you sit on your couch and eat twinkies and watch 12 hours of whatever drek there is on TV, go to bed telling yourself you feel fine, and repeat daily for a decade and then get up one day and decide you are gonna dead lift your body weight .... you are going to hurt yourself.
Lt. Skrumpledonk Ret
New member
C'mon. That first picture looks more like a victory celebration in a middle Eastern war zone du jour than an OC rally. That tells me you really couldn't find any instances/pictures of kooks acting obnoxiously at a rally. Disingenuous.
Might as well cover 'The Evils of Hunting' while showing the baby buffalo scene from Dances With Wolves.
Might as well cover 'The Evils of Hunting' while showing the baby buffalo scene from Dances With Wolves.
Correct. A poorly planned campaign (remarkably similar to what's going on in TX right now) by the "use it or lose it" folks resulted in open carry being banned entirely in CA. Unloaded open carry had been legal for approximately 3 decades before the ill-advised campaign resulted in a total ban.
It only seems that way if you limit your thinking.
1. We got the CHL bill passed in TX in 1995. But it wasn't passed as a result of demonstrations, it was done by more conventional means. In other words, the gun owners of TX, along with TSRA, rallied pro-gun representatives and politicians and managed to get the bill through the legislature and signed. It took awhile and a lot of work, but once it was passed, it provided a toehold for further expansion of the ability carry handguns legally in TX.
Since the initial law was passed, the renewal frequency has been decreased, the class length has been decreased and renewal classes eliminated, a number of the initial restrictions have been relaxed or eliminated, and, now it is legal to carry concealed in one's own vehicle in TX without a permit.
This next legislative session, the goal was to begin pushing for the legalization of Open Carry, but I suspect that will be a really hard sell now.
2. One can use a right prudently and not endanger it. There is no reason to expect that prudent open carry of long guns in TX would have resulted in legal restrictions, but buffoonery, especially the kind that gets a lot of publicity can certainly have negative consequences.
3. Finally, one can obviously exercise a right without participating in demonstrations and even if one participates on demonstrations, those demonstrations need not be carried out in such a manner as to alienate the public. The "use it or lose it" argument (and those who espouse it) pretend that public demonstrations (carried out exactly the way they want to run them) are the only way to maintain and expand rights. That misconception (combined with an apparent inability to determine the likely consequences of their actions) is a primary contributing factor to the outcome of the recent unfortunate incidents that sparked this thread.
The "use it or lose it" argument is bankrupt from a practical standpoint (generally seems to be very poorly implemented in practice), from a historical/experiential standpoint and from a logical standpoint.
I agree.
how do you feel about the Ohio folks that open carried in large groups in businesses all over the place. they did this because it was the only means they had to carry a gun since ccw was illegal.
they did this, purposely making a spectacle of themselves to highlight their need for ccw. while this isn't the same as the dolts recently pictured in a fast food joint, it would have been reasonable for this to have been done in California where it "was" legal to open carry by state law, yet many locales refused to issue ccw permits because self defense wasn't (and still isn't) a good enough reason to carry a gun.
btw, I never stated nor implies that I agreed with the use or lose it mantra. if I did please point that out for me so I can edit the statement as it was not my intent.
Of what use is "unloaded open carry", tactical or otherwise, other than to say your Constitutional rights were not being violated? Especially if you were fool enough to actually try it .....
Bupkus, that's what.
At least now it's out in the open that Californians have no effective 2nd Amendment rights outside their homes. Give the PTB time and they won't have that, because everyone is afraid to stand up for themselves, for fear of bein marginialized ..... as a "militant" or a "nut" or and "extremist" or a " right winger" or a "Tea Bagger" ..... they'll tar you with whatever is convenient if you stand up for yourself, and ignore your silent protest if you don't ...... we have to stand together or all hang separately.
The "unloaded open carry" was a compromise, based on fear of the Black Panthers excercising their 2A rights ...... divide and conquer, the playbook is still the same: We can't have those scary people having guns ...... until nobody but the cops and the robbers have guns- and neither have the average Joe's best interst's in mind ......
California started down this slope in the 1960's and has not reversed course. It has not been all downhill, but little to no elevation has been gained, for sure.
