Open Carry at Presidential Town Hall

Status
Not open for further replies.
E.J. Dionne said:
The simple fact is that an armed citizenry is not the basis for our freedoms. Our freedoms rest on a moral consensus, enshrined in law, that in a democratic republic we work out our differences through reasoned, and sometimes raucous, argument. Free elections and open debate are not rooted in violence or the threat of violence.
Click to expand...

I am afraid I agree with Mr. Dionne on this point and have argued so before. As long as we have free elections and trial by jury any attempt at "revolt" is treason. Our democratic institutions keep us free not guns.
 
Moved per request of staff:

MSNBC edits Arizona OC video to conceal the ethnicity of the AR-toting African American, in order to contrive a racist spin. Most impressive is the straight face with which they narrate this lie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI
Click to expand...

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahachokesnorklespewchuckleogawdbwaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahah

*wipes tears from eyes*

Somebody PLEASE send it to O'reilly Ill be rolling on the floor *sniffsnagglesnork*

WildothatsgreatthankyoufoprbrighteningupmydayAlaska ™
 
Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahachokesnorklespewchuckleogawdbwaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahah

*wipes tears from eyes*

Somebody PLEASE send it to O'reilly Ill be rolling on the floor *sniffsnagglesnork*
Click to expand...

I did. The funny thing is, they really can't make the activists look bad due to the firearms, they gotta throw the race card to even have anything to screech about.

Priceless. :D


and all the rest of the political clowns with a message that galvanizes loons and no one else....
Click to expand...

So, your opinion clearly is that anyone who thinks these folks sent a clear message about exercising constitutional rights (whether you agree with their method or not) are clowns pandering to lunacy? please correct me if I have misread.
 
Last edited:
...rather to promote ourselves in such a way that the public can see someone open carrying and not be upset or feel "wrong."
Click to expand...
I agree. The point is that open carry at high-profile events does not fit into that strategy because it does cause people to be upset and to feel that it's wroing. It's astounding to me that some in the gun community are so disconnected from the general public that they believe it can be a good strategy.
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.
Click to expand...
Again, the disconnect is amazing to me. You and I know that the folks under discussion weren't doing it for intimidation, but that is NOT how the general public will see it and that is certainly not how it's going to be portrayed. Even some folks here have indicated that they thought intimidation might have been a goal--if we can't even convince ourselves it's a lost cause to try convince the general public. And THAT is what it's all about, isn't it? If we're not trying to convince/educate the general public what's the point?

The best possible realistic outcome is for them to view these folks as harmless nuts--but that's not how most will see it. They'll see it as an attempt to intimidate or as really poor judgement.
Really? while that may be your opinion, it has certainly not been born out as fact.

Please go back, look at all the footage, pictures, and accounts, and show me where anyone even remotely, appeared to be alarmed at any of these events.
Click to expand...
There were direct quotes in the article indicating that some people present at the Phoenix rally were upset and felt intimidated and complained to the police as a result. Besides, whether they complained because they were irate and felt it was illegal or whether they complained because they were afraid and upset it's all the same. The bottom line is making people irate or making people afraid or upset is not positive publicity.

It's true that some folks will be irate or upset no matter what we do and that's just the way it is. The point isn't that we should NEVER do things to make people irate or upset, the point is that when we DO take a stand we do it in a way that provides a positive return.

Let's turn this around. Instead of looking for proof that people were alarmed how about we look for proof of a positive benefit? We have direct quotes from unhappy people, how about some direct quotes from people (outside the gun community) who have positive things to say about seeing an openly carried rifle at a high-profile event?

It's not enough to prove that no one was alarmed--the point is not to simply NOT ALARM. We can do that by leaving the guns at home. There has to be a validated and verifiable benefit to make it worthwhile.
So, your opinion clearly is that anyone who thinks these folks sent a clear message about exercising constitutional rights (whether you agree with their method or not) are clowns pandering to lunacy?
Click to expand...
My opinion is that anyone who thinks these folks sent a clear POSITIVE message about exercising constitutional rights is either deluding themselves or is not a good judge of how the general public views these incidents.
 
My opinion is that anyone who thinks these folks sent a clear POSITIVE message about exercising constitutional rights is either deluding themselves or is not a good judge of how the general public views these incidents.
Click to expand...

Bingo.
 
Would it be my choice for advancing 2A?

No, not really.

OTOH, it's hard to fault the gentleman in NH, given that his group actually did get effectively assaulted by a pair of goons (were they SEIU? I don't know, but they definitely had the look of union enforcers in the video).

