...rather to promote ourselves in such a way that the public can see someone open carrying and not be upset or feel "wrong."
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.
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.
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?
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.