More open carry guys scaring the public

[Tom Servo]

Juxtapose "private ownership of these Assault Weapons" for "long gun OC"

Those are two very different things.

Nobody's asking for open carry to be legislated away. We're asking people to take it upon themselves not to be raving idjits in public.

Of course, some folks don't listen, and the behavior has been curtailed as a result of people who claim to be representing us. That isn't how the Assault Weapons Ban happened.

Or are you implying that those of us who advocate discretion and common sense are practicing the same mentality as those who supported the 1994 ban?

 

[Theohazard]

The similarities to the discussion here were striking.

The arguments being made might have sounded similar to you, but the two subjects aren't even remotely similar and you know it.

With the AWB, anti-gun politicians invented a non-existent class of firearms and then regulated it soley based on cosmetic features. They sold this ban to the public by misleading them into thinking they were banning machine guns. This has awful implications for gun ownership as a whole: Since "assault weapons" don't actually exist outside of complicated legislation regulating a gun's scary-looking cosmetic features, politicians can expand the definition to mean any scary-looking firearm they want banned. Or any firearm, period.

Therefore, anyone who supports an "assault weapons" ban either doesn't know what it actually bans, or sees it as a good first step to more widespread gun bans. Or both.

But the open carry issue is completely different. None of us here are advocating banning open carry. But what we're asking is for people to use prudence and common sense when they open carry. And that means not brandishing their ARs in a family restaurant just to make a stupid political point that's guaranteed to backfire.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

NRA on the Chipolte-oids.

Let's not mince words, not only is it rare, it's downright weird and certainly not a practical way to go normally about your business while being prepared to defend yourself. To those who are not acquainted with the dubious practice of using public displays of firearms as a means to draw attention to oneself or one's cause, it can be downright scary. It makes folks who might normally be perfectly open-minded about firearms feel uncomfortable and question the motives of pro-gun advocates.

http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/a...s-and-good-neighbors-the-gun-owners-role.aspx

Well said.

 

[Tom Servo]

The problem is, the rifle open-carry folks won't heed it. To them, the NRA is an organization of sellout Fudds who lack ideological purity.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

At least for the general public, they can be identified as not typical or respected.

Many organizations when fighting for a cause have had to comment negatively on the extreme fringe.

 

[Tom Servo]

Many organizations when fighting for a cause have had to comment negatively on the extreme fringe.

A few years back, I had to deal with PETA on an issue. I've been having some serious flashbacks to that lately...

 

[jimbob86]

The arguments being made might have sounded similar to you, but the two subjects aren't even remotely similar and you know it.

On the contrary. They have much in common: The arguments that supported them are much the same, ("You don't need that/need to do that", and "It's scaring the uninformed public and is therefore a Bad Thing") and the issue was used by the other side as a wedge to divide the pro-gun side.

It worked then, and is, as evidenced by comments in this thread, working now.

 

[Theohazard]

On the contrary. They have much in common: The arguments that supported them are much the same, ("You don't need that/need to do that", and "It's scaring the uninformed public and is therefore a Bad Thing") and the issue was used by the other side as a wedge to divide the pro-gun side.

It worked then, and is, as evidenced by comments in this thread, working now.

OK, I can only assume you're being deliberately obtuse to make your point. But I'll play along.

There's a huge underlying difference that's even more important than just how different these two issues are: None of us are advocating for a ban on any type of open carry. Period. We're simply asking people to stop doing something that's been considered impolite in most places for all of American history: Namely, don't parade around a restaurant with your long gun while trying to make a political point. That's it.

We all know how absolutely ridiculous the AWB is. Anyone who supports it either doesn't know what it bans, or sees it a good step towards further gun bans, or is just an idiot. Or some combination of the three. But this issue is completely different.

Do you honestly think we're the same as the people who supported the AWB in 1994? Do you honestly think that it's a good idea to parade around in a private restaurant with a slung rifle during an open carry rally?

 

[jimbob86]

We all know how absolutely ridiculous the AWB is.

Ah, but MY point is that in May of 1994, we (gun owners) most certainly did not know, or believe, that the AWB was ridculous ...... several called in to that show and said having a 30 round magazine was ridiculous.

Prominent gun people said the same...... Bill Ruger said "By a simple, complete and unequivocal ban on large capacity magazines, all the difficulty of defining 'assault rifle' and 'semi-automatic rifles' is eliminated. The large capacity magazine itself, separate or attached to the firearm, becomes the prohibited item. A single amendment to Federal firearms laws could effectively ." ....... Ronald Reagan, (as well as Gerald Ford) signed onto a letter that said, “We are writing to urge your support for a ban on the domestic manufacture of military-style assault weapons. This is a matter of vital importance to the public safety.”



