Significantly reducing fearful reactions to the sight of guns is our goal. A rare media flap or a lonely positive photo in a departmental newsletter will not achieve that goal. The question is how to achieve the number and frequency of positive exposures to the general public necessary to offset the negatives portrayals in the media.
Open Carry at Presidential Town Hall
- Thread starter Grimlok
- Start date
- Status
Significantly reducing fearful reactions to the sight of guns is our goal. A rare media flap or a lonely positive photo in a departmental newsletter will not achieve that goal. The question is how to achieve the number and frequency of positive exposures to the general public necessary to offset the negatives portrayals in the media.
rickyjames
New member
i carry a gun all the time but i am just as worried about camoflaged extremists walking around with ar-15's at public political events as i would be seeing armed govt storm troopers marching down my street. i train in martial arts to protect my family and myself but i don't walk into a bar wearing a gi and black belt because it would be just asking for trouble. this isn't a bagdad market place, i don't want to see people at local flea markets carrying ar's or ak's and fireing them in the air because we have a 2nd amendment.
BoringAccountant
New member
Could you expound upon that further as to why you think that. I really can't respond to just a single statement without knowing the real reasons why you feel that way.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
OuTcAsT said:
I think you are in the choir. Where divemedic (and others) and I disagree is that I know that public opinion is important to our maintaining and restoring our gun rights. It has something to do with voting and that majorities are good to have on your side.
I don't care what they "think" of me but I do care how they vote and I know if they consistently vote against us it is not a good thing.
I also know most of them do not own guns and so rather than give them a in-your-face attitude I want to either win them over to our side or at least have them be neutral on gun control and not help those who wish to take those rights away.
I guess I am looking for results and I believe we will get them through our system. It is not a matter of me giving up any rights, I just don't want them taken away by a lack of votes while the choir is yelling "What part of shall not be infringed don't you understand!".
The impression that I get is that it's not really about exercising rights as much as it is about protesting health care reform through intimidation.
If the political events were in any way, shape, or form related to gun control of any kind, perhaps open carry at such an event would make a more meaningful and relevant statement about our constitutional rights.
To bear arms over health care reform is a different matter entirely, especially considering how volatile and poorly debated/reported it is.
There is a particular focus in the media on irrational and belligerent opponents of health care reform. This, combined with other armed protesters who go as far as making implicit threats (tree of liberty posters) doesn't reflect well on on those who carried in Phoenix, and those who will in similar future protests.
There may be some valid points about increasing the visibility and normality of open carry. However, I don't think this is the way to do it.
If the political events were in any way, shape, or form related to gun control of any kind, perhaps open carry at such an event would make a more meaningful and relevant statement about our constitutional rights.
To bear arms over health care reform is a different matter entirely, especially considering how volatile and poorly debated/reported it is.
There is a particular focus in the media on irrational and belligerent opponents of health care reform. This, combined with other armed protesters who go as far as making implicit threats (tree of liberty posters) doesn't reflect well on on those who carried in Phoenix, and those who will in similar future protests.
There may be some valid points about increasing the visibility and normality of open carry. However, I don't think this is the way to do it.
I don't think anybody denies that what these guys were doing was legal, but that's a far cry from it being smart, or anything that should be approved of. It's a form of attention mongering, trying to create a public spectacle. Nothing more, nothing less--and it fosters a public impression of gun owners as being dangerous and obsessed with guns under all circumstances.
The Libs don't get the fact that there are openly armed men attending a town hall where the President is slated to speak and there is absolutely no violence.
Conversely, there have been numerous cases documented in which unarmed (thank God) union activists from the SEIU have been assaulting people at town hall meetings.
Arrests of citizens carrying lawfully owned firearms = 0
Arrests of unarmed SEIU members = 7
Conversely, there have been numerous cases documented in which unarmed (thank God) union activists from the SEIU have been assaulting people at town hall meetings.
Arrests of citizens carrying lawfully owned firearms = 0
Arrests of unarmed SEIU members = 7
I'm astounded at the disconnect.
The overwhelming majority of the population of the U.S. (including gun owners) does not believe openly carrying firearms at high profile events such as Presidential Town Halls represents the private use of firearms in a positive light. Not even if no one is killed or hurt.
It's upsetting and feels "wrong" to them. What's more, if they get upset enough and stay upset long enough they will push for laws to help them feel comfortable again and that will NOT be a positive thing for gun rights.
