I'm a lifetime NRA member from WY. We have more firearms than people in this state and the firearm related crimes are slim to none. I understand the AZ gentleman with the AR-15 is exercising his 2nd amendment right. What other reason would he carry a rifle to a town hall meeting? I myself have a concealed carry permit. I also carry openly in a holster, usually when I'm in the backwoods. I would have no issue with carrying at a town hall meeting, but it would probably be concealed. I would have no reason to carry my AR-10 with a 20 round magazine to a town hall meeting, even though it's my right. My question is do you think man carrying the AR-15 to Obama's town hall meeting makes gun owners look rational or irrational? Does it promote the 2nd Amendment? It seems to me more like taunting and flaunting than being a humble, responsible, gun owner. I'm sure I don't know the whole story, and there is no right or wrong to these questions, I just thought I'd throw this out for discussion.
Open Carry at Presidential Town Hall
- Thread starter Grimlok
- Start date
- Status
maestro pistolero
New member
I hear ya, but, well, the guy wasn't exactly reinforcing any gun-nut stereo-types. He is a clean cut, articulate, well dressed, and well mannered African American. If the intent was to make typical gun owners look bad, they shoulda hired Bubba, and sent him out with some extra chewing tobacco. If it's possible to look normal and non-threatening while packing an AR at a rally, this guy pulled it off!
But, many of us share your concerns. This event is a bit of a double edged sword for gun rights. This thread is full of quite a range of valid perspectives on it's significance.
But, many of us share your concerns. This event is a bit of a double edged sword for gun rights. This thread is full of quite a range of valid perspectives on it's significance.
Pretty much irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned. What does concern me is his inability to acceptably explain his actions.
He's not from Arizona, can't vote there, and doesn't seem to have an opinion about the matter being bandied about in that particular forum, which had nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment. Health care, not guns, was the issue.
He's just a guy who showed up out of the blue, and heavily armed. That would certainly make me worry.
Sorry, but I'm going with Mr. Meyer on this one. There was absolutely no reason for him to do that other than getting his face on TV for the folks back home.
Wildalaska
Moderator
The desire for more money.
You have a right to wipe your butt with the flag, put a crucifix in a jar of urine or march down the street wearing swatstikas, and I dont consider any of that being optimal to promote the commonweal either.
I see no difference. The guy is not excersizing his right to keep and bear arms, he is using that right to make a statement.
WildimsleepyAlaska TM
I take offense to being called Bubba. And it's not chewing tobacco, it's Copenhagen.
Anyway, the only thing this thread boils down to is that some think that we can hide how we feel about firearms. We can't hide. Sooner or later, the anti's are going to remember that guns are evil, and that's when the hammer drops. Will we still have guns after that? Probably. But for how long will firearms be important? Maybe my son won't give a rip for guns. Maybe your kid won't. Then there will be one less person to throw down a vote. We need to be firm, and non-violent. State our opinions regardless of opposition. That's what I think anyway.azredhawk44
Moderator
Chris (the black fellow with the AR) IS from Arizona, I have seen his AZ driver's license and CCW permit. He is most certainly eligible to vote here.
He certainly has an opinion about health care... the media chose to focus on the gun issue instead of his anti fedgov health care message. He had no control over that.
maestro pistolero
New member
He did say he was from " . . . another state that allows OC but harasses people. . .", but I guess he meant a previous resident of another state. You are saying he is from AZ, at least now he is.
In the interviews I saw, he didn't talk about the gun much at all, seemed focused on tax issues and government takeovers.
In the interviews I saw, he didn't talk about the gun much at all, seemed focused on tax issues and government takeovers.
Impossible for some. Entirely possible for others. I didn't see a single person in any footage running for cover, or shrinking in fear. If anyone was truly intimidated by that weapon, they are the bravest group of people I have ever seen.
Again, impossible for some. Entirely possible for others, like all of the people in that footage, for example.
Of course it is, and statements, being definitively speech, are protected. I'm not sure there is a meaningful distinction between exercising a right and making a statement while exercising the right. You either have the right or you don't. Whatever other lawful behavior you are engaged in while lawfully exercising the right is irrelevant. The only question is: Is it wise, and does it help our cause? The only way for his behavior to fall outside of 1a and 2A protection, would be to announce a threat or actually threaten by pointing the weapon. He went out of his way to do neither.
