You can call it a Red herring or a Rutabega ....That does not make it not so.
That is correct. What makes it a red herring isn't the fact that I pointed it out. What makes it a red herring is that it fits the definition of a "red herring".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring
"The idiom "red herring" is used to refer to something that misleads or distracts from the relevant or important issue."
In this case the important issue is that the strategy you are endorsing/defending has been demonstrated to have the opposite effect from what is intended.
The red herring is your attempt to begin a debate on whether the right that was restricted was important/practical or not.
Answer that question........ and if you say "At least it was allowed" (in theory) ..... I'm gonna scream.
I'm sure that answering it that way would distress you since it is an answer that can not be refuted. But I'll answer it and since the part of the answer that frustrates you has already been adequately and accurately stated elsewhere, I'll refrain from pointing it out again.
Of what use is "unloaded open carry", tactical or otherwise, other than to say your Constitutional rights were not being violated?"
1. This is a red herring in the context of this debate. You want to try to make a point of the practicality (impracticality) of the right that was restricted, but the REAL point is that the right (however practical, useful, useless or impractical) WAS restricted, and it was restricted as a result of the type of demonstrations that you are defending/endorsing. Demonstrations which were conceived and carried out to EXPAND the right, not to have it abrogated.
2. It is extremely short-sighted, self-centered and egotistical for anyone to undertake a strategy that results (or can easily be foreseen to result) in the restriction or abrogation of rights based purely on their personal assessment of how practical, useful, or valuable that right is. They are not the only persons affected and while they may find the right useless, there may be others who have a very different opinion.
So your line of argument is distressing in two ways. First, it's based on the idea that it's acceptable (even desirable) for a small group to take a course of action that results in the rights of an entire state's population being restricted if that small group feels that the rights in question aren't of sufficient practicality for them. That whole concept is absolutely repugnant.
And second, it's distressing because you can't seem to see that it's not relevant to the discussion at hand since the issue isn't the IMPORTANCE of the rights being endangered (or the assessment of that importance by a small group) but rather that the rights ARE being endangered.
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......
What divided gun owners was the decision of a few persons to begin a series of ill-advised demonstrations. Those demonstrations resulted in adverse publicity for ALL gun owners and resulted in anti-gun legislation being passed.
That kind of a SNAFU
should divide gun owners in the sense that the general gun community needs to pillory groups that undertake strategies that have been shown to result, or can easily be foreseen to result in additional restrictions being enacted. If a small group of people screw it up, or try to screw it up for everyone, they should NOT expect to be held up as heroes. Even if they are incapable of foreseeing the outcome which is obvious to most, they should seek advice and LISTEN to the advice instead of rushing in like the proverbial male bovine in the ceramic diningware store.
This is a lesson that we ALL need to learn, and the sooner the better.