I honestly don't believe that's what it is, but I can tell you for certain that is:
1. How it will be portrayed.
2. How many others feel.
And that is not good for gun rights OR for the health care reform situation.
How is it that everyone is forgetting the fact that carrying openly to high-profile events is NOT a new thing in the U.S.? The Black Panthers have been doing it for decades. The fact that the goals may be loftier does NOT change the fact that the general public is going to lump the two movements together because of the similar modus operandus.
maestro pistolero
New member
If that's really what it was, it failed totally, because no one there was intimidated. The mere presence of the weapon itself cannot be considered intimidation, absent any threatening behavior. Intimidation is a verb indicative of threatening behavior, not a scary feeling someone gets because of ingrained fear of an inanimate object. Intimidation requires action on the part of the intimidator. If any armed intimidation had actually occurred, there would have been arrests.
posted by JohnKSa
It seem to me that the mainstream media has not been a friend of the 2nd Amendment in recent times.
Until someone formulates a reason for the media to change this stance, they do after all seem to always have the last word and can edit a nun's shopping list to sound like Hitler's daily to do list, I would suggest that the mainstream media is not the appropriate avenue to pursue change concerning the RKBA in the public mindset at this time. The mainstream media sells "Dirty Laundry", kudos to Don Henley singing this back in the day - 1982.
If you want to change your world, maybe start out with your own little corner. Yeah, grass roots education. Get enough of your locals, especially the younger generation, to be aware of the 2nd Amendment (And the rest of our founding father's documents), and see and "feel" that it really is O.K. to see someone OCing in your "neighborhood", guns can put food on the dinner table, and also are a great form of discipline and recreation punching paper, and we are rolling down the right road.
Give (Hypothetically of course) a baby, toddler, or pre-schooler, that have not been exposed to many opinions concerning guns, a firearm to look at and they have no fear. Children are educated as to "their" opinions on guns.
To quote the musical South Pacific regarding "feelings and perceptions":
You've got to be taught
To hate and fear,
You've got to be taught
From year to year,
It's got to be drummed
In your dear little ear
You've got to be carefully taught.
Perhaps (adjusting my grass skirt and coconuts), we need to be active in educating those around us to what we believe are good values, starting in our own living rooms and working outward; including our beliefs concerning the 2nd Amendment.
The problem here is that the negative portrayal of firearms is getting out, regardless of whether or not a law abiding citizen carries a gun. Every night on the evening news, we are assaulted by images and stories of criminals misusing guns. This is the image and the opinion that gets seared into Susie Soccermom's head.
Even when a television show portrays a citizen with a gun, it is never a good portrayal. The citizen invariably either kills an innocent by mistake, is quickly gunned down by the bad guy, or some other negative outcome. The media constantly portrays us as fools or incompetent.
A law abiding, armed citizen, standing on the sidewalk not harming anyone, counteracts that negative image. If we never do so, allowing people to see that firearms are not always used for evil, our message and position are effectively silenced, and we concede the field to the opponents. The only message that gets out is this one: only cops and criminals have guns.
Even when a television show portrays a citizen with a gun, it is never a good portrayal. The citizen invariably either kills an innocent by mistake, is quickly gunned down by the bad guy, or some other negative outcome. The media constantly portrays us as fools or incompetent.
A law abiding, armed citizen, standing on the sidewalk not harming anyone, counteracts that negative image. If we never do so, allowing people to see that firearms are not always used for evil, our message and position are effectively silenced, and we concede the field to the opponents. The only message that gets out is this one: only cops and criminals have guns.
So? Quit relying upon the MSM to tell your story!
By all means, openly carry in your local environments. Get like minded folks to do the same. Have "Open Carry" picnics at your local parks. Conduct open air firearms safety clinics.
It doesn't start at the National level. It starts right here, right now, in your own home towns.
That's a far cry from doing the same at a Town Hall meeting. Especially with signs inciting the overthrow of the Government. And yes! that is exactly how Susie Soccermom views it.divemedic said:
By all means, openly carry in your local environments. Get like minded folks to do the same. Have "Open Carry" picnics at your local parks. Conduct open air firearms safety clinics.
It doesn't start at the National level. It starts right here, right now, in your own home towns.