I haven't analyzed their situation, but I think my position is clear. If what they did could be accurately characterized as prudent then I'm with them. If it could accurately characterized as buffoonery, then I'm against them. If you have to ask what makes something prudent, versus being buffoonery, then I suggest that some serious study and research is in order before you advocate any particular course of action or endorse any activist group.
This is a red herring. You've now dropped the original point of your argument and are trying to follow another thread of thought since your original point is defunct.
Whether it was of use or not, it WAS allowed until someone got the bright idea that they needed to exercise their right to keep it and didn't think through their actions carefully. Now they are even more restricted than before.
This is sour grapes--an attempt (and an ineffective one at that) to rationalize an undesirable outcome after the fact. No one was confused about the fact that CA has very restrictive gun laws. It's common knowledge.
You started off arguing that a right not exercised is a right lost and gave CA as an example. In fact, CA is an example of a right exercised imprudently that was subsequently lost. CA is a direct counterexample that disproves the validity of your original assertion.
Now you want to try to turn things around and argue that the right that was lost is of little value.
That is what is called a red herring. It is an attempt to change the subject to distract from the fact that your assertion has been disproved/invalidated.
You are right that open, unloaded carry is not as practical as loaded carry. But, impractical as it was, it was a right that could be exercised. And it was a right that WAS exercised imprudently and lost as a direct result.
There's no polite way to say it. This is a load of crap.
This amounts to one of the following:
1. Trying to imply that the goal of the CA activists was to get open carry banned on the chance that challenging a total ban would be easier than challenging the law as it stood. This is an admission that you understand that exercising a right can cause more restrictive laws to be passed (in spite of your original claim that exercising a right is how you keep it from being restricted) and also an admission that you feel that gambling with the rights of others is acceptable.
For what it's worth, supporting this kind of activism with the goal of getting additional gun-control passed in an attempt to make future challenges more likely to be effective, is not only a foolish strategy, it is also reprehensible.
2. The second possibility is that you don't really believe that it was an intended consequence and this is just another red herring designed to distract attention from the initial unsound assertion.
Finally, it's not "same, same". While unloaded open carry is not as practical as loaded carry, it did have at least some practical value in that a semi-auto could be carried unloaded with a separate loaded mag and loaded very rapidly. Many people consider "car carry" to have practical viability and it's obvious that having a gun immediately to hand that only has to be loaded to be useful is even more practical in some situations than having a gun in the car that must be retrieved before it can be used.
The "same, same" allegation is another example of sour grapes. A weak attempt to rationalize an undesirable outcome after the fact. An undesirable outcome that is diametrical to the outcome you initially claimed was the goal of this kind of activity.
I'm going to assume that you really want to expand gun rights. If that is true, and you honestly claim that you and others are doing A to achieve B, then when someone can show you where doing A achieved the OPPOSITE of B, that is NOT the time to try to distract them from your initial claim by tossing around clichés, strawmen, non-sequiturs and red herrings. That is the time to sit down and re-evaluate your strategy. Unless, of course, your only goal is to win the argument and you don't really care about expanding gun rights at all.
This is a strawman. These people aren't being vilified for "standing up for themselves", they are being vilified for doing something in the face of evidence that it is hurting the cause they claim to be supporting--i.e. for doing something stupid.
Second, they SHOULD be afraid (or at least ashamed) of publicly doing stupid things with guns.
Third, they ARE nuts, it's not that they're being made to appear to be nuts. If they weren't nuts, there wouldn't be pictures of them holding firearms at low ready in a public building that doesn't have a backstop. They wouldn't be doing and advocating things that have been demonstrated to hurt their own cause.
Fourth, we should absolutely NOT stand together with people who do things that have been shown to hurt the cause of advancing firearm rights. It's bad enough that they do it. It is far worse if the gun community endorses their ill-advised actions.
The people who do this do NOT speak for me. I do NOT stand with them. I do NOT endorse them or the actions they have taken. I do NOT endorse others who take the same course of action. I will NOT hang with them. Every THINKING gun owner I have talked to has said the same thing.
These people are NOT being singled out for special persecution, their very public and ill-advised actions are being accurately critiqued. To the extent that they have been singled out, they chose to single themselves out, if you will. It's ridiculous to imply that we need to support them or we'll hang separately. Their ill-advised actions are putting the rights of ALL of us in danger and the situation is only made worse if the gun community endorses their actions. There's every reason for us to distance ourselves from them and their philosophy and no valid reason to do otherwise.
