Open Carry at Presidential Town Hall

[JohnKSa]

Playing the Devil's Advocate yet again:

Ok, and back atcha playing the voice of common sense yet again.

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?

A person doesn't win points simply for exercising his rights. In fact it's easily possible to exercise one's rights in a reprehensible fashion, certainly possible to do so in an unwise manner. What a person wins points for is exercising his rights prudently.

This has got nothing to do with "our PCness", it has to do with public perception. More specifically it has to do with people who are trying to positively affect public perception but are doing so in a manner which is far more likely to have exactly the opposite effect. Is that a detriment? How could it be anything else? Are they idiots? I haven't used that term--I would say misguided is more accurate.

Are we changing our behaviors and beliefs (possibly our integrity) to suit what "the general public" thinks?

This was meant to be a statement, meant to be educational to the general public.

You can't have it both ways. If you're trying to make statements to the general public and trying to educate them then YES, you have to care what the general public thinks. It's absolutely pointless to try to educate the general public about guns starting with the attitude that you don't care what the general public thinks about guns. In fact when it's stated plainly in that manner it's clearly nonsensical.

The very reason we strive to change public opinion is the reason we must respect it when it goes against us. NOT because the majority is right but because in our society/political environment majorities ARE strong. That is precisely why we all want to educate the general public and also precisely why we need to be careful about the way we go about doing so.

 

[AZAK]

JohnKSa

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.

The Devil's advocate once again:

How do you propose to begin to reach the "general public" being a small minority of the total populace with out making use of a media that 99% of American households watches an average of 5+hours daily per person? A news media that fabricates what is "truth"?

Talking heads in a box that helps dictate what we wear, eat, drive, smell like, what ailments we might have and which drugs to take because of this, and where we might want to go on vacation. (There is a reason that television advertising can charge the rates that they do.) A box that tells us what our world is like. From the weather, and we chuckle that they can be so wrong so often but then fail to carry this thought much beyond the weather, to the news of political and financial situations.

Suzie Soccermom can verify whether or not the weather is accurate, but really has no time to verity much of anything else; i.e. the countries current financial status, or exactly how many Senators did show up for that vote, and exactly what was in that bill and how did my representative vote? John Q really does not have the time, or generally the drive, to attempt to understand current pending legislation that may or may not influence his life right now or in the near future. Heck, tax forms once a year is bad enough!

Good luck reaching 99% of the country (the general public) without using the one media that they make use of almost exclusively greater than any other activity.

 

[jimpeel]

From THIS POST I responded to the author with the following:

Dear Sir,

I read your piece "Leave the Guns At Home" (Thursday, August 20, 2009) with some interest.

In the piece, you posed several good questions and observations on which I think I can enlighten you.

1. What would conservatives have said if a group of loud, scruffy leftists had brought guns to the public events of Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush?

Those loud scruffy leftists were known as the Black Panther Party which showed up with regularity at political events of all kinds armed with firearms. That was their right to do as long as they carried those firearms in a peaceful manner.

2. How would our friends on the right have reacted to someone at a Reagan or a Bush speech carrying a sign that read: "It is time to water the tree of liberty"?

Free speech is not always warm and fuzzy. Political free speech as defined in the Bill of Rights is specifically designed to protect speech which is not comfortable to everyone. See Cohen v. California 403 U.S. 15 (1971) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=403&invol=15

3. Pardon me, but I don't think conservatives would have spoken out in defense of the right of every American Marxist to bear arms or to shed the blood of tyrants.

Conservatives, unlike Liberals, believe in the entire Constitution, not just the parts they like. Conservatives speak out for all persons to have the same rights as long as they remain peaceful and operate within the laws of the state, territory, or nation in which we live. Have you ever heard of the Pink Pistols? http://www.pinkpistols.org/ They have chapters in nearly every state and are widely supported by the shooting community.