Last edited:
I think it is funny that people, including GUN people think that bringing a gun to a political rally is a threat of violence, and they miss the irony when they see this at the same rally:
and then they see this:
but the guy minding his own business is somehow seen as a restriction on liberty and an attempt at intimidation, while the threat of government force is not.
and then they see this:
but the guy minding his own business is somehow seen as a restriction on liberty and an attempt at intimidation, while the threat of government force is not.
CortJestir
New member
maestro pistolero said:
Well said, MP.
Over the years, the bulk of the country has lost familiarity with firearms. An atrophy of this knowledge led to an apathy towards the 2A right our country's founders gave us. And then the 2A became a political platform issue and things really went down the toilet.
This is much bigger than folks being shocked by someone open carrying at a presidential town hall. The roots of this debate are directly planted in our country's inability to get off the couch, turn off the boob tube and wake up.
Precisely. If they can show theirs, and nobody is intimidated or outraged, why can we not show ours and have the same effect?
Again, Spot-on ! At the same time that some are taking a stand, and exercising their rights in an attempt to broaden the lexicon, others have a litany of excuses not to.
It boggles the mind to consider that; At a time when our elected officials are basically "giving the finger" to "We The People" on a vast array of issues, that our rights and civil liberties might not be the next thing they decide to thumb their noses at. I applaud the efforts folks are taking to "make a statement" and I plan to get off the bench and support the cause in any way possible.
Whether you believe that these peoples actions are right, wrong, or indifferent, there is no denying that they have made a bold statement.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
To answer a previous question - does the simple presence of a firearm imply violence?
Since this has been intensively studied and well within my area of expertise - the answer is simply that it does for a significant number of people.
For folks with firearms knowledge the effect is not so great and has a little more contextual nuances. Go to the Polite Society next year and hear my presentation.
That's my point - for those outside the choir - the presence of the firearm does imply violence and prime negative attitudes. Then, if this is the case - does this display of firearms actually aid in achieving some political goal?
If you want to carry the day in public opinion you need to consider this. Making a statement that is within your rights but counterproductive may not be worth it - unless - losing the day but feeling good is your long term goal.
Oh, got my American Rifleman yesterday - it pointed out that 23 states have passed Castle Law bills. So I repeat my point that the wheels of democracy can turn in our direction as compared to the belly up cries of helplessness in the face of the MEDIA!!!
Since this has been intensively studied and well within my area of expertise - the answer is simply that it does for a significant number of people.
For folks with firearms knowledge the effect is not so great and has a little more contextual nuances. Go to the Polite Society next year and hear my presentation.
That's my point - for those outside the choir - the presence of the firearm does imply violence and prime negative attitudes. Then, if this is the case - does this display of firearms actually aid in achieving some political goal?
If you want to carry the day in public opinion you need to consider this. Making a statement that is within your rights but counterproductive may not be worth it - unless - losing the day but feeling good is your long term goal.
Oh, got my American Rifleman yesterday - it pointed out that 23 states have passed Castle Law bills. So I repeat my point that the wheels of democracy can turn in our direction as compared to the belly up cries of helplessness in the face of the MEDIA!!!
Sorry but this nation is not a peaceful democracy! It is a republic which is far different from a democracy. If it were a democracy, the loudest crybaby gets his way so long as he convinces a majority it is good. In a republic it must be proven to be best for all no matter what the cry babies say. Democracy brought down the roman empire!
Brent
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Ok, the wheels of the Republic can turn in our direction - Brent.
As far as cry babies - turn off talk radio and then you won't hear them so much!
As far as cry babies - turn off talk radio and then you won't hear them so much!
Glenn
(At this point, let's say that we are talking specifically about open carry; CC means that the public, in general, would not even realize that a firearm enters into the equation.)
Would you say that the public, in general, would have the same "negative attitudes" toward government employees with firearms; i.e. law enforcement, armed forces, USSS, etc...?
If the public, in general, has a different reaction to this group, then it is not necessarily the firearm that is creating the impression, rather the appearance of the carrier.