AR 15's were perfectly legal to buy then, as were standard 20 and 30 round magazines for them ....... yet the other side managed to paint people that wanted them as "the extreme fringe", "lunatics", "idiots", "downright scary" ..... and got gun owners, people ostensibly on our side of the barricade to throw those proverbial bricks for them.

Is that so different from what is happening here and now?

I posit that it is not, as several of those words in quotes in the above paragraph were lifted from this very thread.

 

[Theohazard]

OK. That's fine. But these two situations are still completely different. First, according to your account of the radio show, it looks like a lot of people supporting the AWB didn't know what it actually banned. That's a common issue with the AWB ban; people don't know what it actually bans, they think it bans real assault rifles and other machine guns.

But that's beside the point, because I'll say it yet again: You're completely wrong here primarily because none of us are advocating any kind of ban on open carry!

So I have two questions for you:

1. How can you claim our arguments are the same when no one here is advocating any kind of ban on open carry?
   
2. Do you think there's any benefit whatsoever to parading around in a private restaurant with a slung rifle during an open carry rally?

 

[jeager106]

Open carry is dumb, presents really bad image, says "shoot me first".

 

[Tom Servo]

Ah, but MY point is that in May of 1994, we (gun owners) most certainly did not know, or believe, that the AWB was ridculous

You and I remember the summer of 1994 differently. Gun owners weren't deliberately running around doing their best to frighten people for the sake of a little attention.

Back then, the internet wasn't in most homes, much less on telephones and cars and whatnot. Most gun owners weren't as informed on the issue, and what they heard about it on the evening news was distorted. It was easier to shape and manipulate public opinion, and it was easier to lie and get away with it. Our opponents applied a strategy they'd been building for decades to a sympathetic President and legislature.

Now things are different, but our opponents are still outpacing us on the the adoption of new media. Gun owners run their blogs and such, and everybody shouts the same slogans at each other, but we're not reaching a wider audience as well as we could.

On the other hand, the gun control folks have a better understanding of one very important truth: he who makes the first impression wins the argument.

Run a search on Twitter or Facebook (or Instagram or Google+ or any of the other ones) for "open carry." Take a close look at what's really trending and what people outside our circle are reading. It's stories making us look like buffoons. It's stories about how MDA is winning, and how the NRA is going to go down in flames at some point.

Yes, people do read those. Yes, they do form their impressions of us from those.

It does not matter whether it's true or not. What matters is that they're getting the chance to make the first impression, and by that they're defining the perception.

Here's another truth to the new media: nothing can get erased and nothing gets forgotten. Leonard Embody, Open Carry Tarrant, and Adam Kokesh can take their websites or videos down, but somebody's going to keep and repost copies at some point. That's what Mother Jones is doing with these open carry videos as we speak.

We are losing in a very big way, and most of us are refusing to acknowledge it.

 

[jimbob86]

none of us are advocating any kind of ban on open carry!

No, you are just attacking/denigrating those who do OC.


Don't like OC, fine:don't OC. Simple, right? Don't carry water for the other side.

How can you claim our arguments are the same when no one here is advocating any kind of ban on open carry?

The words used in attacking the position, be it pro-OC or anti-AWB, were nearly the same, which was what caught my attention while half listening to Art Bell in the first place ........

Do you think there's any benefit whatsoever to parading around in a private restaurant with a slung rifle during an open carry rally?

I like how you take the most extreme example possible- "parading around" with rifles ...... but whatever ....

Other than it being an opportunity to engage with people in public, who do not know their rights, not really...... but it was a "Rally" ..... I do like OC, and do so on occasion ..... just not with a rifle ....... but if folks never see a gun other than in the tripe Hollywood puts out ...... of course, they'll go into full blown PSH episodes.

If, like we have here in our area, a few guys get together and go out for dinner with holstered sidearms, and they call ahead to make sure the restaurant is cool with it ..... the only thing they have to worry about is rabid anti-gun people finding out about it and organizing a counter rally .....


We should just take a page from the other side's playbook: Do what we do, never back down, and when handed a defeat, get up and go again..... only we should do it without the fear tactics and PSH ...... and be better dressed, too.

 

[Theohazard]

No, you are just attacking/denigrating those who do OC.

Show me one single example where I did that. Sure, there are a few anti-OC comments here (jeager106's comment wasn't helpful at all), but most of us are simply arguing against the extreme forms of in-your-face long gun open carry that keep losing us supporters. And we don't want that type of open carry banned, we just want people to stop doing it because it's helping the other side immensely and not helping us at all.