What bothered me in that video wasn't the guy with the gun, it was the police officer who blatantly disregarded half a dozen witnesses yelling that the two guys right next to him had just assaulted one of them.

The cop wanting to see the video was fine by me, but he should have detained the two goons first, and then watched it with them if he wanted to. I cannot understand why he just let them walk off.

For me, that was the strongest argument of all in support of 2A that day.
 
JohnKSa

but that is NOT how the general public will see it and that is certainly not how it's going to be portrayed. Even some folks here have indicated that they thought intimidation might have been a goal--if we can't even convince ourselves it's a lost cause to try convince the general public. And THAT is what it's all about, isn't it? If we're not trying to convince/educate the general public what's the point?
Click to expand...

Let me play the Devil's advocate for a moment.

If we are dictating our personal open carry policy dictated by whether or not we are "appearing" to be in a "winning situation" PRwise have not we already conceded, to a degree, and are not we standing on a slippery slope?

Are we advocating OC for "clean cut, professional, business suit wearing, politically correct, anchor types" (is not that ironic) while we ostracize those who weather a rather antagonistic interview session well but are wearing a t-shirt and happen to be blinking a bit?

Does it really matter at this point what anyone does regarding the media, giving the current mainstream media's apparent agenda concerning the 2nd Amendment?

And while I happen to agree with you concerning education, how can anyone compete with the fact that the average American spends more time in front of a screen each day than any other activity (most of that time the screen being a television), including sleeping and schooling or working, given the mainstream media's shading of firearms? And given that education can be effective, given enough time, are we willing to forego other "more direct" paths which may not take the decades or even generations to achieve what it may take "pc appearance based education" to make?
 
If we are dictating our personal open carry policy dictated by whether or not we are "appearing" to be in a "winning situation"...
Click to expand...
This is not about "OC policy", it's about how we go about educating the general public.

Is anyone really claiming that this guy always carries his AR-15 over his shoulder when he goes out? NO. He chose the venue and took his AR in an attempt to educate the public about open carry. That is why I approached it from the standpoint that we need to carefully evaluate (hopefully in advance) the positive benefit from such activities.
Does it really matter at this point what anyone does regarding the media, giving the current mainstream media's apparent agenda concerning the 2nd Amendment?
Click to expand...
You're kidding, right? This is what I'm talking about. We've got a massive disconnect.

The media isn't going to help us, that's a given. But it can certainly HURT us and does so at every opportunity. It will happily take the low-hanging fruit we provide it and publicly rub it on our face. Our job is to make that task more difficult.

YES, we MUST take the media's response into account BECAUSE they have an agenda. The idea that we can proceed as if they don't exist is just plain crazy.
...are we willing to forego other "more direct" paths which may not take the decades or even generations to achieve what it may take "pc appearance based education" to make?
Click to expand...
You gotta be realistic. These "more direct paths" are not "more direct paths" to anywhere we want to be. They do not cause the general public to view us more favorably, at best they dismiss this as a few nuts acting out, at worst they become motivated to pass laws to prevent recurrences.
 
My opinion is that anyone who thinks these folks sent a clear POSITIVE message about exercising constitutional rights is either deluding themselves or is not a good judge of how the general public views these incidents.
Click to expand...

And I never stated that it was a positive as far as the public perception angle, however, I do see it as a positive toward encouraging activism for all our rights ( not just 2A )
and I believe that if it emboldens more to join the protests, in whatever peaceful fashion they choose, including OC of a firearm, that is a positive.

You may refer to me as "delusional" or idealistic if you wish
however, the public opinion aspect is not entirely lost on me. I simply choose to join the actions to try and sway public opinion, may be right, may be wrong, but I will not sit on my hands and bemoan the success of others, particularly when we have not seen the totality of their impact just yet.

They have started a "backlash" and whether that is good, or bad for the cause of 2A, or rights in general has yet to be determined, other than the speculations we both share on our respective views.
 
I simply choose to join the actions to try and sway public opinion, may be right, may be wrong, but I will not sit on my hands and bemoan the success of others, particularly when we have not seen the totality of their impact just yet.
Click to expand...
False dichotomy.

One is not limited to choosing between sitting on one's hands and carrying an AR-15 to a high profile event.

There are other options; proven, effective options for educating people about firearms.
 
JohnKSa

Quote:
Does it really matter at this point what anyone does regarding the media, giving the current mainstream media's apparent agenda concerning the 2nd Amendment?
You're kidding, right? This is what I'm talking about. We've got a massive disconnect.

The media isn't going to help us, that's a given. But it can certainly HURT us and does so at every opportunity. It will happily take the low-hanging fruit we provide it and publicly rub it on our face. Our job is to make that task more difficult.