Let's take the photo of the "men in black" on the balcony in a posting above. Most would assume that these are USSS (or the like), given the context of the event. Now would John and Joan Q Public feel differently if they found out that these were just a couple of guys that lived in that apartment cleaning their "sniper rifles" out on the balcony that day? And were pointing them at the crowd, just to bore sight in a new scope.
In my mind the real issue here goes beyond the actual 2nd Amendment. (Yes, we have the right.) The issue goes beyond the political machine that can restrict, and free up, our gun laws. (Yes, government and politics do enter into the equation.) The real issue here is appearance to the average Joe and Josephine.
Because, if the average citizen feels (and I use this word purposefully) that a firearm with another average citizen is O.K., or better than O.K., then all is well with respect to RKBA.
Do I like this? Personally no. For example: a number of years ago I was involved with an educational project. Our group was attempting to produce essentially an informercial type short video to introduce our project. After much work, research, and testing, we found that talking about dinner right off captured the attention and produced more positive "feelings" and associations with our project than introducing the topic and the importance of the material. Our project now had the appearance of "warm-fuzzies-full-tummy". This project had absolutely nothing to do with dinner or eating or food for that matter.
BUT (Behold the Underlying Truth) we remained true to the nature and intention of the project throughout. "Dinner" in no way took away from, or conflicted with, the intent of the project. And in the both day to day and long run it added positively to the end result.
Appearance is what we need to work at. Firearms associated with the average citizen must appear to be "normal", "good", "responsible", etc... We want the average John and Jane Q Public to have those same "warm-fuzzies-full-tummy" feelings when seeing open carry. At the same time we must never do anything that would promote this that would in any way detract from our beliefs and support of the 2nd Amendment. No compromises.
While I personally do not like this, I believe it. I do not like that to promote an educational project that one must resort to introducing it with "Dinner". But then again, the average American spends more time in front of a screen than any other activity daily, and most of that is in front of a television. (Really think about that for a minute. More time than at work, sleeping, school, etc...) This is who we are working with. These are our neighbors that we must convince to "feel good" about the RKBA.
There is a reason that those opposing the RKBA use fear in their arguments. As silly as it may sound, we must use love (warm-fuzzies-full-tummies) in our arguments.
Just my .22 cents worth. (Inflation and long posting.)
(At this point, let's say that we are talking specifically about open carry; CC means that the public, in general, would not even realize that a firearm enters into the equation.)
Would you say that the public, in general, would have the same "negative attitudes" toward government employees with firearms; i.e. law enforcement, armed forces, USSS, etc...?
If the public, in general, has a different reaction to this group, then it is not necessarily the firearm that is creating the impression, rather the appearance of the carrier.
Let's take the photo of the "men in black" on the balcony in a posting above. Most would assume that these are USSS (or the like), given the context of the event. Now would John and Joan Q Public feel differently if they found out that these were just a couple of guys that lived in that apartment cleaning their "sniper rifles" out on the balcony that day? And were pointing them at the crowd, just to bore sight in a new scope.
In my mind the real issue here goes beyond the actual 2nd Amendment. (Yes, we have the right.) The issue goes beyond the political machine that can restrict, and free up, our gun laws. (Yes, government and politics do enter into the equation.) The real issue here is appearance to the average Joe and Josephine.
Because, if the average citizen feels (and I use this word purposefully) that a firearm with another average citizen is O.K., or better than O.K., then all is well with respect to RKBA.
Do I like this? Personally no. For example: a number of years ago I was involved with an educational project. Our group was attempting to produce essentially an informercial type short video to introduce our project. After much work, research, and testing, we found that talking about dinner right off captured the attention and produced more positive "feelings" and associations with our project than introducing the topic and the importance of the material. Our project now had the appearance of "warm-fuzzies-full-tummy". This project had absolutely nothing to do with dinner or eating or food for that matter.
BUT (Behold the Underlying Truth) we remained true to the nature and intention of the project throughout. "Dinner" in no way took away from, or conflicted with, the intent of the project. And in the both day to day and long run it added positively to the end result.