4. Recall the 2004 incident in which a distraught mother whose son was killed in Iraq was arrested for protesting at a rally in New Jersey for first lady Laura Bush.

Sue Niederer was not operating in a peaceful manner nor was she operating within the laws of the state, territory, or nation in which we live. Luke Montgomery aka Luke Sissyfag, was arrested for shouting down President Clinton at a speech in 1993. We could exchange these stories all day; but who would want to?

5. Gibbs made you think of the old line about the liberal who is so open-minded he can't even take his own side in an argument.

He simply knows the laws as written and respects them. We live in a nation of laws, not men. The law is either manifest or it is unenforceable.

6. It's not about an opposition that has every right to free expression. It's about an angry minority engaging in intimidation backed by the threat of violence.

There was no intimidation nor was there a threat of violence. If the mere presence of a firearm caused violence every police officer would be an offensive rather than defensive person. This from CNN http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/17/obama.protest.rifle/ Even the Secret Service disagrees with you.

U.S. Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan acknowledged the incidents in New Hampshire and Arizona, but said he was not aware of any other recent events where protesters attended with open weapons. He said there was no indication that anyone had organized the incidents.

Asked whether the individuals carrying weapons jeopardized the safety of the president, Donovan said, "Of course not."

7. The simple fact is that an armed citizenry is not the basis for our freedoms.

True. However, it is the ability of the citizenry to be armed that keeps us free.

8. Guns were used on election days in the Deep South during and after Reconstruction to intimidate black voters and take control of state governments.

You have to reach back over one hundred years to make your point. How about we look at a more recent case in which firearms were used right here in America, August 1-2, 1946, to overthrow tyranny. Have you ever heard of the Battle of Athens Tennessee? http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/athens.htm It makes an interesting read.

Also, it was members of the New Black Panther Party which stood outside polling places in Philadelphia wielding billy clubs on election day 2008. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU

9. ... it is profoundly troubling that firearms should begin to appear with some frequency at a president's public events only now, when the president is black.

Not all of the protesters were Caucasian. The Arizona man heralded in the press as carrying a semi automatic military pattern rifle was of African American heritage.

It might disturb you to know that MSNBC edited their footage of the Black man with the military pattern rifle so his race was not revealed. The panel, led by Contessa Brewer, then went on to discuss how "A man at a pro-health care reform rally ... wore a semiautomatic assault rifle on his shoulder and a pistol on his hip ... there are questions about whether this has racial overtones .... white people showing up with guns." The video is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI and the picture of the man of whom they are speaking of is here http://www.abc15.com/media/lib/88/0/0/2/002dcac9-eb07-48d7-8135-ab42c9e06933/Original.jpg . They edited the film to make this about race and they did so deliberately. Of this there can be no doubt. The sad part is that these are your colleagues.

I hope that I have answered your questions and observations you to your satisfaction. I am open to a dialogue as you may desire.

Sincerely,

Jim Peel
Longmont, CO

 

[JohnKSa]

AZAK,

Yeah, that's exactly what I mean by a massive disconnect.

A hates my cause.
A makes things up.
A will not report things that benefit my cause.
A will report things that harm my cause.
A will spin things that benefit my cause to make them seem like they harm my cause.
*****************
MASSIVE DISCONNECT
*****************
A is how I will promote my cause.

How do you propose to begin to reach the "general public"...

Ok, if you're serious here's something that you can do. Hold Women on Target (or similar) events in your area regularly. My club has done several of these and the response has always been great. They have the potential not only to reach the participants but also their families and friends. Very productive in terms of introducing non-shooters to firearms, but more work and not nearly as high-profile as slinging an AR over your shoulder and going to see the president...

 

[jimpeel]

And here is the canned auto-response:

Thank you for your response to my column. I'm grateful when people are
kind enough to take time out to offer generous thoughts. I am also
grateful for the passion and concern of those who disagree with me.
Opinion pages are supposed to spur debate, and my readers keep me on
my toes. That's why I read e-mail and have on occasion written columns
replying to readers.