Originally posted by JohnKSa
Yes, the first knee-jerk reaction will be "Oh my god, that guy has a gun!" However, I think the goal should be not to hide our weapons out of fear that someone may be upset or feel "wrong," but rather to promote ourselves in such a way that the public can see someone open carrying and not be upset or feel "wrong." The key here, as I see it, is for everyone to be sure to conduct themselves as Kostric did in the Matthews interview. As I said before, I think that Kostric remaining calm, controlled, and relatively normal while the supposedly "impartial" journalist worked himself into a frenzy was even more powerful than the actual event itself. Really, this is a lot like the situation with concealed carry. Back when the first few states passed right-to-carry laws, people other than LEO's carrying felt "wrong" to many people and made them uncomfortable. However, when people didn't shoot each other over parking spaces and no blood ran in the streets as the anti's predicted it would, people eventually became more comfortable with the idea and more right-to-carry laws followed. Is there a certain amount of risk involved here, yes there certainly is. But I think it's a worthwhile risk as, if done right, the possible benefits outweigh the possible drawbacks.
The situation with the Black Panthers is not really the same. The Panthers were an organization with a history of violence and had also made implicit threats of violence. I think the problem with OC and the Panthers was not so much that weapons were being openly carried, but that the Black Panthers were doing it for the express purpose of intimidation. Basically, I don't think that the same thing will necessarrily happen because the California OC laws were aimed more at the Black Panthers themselves than open carry in general.
Originally posted by Antipitas
I think a bit much is being made out of the sign Kostric held. First of all, everyone assumes that he was advocating an overthrow of the government when that may not have been the case at all. Perhaps he was suggesting that he was willing to have his own blood spilled as a patriot should someone act violently agains him for exercising his 1A rights. Perhaps he meant that he was willing to spill the blood of tyrants or agents of tyrants such as the thug that accosted him whould they try to suppress his free speech. We don't really know as Matthews never really let him explain, but the point is his sign, which is not even a direct quote, can be taken many ways. As far as how Susie Soccermom views it, honestly I kind of doubt that many people are familiar enough with the works of Jefferson to get much meaning from it at all. The point I'm trying to make is that while it probably wasn't the best choice of a sign to hold, I think it's a relatively minor issue.
I would argue that we've already done that. While this has been useful in creating a grassroots base, unfortunately it has gone mostly ignored by the mainstream media. Basically, the grassroots activities you suggest are the first step which has already been taken. Now, it is time to bring the issue to national attention. While OC at a Presidential event may be rather "shocking" or "in your face," unfortunately we need a bit of shock value to avoid being ignored.
Yes, the first knee-jerk reaction will be "Oh my god, that guy has a gun!" However, I think the goal should be not to hide our weapons out of fear that someone may be upset or feel "wrong," but rather to promote ourselves in such a way that the public can see someone open carrying and not be upset or feel "wrong." The key here, as I see it, is for everyone to be sure to conduct themselves as Kostric did in the Matthews interview. As I said before, I think that Kostric remaining calm, controlled, and relatively normal while the supposedly "impartial" journalist worked himself into a frenzy was even more powerful than the actual event itself. Really, this is a lot like the situation with concealed carry. Back when the first few states passed right-to-carry laws, people other than LEO's carrying felt "wrong" to many people and made them uncomfortable. However, when people didn't shoot each other over parking spaces and no blood ran in the streets as the anti's predicted it would, people eventually became more comfortable with the idea and more right-to-carry laws followed. Is there a certain amount of risk involved here, yes there certainly is. But I think it's a worthwhile risk as, if done right, the possible benefits outweigh the possible drawbacks.
The situation with the Black Panthers is not really the same. The Panthers were an organization with a history of violence and had also made implicit threats of violence. I think the problem with OC and the Panthers was not so much that weapons were being openly carried, but that the Black Panthers were doing it for the express purpose of intimidation. Basically, I don't think that the same thing will necessarrily happen because the California OC laws were aimed more at the Black Panthers themselves than open carry in general.
Originally posted by Antipitas
I think a bit much is being made out of the sign Kostric held. First of all, everyone assumes that he was advocating an overthrow of the government when that may not have been the case at all. Perhaps he was suggesting that he was willing to have his own blood spilled as a patriot should someone act violently agains him for exercising his 1A rights. Perhaps he meant that he was willing to spill the blood of tyrants or agents of tyrants such as the thug that accosted him whould they try to suppress his free speech. We don't really know as Matthews never really let him explain, but the point is his sign, which is not even a direct quote, can be taken many ways. As far as how Susie Soccermom views it, honestly I kind of doubt that many people are familiar enough with the works of Jefferson to get much meaning from it at all. The point I'm trying to make is that while it probably wasn't the best choice of a sign to hold, I think it's a relatively minor issue.