Appearance is what we need to work at. Firearms associated with the average citizen must appear to be "normal", "good", "responsible", etc... We want the average John and Jane Q Public to have those same "warm-fuzzies-full-tummy" feelings when seeing open carry. At the same time we must never do anything that would promote this that would in any way detract from our beliefs and support of the 2nd Amendment. No compromises.
While I personally do not like this, I believe it. I do not like that to promote an educational project that one must resort to introducing it with "Dinner". But then again, the average American spends more time in front of a screen than any other activity daily, and most of that is in front of a television. (Really think about that for a minute. More time than at work, sleeping, school, etc...) This is who we are working with. These are our neighbors that we must convince to "feel good" about the RKBA.
There is a reason that those opposing the RKBA use fear in their arguments. As silly as it may sound, we must use love (warm-fuzzies-full-tummies) in our arguments.
Just my .22 cents worth. (Inflation and long posting.)
Look, all this is crap. The simple question is this:
Does the presense of a man with an Ar slung over his shoulder, or another man with a pistol in a "tacticool" rig and carrying a sign that explicity implies the spilling of tyrant's blood (chosen for it's maximum visibility, I'm sure. That same gun in a simple belt hoslter would not have made as good a picture) HELP the gun issue or hurt it?
For me, as a gunowner, I say it HURTS. People who post on these types of forum are the minority. I have several friends who own guns and target shoot who don't post on gun forums.
To the average, law abiding citizen, those two men (and there will be MANY more who are now embolded by them) make us look bad. I have many pictures of me and my friends at the shooting range. We're strapped down with guns. It's Ok because it's a shooting range! It is not the middle of a public street.
We take 2 steps forward, and boobs like these guys knock us 3 steps back. One guy blinks and stuuters into the camera while wearing a yellow t-shirt despite being told of his interview ahead of time, and the other looks like Malcolm X!
Know what's gonna happen now? These two guys lives will be explored since they thrust themselves into the spotlight. ANY anti-American affiliations will be brought to light. And the left will use them just like they did Joe the Plumber.
Does the presense of a man with an Ar slung over his shoulder, or another man with a pistol in a "tacticool" rig and carrying a sign that explicity implies the spilling of tyrant's blood (chosen for it's maximum visibility, I'm sure. That same gun in a simple belt hoslter would not have made as good a picture) HELP the gun issue or hurt it?
For me, as a gunowner, I say it HURTS. People who post on these types of forum are the minority. I have several friends who own guns and target shoot who don't post on gun forums.
To the average, law abiding citizen, those two men (and there will be MANY more who are now embolded by them) make us look bad. I have many pictures of me and my friends at the shooting range. We're strapped down with guns. It's Ok because it's a shooting range! It is not the middle of a public street.
We take 2 steps forward, and boobs like these guys knock us 3 steps back. One guy blinks and stuuters into the camera while wearing a yellow t-shirt despite being told of his interview ahead of time, and the other looks like Malcolm X!
Know what's gonna happen now? These two guys lives will be explored since they thrust themselves into the spotlight. ANY anti-American affiliations will be brought to light. And the left will use them just like they did Joe the Plumber.
Originally posted by Glenn E. Meyer
Not necessarily. As divemedic pointed out, police and secret service personnel openly displaying firearms doesn't seem to alarm most people. So, why then does display by a private citizen? I think the answer is that they've been conditioned by both the media and certain politicians to assume that anyone outside the police who has a firearm has violent intentions. Perhaps, if enough people openly display their firearms while showing the proper degree of restraint as the two open-carriers in question, people will begin to realize that these conditioned assumptions aren't always accurate.
While I agree that the wheels of democracy can work in our favor, by it's very nature some degree of public opinion is neccessary in order for the democratic process to work. If the issue is never brought to the public's attention, nothing will change. Unfortunately, the majority of the media is indeed slanted against us and generally only gives firearms negative coverage. Because of this, we can't rely on the media to give us positive coverage unless, as happend in these two instances, the incident is simply too noteworthy for them to resist. As I said in my earlier post, it is equally if not more important that we represent ourselves positively after the fact as Mr. Kostric did so that any attempt, such as that by Matthews, to portray us negatively backfires.