I hope you will understand that it is difficult to reply to every note
and letter I get. Our country's passion for politics at this moment
and the ease with which technology allows readers to respond have
increased the number of communications I receive to a level well
beyond my capacity to answer them all. That is why I have had to
resort to an automatic thank you note, after resisting doing so for
years. But please know that I am paying attention.

As you may already be aware, you can also respond (in a way that other
readers will see) by posting a comment to my column online at
www.washingtonpost.com. I would also invite you to join other readers
at my online discussion group, E.J.'s Precinct.

Again, thank you for writing.

Best wishes,
E.J. Dionne

 

[Homerboy]

It is very possible to use the media to our advantage. First thing you do is get a well liked media personality to eloquently speak for you. Remember how dumb Tom Selleck made Rosie O'Donnell when she hassled him about his NRA affiliation after Columbine? Have them bring up the hypocricy of the media. A kid finds his dad's gun andd shoots himself makes national news, yet how many kids drown every summer in backyard swimming pools? How many are hit running into the street after the ice cream truck? How many drink cleaning products because they look like Kool Aid? All of these incidents have to do with an adult being negligent, yet only the gun owner is villified.

Secondly, hold events that the media CAN'T ignore. Million Gun March on Washington, peaceful protests outside prisons or courthouses, where recidivist felons are either released or shown leniency time and again. THESE are the gun users who give us a bad name.

Comparing ANY of these guys to Rosa Parks is crazy. None of them risk anything by doing what they did. As a matter of fact, they gleefully answer questions. "Look at me! I'm on TV!". Let him sling his AR over his shoulder and walk down Pennsylvania Ave if he wants to be a "crusader".

Sorry, I see NO GOOD in what these guys are doing.

 

[zukiphile]

Comparing ANY of these guys to Rosa Parks is crazy. None of them risk anything by doing what they did.

It isn't obvious that comparisons are crazy. Parks isn't noteworthy for the risk she took so much as she is for her action that forced an issue legally and socially. In that sense, Heller is likely the better analog.

Yet those who employed confrontational tactics in civil rights struggles were also criticised within their own communites for making things harder on their own people and encouraging conflict. It is hard to say that one approach or another is always correct or productive.

Ok, if you're serious here's something that you can do. Hold Women on Target (or similar) events in your area regularly. My club has done several of these and the response has always been great. They have the potential not only to reach the participants but also their families and friends. Very productive in terms of introducing non-shooters to firearms, but more work and not nearly as high-profile as slinging an AR over your shoulder and going to see the president...

I think there is a wide spectrum of activity that can de-stigmatise shooting and guns. Going to a healthcare debate with a carbine isn't my preference, but I at least give the fellow credit for showing up dressed in a normal manner rather than as a mental patient.

I prefer to let others at normal social gatherings identify me as a shooter and let the most appalled people, nearly always women, express themselves. You? Why on earth would you do that?

Few things are as compelling as a fellow describing something he likes. The experience of concentration that pushes all your worries and anxieties outside the tunnel of your focus for an hour or two, is very much like what golfers purport to experience. With a bit of calm, non-confrontational explanation (getting an unloaded gun out to explain function is fascinating to many who've never even held a gun), many peoples' horror can be reduced, and it isn't unusual to have people ask if they can come along sometime.

I've never had a bad reaction to that approach.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

How do you propose to begin to reach the "general public"

Kudos to JohnKSa for the right answer. It's called Grass Roots and it is slower than mainstream media but it works much better and they have more problems spinning that.

Are we changing our behaviors and beliefs (possibly our integrity) to suit what "the general public" thinks?

Beliefs? Never. Behavior? For sure. If we don't mind our public behavior and public turns on us then we risk restrictions on our rights that we don't want.

Remember, when you try to communicate to another, it matters not what you intend for them to believe but what they actually believe that your message will be.