I would argue that we've already done that. While this has been useful in creating a grassroots base, unfortunately it has gone mostly ignored by the mainstream media. Basically, the grassroots activities you suggest are the first step which has already been taken. Now, it is time to bring the issue to national attention. While OC at a Presidential event may be rather "shocking" or "in your face," unfortunately we need a bit of shock value to avoid being ignored.
CortJestir
New member
AZAK said:
and
Antipitas said:
Hear! Hear! If all you're doing that's related to firearms is going to the range, reloading, buying guns, and hanging out here, then I'm afraid our 2A right will further be trampled into dust. Might as well take the BoR, clip it to the target holder, and send it down range.
Again, this is much bigger than the shock factor. I, for one, am glad these two fellas did what they did - if only to spark the discussion and motivate some of us. It may have been foolish to some in the short-term, but these events and this debate reinforces the fact that we all need to be more active in changing the culture and attitude of this country around the second amendment. Then maybe, just maybe, seeing a rifle or gun openly carried anywhere won't be such a "big deal". Heck, maybe you won't even need to carry openly at a presidential town hall to make a point!
BTW, I'm not singling anyone out with this post...just preaching to the "choir".
BTW2, you can start by attending an Appleseed and becoming an instructor [/shameless plug]
Never has the phrase "shooting yourself in the foot" been more appropriate. The people who post on these forums are a small percentage of gun owners, and an even smaller percentage of American's. The fact is that people ARE alarmed at a person walking around with an AR over his shoulder (or any other gun visibily displayed, when it's ONLY purpose is to make a statement). Nobody would be upset if the news was covering the opening of duck season and everyone had a rifle slung over their shoulder because it is appropriate for the time and place.
And not EVERY gun owner is entirely mentally stable. There's a guy I see at my range all the time. He's a Vietnam vet. He screams obscenities at the targets as he's shooting them, like "take that you slant eyed bastards", and "two to the chest, one to the head! See you in hell Charlie", etc. he refuses to wear eye and ear protection because "I'm not going to put them on when i have to light someone up for real!". The guy is nuts. I can see him standing at one of these rallies with his M1 carbine over his shoulder.
This is going to explode in our faces. People like this are no friends of mine. Every one of my friends has asked me how I feel about this guy and if I would take my AR to a rally. The answer is a resounding NO.
I think these people are idiots. The "Tree of liberty" sign is just icing on the cake. That, along with the presence of the gun, worn with maximum Rambo fashion in the mall ninja thigh rig, clearly stated what he meant to say. Of course he's not going to admit to that when he's interviewed.
And not EVERY gun owner is entirely mentally stable. There's a guy I see at my range all the time. He's a Vietnam vet. He screams obscenities at the targets as he's shooting them, like "take that you slant eyed bastards", and "two to the chest, one to the head! See you in hell Charlie", etc. he refuses to wear eye and ear protection because "I'm not going to put them on when i have to light someone up for real!". The guy is nuts. I can see him standing at one of these rallies with his M1 carbine over his shoulder.
This is going to explode in our faces. People like this are no friends of mine. Every one of my friends has asked me how I feel about this guy and if I would take my AR to a rally. The answer is a resounding NO.
I think these people are idiots. The "Tree of liberty" sign is just icing on the cake. That, along with the presence of the gun, worn with maximum Rambo fashion in the mall ninja thigh rig, clearly stated what he meant to say. Of course he's not going to admit to that when he's interviewed.
Last edited:
Washington Post: "Leave the guns at home"
Leave the guns at home
I hardly know where to start with this one, especially since the people he's screaming about came peacefully, participated peacefully, and left peacefully, in SPITE of repeated attacks ranging from attempts at physical intimidation to an outright foam-mouthed assault by Chris Matthews on his tv show.
Leave the guns at home
I hardly know where to start with this one, especially since the people he's screaming about came peacefully, participated peacefully, and left peacefully, in SPITE of repeated attacks ranging from attempts at physical intimidation to an outright foam-mouthed assault by Chris Matthews on his tv show.
- Status