While there is a certain degree of risk involved (a lack of restraint could very easily turn people against us), so long as everyone continues to keep a cool head I think that people such as the open-carriers can go a long way towards changing people's perceptions. However, we can't change anyone's perceptions if no one hears our side of the argument.
Not necessarily. As divemedic pointed out, police and secret service personnel openly displaying firearms doesn't seem to alarm most people. So, why then does display by a private citizen? I think the answer is that they've been conditioned by both the media and certain politicians to assume that anyone outside the police who has a firearm has violent intentions. Perhaps, if enough people openly display their firearms while showing the proper degree of restraint as the two open-carriers in question, people will begin to realize that these conditioned assumptions aren't always accurate.
While I agree that the wheels of democracy can work in our favor, by it's very nature some degree of public opinion is neccessary in order for the democratic process to work. If the issue is never brought to the public's attention, nothing will change. Unfortunately, the majority of the media is indeed slanted against us and generally only gives firearms negative coverage. Because of this, we can't rely on the media to give us positive coverage unless, as happend in these two instances, the incident is simply too noteworthy for them to resist. As I said in my earlier post, it is equally if not more important that we represent ourselves positively after the fact as Mr. Kostric did so that any attempt, such as that by Matthews, to portray us negatively backfires.
While there is a certain degree of risk involved (a lack of restraint could very easily turn people against us), so long as everyone continues to keep a cool head I think that people such as the open-carriers can go a long way towards changing people's perceptions. However, we can't change anyone's perceptions if no one hears our side of the argument.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
About the police and other security forces - there has been great discussion of what kind of long arms they can carry just because the appearance of ARs for example do intimidate the public and give the wrong impression.
Police, city government officials and civilians have made this point. In fact, because of it - Ruger Mini-14s were sometimes the guns of choice and Remington came up with a pump 223 which would look more politically correct.
We can't get around that for some, it looked threatening.
Of course, folks have been influenced and conditioned. Since that exists in many - that's the point of whether a display which invokes their conditioning is productive.
Again, I think it is an empirical question as to the outcome. However, despite being a gun person, I don't ignore evidence of the effect of such displays and consider it.
About police again - we've found that if the gun is handled by someone who seems competent, less negative ideation is primed. However, a citizen carrying at a rally is an unknown and if seen as inappropriate - may not be trusted.
The issue needs to be brought to the public's attention - our discussion is what is persuasive.
For example, to return to education - in our department newsletter about our research and activities - we have the picture of me at the Polite Society, with a Glock, protecting a baby in a scenario. Thus, quite a few young people will see a responsible educator who is a gun user.
Police, city government officials and civilians have made this point. In fact, because of it - Ruger Mini-14s were sometimes the guns of choice and Remington came up with a pump 223 which would look more politically correct.
We can't get around that for some, it looked threatening.
Of course, folks have been influenced and conditioned. Since that exists in many - that's the point of whether a display which invokes their conditioning is productive.
Again, I think it is an empirical question as to the outcome. However, despite being a gun person, I don't ignore evidence of the effect of such displays and consider it.
About police again - we've found that if the gun is handled by someone who seems competent, less negative ideation is primed. However, a citizen carrying at a rally is an unknown and if seen as inappropriate - may not be trusted.
The issue needs to be brought to the public's attention - our discussion is what is persuasive.
For example, to return to education - in our department newsletter about our research and activities - we have the picture of me at the Polite Society, with a Glock, protecting a baby in a scenario. Thus, quite a few young people will see a responsible educator who is a gun user.
Wildalaska
Moderator
Wrong.
Genetically, display of "weaponry" such as fang is designed to intimidate and provoke response to such intimidation. It's hardwired, and the development of artificial weapons was equally a result of the need to excersize power or impose threat as it was to be a tool. Look at chimpanzee display with "clubs" (branches).
Our cultural norms reinforce that hardwiring of our brains. Time and place of weapon display is part of that hard wiring, since under certain circumstances, a display of weaponry is not seen as a threat. Witness the chimpanzee just holding the branch, or showing its fangs in a non threat environment.
Since we are nothing more than advanced primates, studying primate threat behavior provides an important basis for evaluating the display of weapons.
Remember, before there was Camp perry and sporting clays, there was war and murder.
WildmrgreengenesAlaska ™
- Status