 

[Homerboy]

It isn't obvious that comparisons are crazy. Parks isn't noteworthy for the risk she took so much as she is for her action that forced an issue legally and socially.

Parks is noteworthy for the risk she took AND the actions that forced an issue. She might never have gotten out of that jail.

Again, let Mr Blinky saunter up Pennsylvania Ave with his Rambo rig, knowing he's going to be arrested, looking at jail time, the loss of his job, and the massive debt he will incur on legal fees.

THEN he will be in the same category as Rosa Parks.

 

[OuTcAsT]

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.

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.

No John, I am afraid you are the one who created the false dichotomy.

Please look at my post(s) and point out any where I said there were only 2 extremist choices, that bolded section above are your words, not mine.

What I said was that I intend to join the movement, I might show up at the next rally or meeting in my area dressed in khaki slacks, a tucked in polo, and OC my 1911, as I do most days, I might carry a sign, I might not carry a sign, but I will always carry, and remain within the law to do so. I could carry an AR, but just this moment may not be the time for that yet.

You make some interesting points, but it is a bit disingenuous to try and make those of us who support the activists as extremists.

 

[zukiphile]

Parks is noteworthy for the risk she took AND the actions that forced an issue. She might never have gotten out of that jail.

I am confident that even in deepest, darkest Alabama in the 1950s, what amounts to a disorderly conduct charge did not carry a life sentence. So it was never a real possibility that she would be given a life sentence.

Hers was not the first such case, but it was the famous one, the one that changed public perception. This didn't hinge on any risk she took.

Again, let Mr Blinky saunter up Pennsylvania Ave with his Rambo rig, knowing he's going to be arrested, looking at jail time, the loss of his job, and the massive debt he will incur on legal fees.

Isn't this precisely the sort of agressive activism you believe injures the cause of liberal gun laws?

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

OuTcAsT,

I have been reading your threads and this quote:

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.

Tells me that you think that the OC message at these Town Hall meetings should be aimed at those of us as Glenn would say are "in the choir" but then here you say:

I simply choose to join the actions to try and sway public opinion,

my bolds

Which public are you talking about?

The minority of gun owners or the majority of non-gun owners?

If Mr. Kostric's actions cause the majority of the public (non-gun owning) to feel threatened and want to restrict our rights are you saying that more Mr. Kostrics will help us out? Wouldn't that make it worse?

Wouldn't it show that there are simply more gun nuts than originally thought (by the majority non-gun owners) and Mr. Kostric is not a one-percenter therefore the problem is worse requiring quicker action (read gun control)?

As John pointed out before you can't have it both ways, if you want to educate the public you MUST care about what they think. If not then you are just putting gun ownership in their face so how will that sway them?

Urging other gun owners to join in a tactic that doesn't work doesn't make a lot of sense. If 1000 people show up at the next town hall event OCing and the media reports it then it will be spun negatively and make us look better?

I think you need to choose who you are trying to communicate with and tailor the message to that audience.

 

[zxcvbob]

If 1000 people show up at the next town hall event OCing and the media reports it then it will be spun negatively and make us look better?

A better analogy is if one or two OC'er show up at the next 1000 town hall meetings.

There is absolutely nothing we can do (or not do) that the media *won't* spin negatively. One reporter on MSNBC was even ranting about white racists carrying guns to political rallies and showed footage of this latest incident, carefully edited so you couldn't see that the guy carrying the rifle was black.

Keep feeding the media boring news stories where nothing happens, and maybe they will quit reporting them, ("Dog bites man" does not make good television. "Man bites dog" does because it's unusual) meanwhile the public gets desensitized to seeing gun.

 

[Homerboy]

Parks is noteworthy for the risk she took AND the actions that forced an issue. She might never have gotten out of that jail.

I am confident that even in deepest, darkest Alabama in the 1950s, what amounts to a disorderly conduct charge did not carry a life sentence. So it was never a real possibility that she would be given a life sentence.

