Poseidon28
Moderator
///
Last edited:
Rampant lynching and prison beatings during the period effectively mute your point.
On the one hand, he is no Rosa Parks because he isn't likely to face a lynch mob
OuTcAsT,
I have been reading your threads and this quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by OuTcAsT
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"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.
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?
I challenge anyone supporting this man's actions to find one person ever whose mind was changed on the issue of gun control just because they saw someone toting a gun around.
Not only are they in bad taste, they're not germane. Nobody's infringing on our rights based on how we were born or who we are. Nobody's rounding us up and killing us. Nobody's beating us up or hanging us in the woods. Nobody's going to come pull me out of my house in the middle of the night.
There is no equivalence. I know people who were affected by those practices, and trust me, they do not appreciate the comparison.
First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.
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.
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.
Nope. The people who called the cops were already hostile to the idea. Just because it's legal doesn't assuage their angst.OK, as I mentioned a couple of pages ago, some people were upset by the AR in AZ, and questioned the cops, who told them that it's actually OK to open carry. If they were asking cops to do something about it, they probably thought carrying a gun around openly was illegal. They were educated by the cops. Does that count as changing their minds?
Nope. The people who called the cops were already hostile to the idea.
OuTcAsT said:the message should be somewhat directed at the choir, because the "choir" consists of several "sections"
OuTcAsT said:Kostric's actions may have shocked a few folks, and others it opened their eyes to the fact that; OC exists in some areas, it is legal, it can be done near a presidential meeting,
azredhawk44 said:There IS equivalence.
azredhawk44 said:That lawful AR says: I have the power to pre-empt a nondemocratic power grab. And I have the will to do so.
I chose to quote the specific example under discussion, but broadening the statement does not alter my meaning. The specific weapon carried and or the specific method of carry is pretty much a wash as far as I'm concerned.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.
That is a false dichotomy. One need not choose between: 'OC at high-profile events' and 'sitting on one's hands'. The point is that there are other things that can be done to further the cause of gun rights and of educating the public besides "joining the movement".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.
That might or might not be true but it's got nothing to do with me. I haven't called those folks or their supporters extremists, I have said I believe they're misguided....it is a bit disingenuous to try and make those of us who support the activists as extremists.
This is a very poor analogy for the simple reason that the gay rights movement had strong support from within the mainstream media while the gun rights movement has strong opposition from the mainstream media. The approaches used by the two movements will, therefore, have to be very different to be effective.I think we might look at the gay rights movement, and, look how they have progressed in the last 30-40 years. By fighting, often unpopular to the mainstream, they have rights no one would have imagined in the 60's.
I also see that during that time, the gay movement has, as the gun movement, a variety of different approaches to achieve the end, and, that many did not
agree with the 'radical' approach.
I find it strange that gun owners are 'in the closet' so to speak, and those trying to come out are thrown under the bus...
It is very difficult to use the mainstream media, that is why the NRA has had to virtually create its own media in order to get the word out.It is very possible to use the media to our advantage.
You are right there, but some of us fear what the result may be is not good for our rights.
That "lawful AR" says such only to you azredhawk44 and other gun absolutists,
No one is saying not to take "any action", only that the actions taken should be chosen and executed prudently.If you live in constant fear that any action you may take "may disquiet the flock" and somehow prove to bring down the wrath of the gun control legislation crowd, then you are already defeated.
No one is saying that "anything one might do...might bring further restrictions" only that SOME things are pretty likely to cause further restrictions and are therefore unwise courses of action.You might just as well turn in your guns now, you have already taken a stance that anything you might do to change the status-quo might bring further restrictions on those rights.
Nope. I've already posted things that anyone can do to work to change the situation. Just because SOME actions are imprudent doesn't mean all of them are.Will you just accept this as a natural progression of the "law of the land"?
OuTcAsT said:Then welcome to "The sky might fall" section.
OuTcAsT said:If you live in constant fear that any action you may take "may disquiet the flock" and somehow prove to bring down the wrath of the gun control legislation crowd, then you are already defeated.
OuTcAsT said:do you have the courage to defend the "actual" law of the land
OuTcAsT said:then you may either blame the fallout on me, and those of like mind,
It's not the first time I've heard these comparisons. I know Jews, who are very supportive of the 2A, who take great umbrage to the comparison.And also with all due respect, Tom Servo is right there is absolutely no moral equivalence whatsoever. I think you are way off base with that.Originally Posted by azredhawk44
There IS equivalence.
Your entire post is a false dichotomy. You're trying desperately to make it appear that one has only two choices: To (1) do nothing or (2) join/support this one particular movement.
Writing to congressmen and politicians,