I like how you take the most extreme example possible- "parading around" with rifles ...... but whatever ....

Because those are the only examples I'm talking about!!! C'mon, stop being willfully obtuse. I'm not arguing against open carry. I fully support open carry. I'm just asking for people to not participate in these long gun open carry rallies that are hurting or cause. How can you not understand that?

And as far as further explaining the differences between in-your-face open carry rallies and the AWB, Tom Servo makes some great points in post #112.

 

[jimbob86]

Even here, the Gospel of the Antis has taken root ......

Open carry is dumb, presents really bad image, says "shoot me first".

Why does it "present a really bad image"?

Two guys in identical clothing- only difference is one has a holstered gun.

To your mind, the guy with the gun "presents a really bad image" ..... and the only difference is the gun and holster ...... so is it, in your mind, the gun that makes it bad? Are guns inherently "bad" to you? If so, why are you here? This is a gun forum- does that make it a bad forum, in your mind?

Guns are not bad, or even inherently dangerous- but that is the perception of the general public ...... how are we to demonstrate otherwise if we adopt the mantra of our enemies, and banish guns from the public square, unless hidden(and therefore not technically in "public")?

 

[Theohazard]

Jeager106: Your comment was entirely unhelpful; it almost looks like you're intentionally trying to derail my argument.

Jimbob86: Ignore his comment, you and I both know that's not what most of us have been discussing in this thread. Most of aren't arguing for or against open carry; we're arguing against in-your-face political stunts that hurt our cause.

Even here, the Gospel of the Antis has taken root ......

To whom are you referring, exactly? Because I'd say that anyone who is intentionally participating in these types of rallies is an anti, because they're hurting our cause even more than many of the antis do. Sure, that may not be their intention, but it's the result nonetheless.

 

[jimbob86]

Or are you implying that those of us who advocate discretion and common sense are practicing the same mentality as those who supported the 1994 ban?

I'm going to go look for a copy of the show now, for I'm almost sure I heard the words "common sense" spouted umpteen times on there in support of the AWB ......

 

[Theohazard]

I'm going to go look for a copy of the show now, for I'm almost sure I heard the words "common sense" spouted umpteen times on there in support of the AWB ......

Don't bother. I'm sure it was used many times. That term has been co-opted by the anti-gun folks to support all sorts of stupid laws. But calling something "common sense" doesn't make it so. We all know that the AWB ban is about as far from common sense as you can get. But just because they used the term means we can't?

Jimbob86, your arguments are getting even more ridiculous and disjointed. Just because we use the term "common sense" means we're the same as the AWB supporters who misused the term? Are you saying that Tom Servo is misusing the term? So it's not common sense that a bunch of people parading around in a restaurant with slung rifles is a bad idea?

OK, I'll try this again, because you seem to not want to answer any of my questions: Do you honestly think the types of tactics used in these rallies are a good idea? Even after all the losses we've suffering after using those tactics?

Jimbob86: We're not advocating against open carry, we're advocating against political tactics that cause us to lose our gun rights. If you don't understand that, then you're part of the problem.

 

[SocialAnarchist]

The problem is there are definitely people that are members here that don't believe anyone should ever open carry in public, whether the firearm is a pistol or a long gun. I mentioned I was open carrying my XDs on another topic and was pounced upon by a few members here, for open carrying and how that is wrong and never justified other than when you are in the woods.

Truth is if it is legal you don't have to like it as long as those carrying are not violating the law. I will admit that I find it idiotic to purposely go out to a business and try to draw attention to yourself in order to prove some convoluted point about your rights. When I carried my pistol I went about my business normally and did nothing to draw attention to myself. No one said a word to me about my pistol. I have carried several times all the same way and there has never been an issue.

But the truth is simple, and obvious, there indeed ARE some people on this forum telling others to NEVER open carry in public.

 

[Theohazard]

I will admit that I find it idiotic to purposely go out to a business and try to draw attention to yourself in order to prove some convoluted point about your rights. When I carried my pistol I went about my business normally and did nothing to draw attention to myself. No one said a word to me about my pistol. I have carried several times all the same way and there has never been an issue.

Exactly. This is a perfect example of someone who understands the differences. The people on these forums who deride any kind of open carry are just as bad as the people who call me an "anti" because I don't support tactics that cause us to lose our rights.

Once again, it's all about common sense. Not the dumb, twisted version of "common sense" that anti-gun folks use to get support for ridiculous laws like the AWB, but the kind of common sense that says "if a political tactic causes you to lose, maybe it makes sense to stop doing it".