YES, we MUST take the media's response into account BECAUSE they have an agenda. The idea that we can proceed as if they don't exist is just plain crazy
Click to expand...
.

Again playing the Devil's advocate:

If the media is not going to help us and only going to hurt us, how ever can you personally influence it? If they can take a black man carrying a rifle and turn that event into a "non black man" via editing and editorial, how in the world can you possibly believe that what you say, anywhere or anyhow will be heard as you intended it to be when filtered through the mainstream media? The mainstream media has no need of any "nuts" they can fabricate "truth". (See previous example.)

"Massive disconnect"?
 
If the media is not going to help us and only going to hurt us, how ever can you personally influence it?
Click to expand...
This is only hard if you make it hard. You're answering your own questions in your post.

If the goal is providing pro-gun education to the public, trying to use the mainstream media is clearly not going to be a useful strategy. In fact, it's pretty obvious that it's almost invariably going to be harmful to the cause precisely because the media will do their best to spin it that way if it's not already to their advantage to report it.

If it's not negative or if they can't spin it then it won't get reported on any sort of useful scale.

Yes, it's a massive disconnect. I don't understand:

1. ...how we start with the premise that the mainstream media is actively anti-gun and then proceed to try to positively influence the general public via the mainstream media.

2. ...how we can be so out of touch with the general public as to think they are positively influenced by seeing people carrying "assault rifles" (that's what the GP sees, I'm not advocating that terminology) at high-profile events.
 
JohnKSa, well put. That is situation with so many problems that people seem to think the solution is only one of 2 choices. Much too black and white in the real multi-colored world.

I like to use my wife as an example; until last year I would classify her as nearly anti-gun. I say nearly because she had no problem with others having guns and hunting and target practicing, etc. The problem she had was she was so petrified of firearms that she refused to even touch even my .22 Henry lever action rifle. She viewed all firearms as inherently dangerous. I finally got sick of it and with the help of her sister and brother in law we got her to enroll with us in a firearms safety course.
This course prepares you for your CCL and was excellent and she had a chance to meet and interact with other gun owners and she found out they were not so scary. After three evenings of classes we went to a local gun club and we shot a variety of handguns. My wife shot nearly everything they had out for us to try, from .22lr to .45acp! She then realized that guns aren't so bad afterall. This winter she even purchased her very own .38spl Taurus snubby.

My point is that some of the fine folks on this forum and others who are gun enthusiasts might not see the actions of these people carrying guns at a Presidential event all that shocking. They forget that there are those out there such as my wife who aren't so in love with guns and see these protesters as quite shocking. I am afraid that these people are viewed by many as dangerous loonies and what we need is not to shock but to educate and convince the non gun enthusiasts of the merits of gun ownership and the second amendment, and not be scaring them.
 
JohnKSa

2. ...how we can be so out of touch with the general public as to think they are positively influenced by seeing people carrying "assault rifles" (that's what the GP sees, I'm not advocating that terminology) at high-profile events.
Click to expand...

Playing the Devil's Advocate yet again:

And in the same breathe "hanging out to dry" those who actually are open carrying. I believe that some are mixing their feelings about the 1st and 2nd Amendments. It is mainly "high profile" due to the 1st Amendment; the topic at hand at the time. Are we happy calling people "idiots" and "detriments" because they are not in accord with our PCness; even though they were clearly legally exercising their rights?

Are we changing our behaviors and beliefs (possibly our integrity) to suit what "the general public" thinks? In 99 out of 100 American homes, people watch commercial television, do we shun that 1% that chooses not to do so? Or perhaps that 1% needs to "get with the program". Just because you have a majority does not make it right.

Think about the 5th Amendment for a moment. What happens if you fail to invoke that right at a certain time, say under questioning? Slippery slope. Give an inch...
 
I have to say the black guy with the AR-15 made me a life long friend.

Everyone thinks:

"AR, black rifle!. Bad! Yes it is our government battle rifle..."

The pictures of the black guy with the AR over his shoulders TOTALLY disarmed any fears or apprehensions created initially.

"OH, it's ok. He's part of Obama's gang, possee', etc."

"He's there to protect Obama. That's why he's got the AR."

"He's retired military, protecting the president."

The body language of the people around the guy with the AR over his shoulder is they are totally relaxed, having fun.

I thank God for people with the wisdom and guts to do something like that, and, for giving that person faith to do it.

I can't think of any other situation that would have possibly disarmed the issue, and really focused it on the issues, and made any physical threat absurd, even in concept. The guy is brilliant.!

Rosa Parks has nothing on him...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top