Hers was not the first such case, but it was the famous one, the one that changed public perception. This didn't hinge on any risk she took.


Quote:
Again, let Mr Blinky saunter up Pennsylvania Ave with his Rambo rig, knowing he's going to be arrested, looking at jail time, the loss of his job, and the massive debt he will incur on legal fees.

Isn't this precisely the sort of agressive activism you believe injures the cause of liberal gun laws?

I'm not talking life imprisonment. I'm talking about being killed in jail, or being tortured. Think black people had it easy in Southern jails in the 60's, particularly the ones fighting for equal rights?

And yes, I Do think a guy walking up Pennsylvanis Ave with a gun would not benefit us. I'm saying that these guys doing it in areas here they KNOW they will not be arrested aren't taking any risks at all.

They're not heroes. They're not activists. They're just fools.

 

[Poseidon28]

Bad facts make bad law. The only bad facts in any of these cases is the SEIU spitting on protestors.

Perhaps the black guy WAS making a statement about race, his right to carry, and, the fact that blacks are more likely to be discriminated against in this regard. However, with a black president, and, in light of dear Harvard Professor Gates, His timing was PERFECT.

Next we need soccer moms with Glocks. How about Cornered Cat organizing a group? Raise the entire issue of violence against women, and how the 14th amendment Equal Protection Clause has been viewed as far as gender discrimination. How about as an issue for the right to be safe in your person and home?
I think we are trying to guess the perfect way to raise these issues, with the media against us. Therefore, there is highly likely to be a few bumps in the road. These two people had perfect timing, and actions, and handled themselves well.

Perhaps we need someone like Glenn Meyer, or Al Norris to attend one of these meetings, and, go head to head with some idiot like Rosie or
Chris Matthews.

School teachers against Free Fire Zones. There are many angles, and, if all are done with the wisdom, and professionalism of the people that have started it, we have baby steps to a successful movement.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I'll pass on Rosie.

 

[BoringAccountant]

Wouldn't it show that there are simply more gun nuts than originally thought (by the majority non-gun owners) and Mr. Kostric is not a one-percenter therefore the problem is worse requiring quicker action (read gun control)?

Yes, but that assumes a pretty biased view of how all non-gun owners feel.

The opposite of that, it could show that there are a lot of gun enthusiasts, 2A supporters out there that are law-abiding citizens who want nothing more than to be seen for what they are. Matter of what each of us "assumes" the public would perceive by more of these stories.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Yes, but that assumes a pretty biased view of how all non-gun owners feel.

I guess I am not seeing the groundswell of grassroots public support for Mr. Kostric (other than places like TFL) but I think a lot of non-gun owners range from fairly neutral to supportive depending on what and how the question is asked.

What do they think about the dude toting the AR-15? Don't know for sure but I am beginning to think not so positive. Therefore, having a 100 more show up might not make it better.

 

[zukiphile]

I think that is a valid point, BA.

People are hard to judge on the internet, but in real life, I find most discomfort with and opposition to gun ownership to be entirely genuine.

When people use formulations that we find wildly inaccurate, the sort that suggest some guns "spray" bullets, or that some common characteristics make them wildly and randomly more dangerous, they usually do so honestly.

But Zuk, how can people say these things honestly?

Easily. For many people in the city, a firearm is a thing they only see on the television, portrayed right alongside violence and evil. So how else should they think of these foreign objects?

Seeing people not wearing camo, but appearing like normal people, with guns gives them an experience, and one so many lack, of a gun as a mere thing, benign in itself.

 

[maestro pistolero]

I am confident that even in deepest, darkest Alabama in the 1950s, what amounts to a disorderly conduct charge did not carry a life sentence. So it was never a real possibility that she would be given a life sentence.

Legally, no, but a defacto death sentence for negro insolence was hardly unheard of. Rampant lynching and prison beatings during the period effectively mute your point.