Crazy isn't the word I'm looking for.
You'd have to be able to completely ignore facts and and be totally disconnected from reality to believe that the recent OC events in Texas were in any way a "false flag". That would be... crazy? But I can still think of a couple other words that more accurately describe that logic.
You'd have to be able to completely ignore facts and and be totally disconnected from reality to believe that the recent OC events in Texas were in any way a "false flag". That would be... crazy? But I can still think of a couple other words that more accurately describe that logic.
.
"False flag", not so. The anti-gunners could not possibly have dreamed up this stuff: They lack the "Bubba" talent.
Who needs "false flag" incidents when we have organized groups of egotistical, self centered, uninformed, showoffs who are willing to enter restraunts carrying long guns.
i can't believe the large number of gunowners who support these guys and cheer them on.
It was 3 AM and maybe it was a not a cohernet, linear argument.
You can call it a Red herring or a Rutabega ....That does not make it not so.
I ask you again:
Of what use is "unloaded open carry", tactical or otherwise, other than to say your Constitutional rights were not being violated?"
Answer that question........ and if you say "At least it was allowed" (in theory) ..... I'm gonna scream.
What would such a thing be good for, in a practical sense, other than a as a legal defense for someone doing so and arrested for it ....or as step by the other side towards banning them in Public outright, by taking the cake in small compromise bites? If the latter is the case, it also furthers the goal of the other side by furher dividing gun owners into those that are happy they got to keep something, anything, even if it was useless and those who were not......
As for "sour grapes", I doubt that a Constitutional challenge was the plan .... but it IS more possible now ..... and I believe that is now the best way forward.
_______________________________________________________________
"You have the Right/ to Free Speech /....... so long as your not dumb enough/ to actually try it.
Theohazard
New member
Jimbob86, he already answered your question:jimbob86 said:
I agree with JohnKSa: Your arguments aren't making a lot of sense. Here's what it seems that you've argued so far:JohnKSa said:
- California was a case of losing the right to open carry because it wasn't exercised.
- California's version of open carry was useless anyway.
- It's a good thing open carry was banned in California because now the state is even more extreme, which will help our side in the long run.
johnelmore
New member
When I was a Boy Scout they had a presentation where they brought in this guy who was a hunter and an NRA instructor. They passed around various firearms he brought in out to the group. No one was scared, no parents became concerned and no one felt it to be unusual. From time to time we would see men with rifles and pistols around town but we didnt think it to.be unusual. I remember my first real job out of the military I had a discussion with my coworker and he was telling me about his pistols. Then we went out to his car in the parking lot to show them to me from the trunk of his car.
Welcome to a friendly state! Now if you go out to California or NJ or Mass its very different. Carrying around a weapon of any kind is sinful not just a crime. Everything is illegal in those places even holding a sandwich in the hand while driving. Its all about culture. Some people view firearms as scary while others view them as instruments of amusement and sport or tools for defense.
Now if I saw a man with a rifle outside I would go out to see what he has and I might even show him mine and engage in conversation. In California everyone runs for their lives as "guns" are scary there. Its all about culture...
Welcome to a friendly state! Now if you go out to California or NJ or Mass its very different. Carrying around a weapon of any kind is sinful not just a crime. Everything is illegal in those places even holding a sandwich in the hand while driving. Its all about culture. Some people view firearms as scary while others view them as instruments of amusement and sport or tools for defense.
Now if I saw a man with a rifle outside I would go out to see what he has and I might even show him mine and engage in conversation. In California everyone runs for their lives as "guns" are scary there. Its all about culture...
It was far from ideal, but it allowed hunters to carry a sidearm in the field among other things. Now that option has been taken off the table by a bunch of guys who took it upon themselves to speak for everyone, and who screwed it up in the long term.
I'll ask again: who appointed Nichols and his friends to speak for all Californians? Who consented to having the practice completely banned?
No. The only people being divisive are the open-carry advocates. They love driving a wedge by castigating anyone who suggests they show some prudence and discretion. Anyone who disagrees with them doesn't support the 2nd Amendment, and so forth.
- Status