Open Carry at Presidential Town Hall

[Poseidon28]

///

 

[Tom Servo]

I've been hearing a great number of comparisons to Rosa Parks, Anne Frank, the Holocaust and so forth lately.

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.

If someone wants to be an activist, great. Do something real. Keep in touch with elected officials. Write articles. Teach. I know none of that stuff is glamorous, but it's not meant to be.

Simply toting a rifle around at a political gathering isn't activism--it's a certain lazy kind of exhibitionism. I'm sure he was the envy of all his friends back home, but stuff like this could cause problems for all of us down the road.

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.

 

[zukiphile]

Rampant lynching and prison beatings during the period effectively mute your point.

There were fewer than 50 of all races in the whole country during the entire 1950s. They were nearly all men. Too many, but exaggeration serves no good purpose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lynchings-graph.png


I sense a contradiction in the reasoning of some of those who most harshly criticise the man with a carbine.

On the one hand, he is no Rosa Parks because he isn't likely to face a lynch mob (which Rosa Parks didn't do for her act), but on the other hand he should be criticised for taking a high profile action that might prompt people to act against him and those like him.

You can reasonably question the efficacy of his act, but to simultaneously hold him in contempt for failing to run substantial personal risk, and also for acting in a way that might provoke a reaction doesn't on its face make sense.

 

[zxcvbob]

The bigotry and zumboism I see in this thread (and others like it) saddens me.

 

[Poseidon28]

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...

 

[maestro pistolero]

On the one hand, he is no Rosa Parks because he isn't likely to face a lynch mob

No, and the sniper who had him in his crosshairs wouldn't have pulled the trigger without cause, but his actions were hardly without risk to life and limb.

 

[OuTcAsT]

OuTcAsT,

I have been reading your threads and this quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

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"

Yes, I do believe the message should be somewhat directed at the choir, because the "choir" consists of several "sections" First and foremost is the section that own firearms, shoot them, enjoy them, and then feel that by simply being an NRA member, they have contributed greatly to the protections of our rights, and that any other type of activism is somehow a negative. These are the folks I say "buy a ticket, sit on the sidelines, and yell at the action on the field"



Then there is the section that promotes "responsible" gun ownership, actively get involved in pro 2A programs to a degree, yet they fear "shaking up the status quo" in any manner will somehow result in a firestorm of political and legal action, aimed at restricting gun rights.
I call this section the "sky might fall" crowd. Their fear has already diminished the effectiveness of their limited activism.

The section of the choir that needs the least amount of "testimony" is the "Extremist" section that I seem to be a member of.

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?

How about this, I feel that 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, and the gun will not suddenly jump out of the holster and start randomly killing.

And I believe that now would be the perfect time to see more Kostrics. You see, I do not have nearly as much fear that more of this type of activism will result it stronger gun control laws as I have fear for what will happen to freedom in general if Mr.Kostric, and those of like mind do not continue to stand up and show that we have rights, and intend to keep them, and use them.

I fear our Republic being legislated away much more than I fear our gun rights being restricted.

 

[publius42]

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.

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?

 

[azredhawk44]

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.

With all due respect to holocaust survivors, I feel I have to interject here.

There IS equivalence.

Maybe no one is doing it based upon ethnicity or religion. But it's getting done based on ideological stance of the target.

Institutionalized arrogance and petty despotism peaked in the 1990's in the form of the ATF and FBI. Gun owners, in particular passionate gun owners, were fair game.

Aside from Waco and Ruby Ridge, the ATF conducted countless false gun show stings, harassment of owners via 4473 traces, elimination of small "kitchen table" FFL's entirely, no-knock raids on gun collectors and other harassment.

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.

Don't start coming for the gun owners who carry guns on them. Don't start coming for the gun owners who leave their range-only guns in the safe unloaded. Don't start coming for the gun owners who have a single deer rifle and 1/2 a box of cartridges. Don't start coming for the gun owners who sold all their guns.

Actions such as the NH and AZ men performed tell those in power: We're here. We know our rights. A half-assed plea of "propriety" is not enough to keep us back. You cannot intimidate us by thuggish force. We will participate in the democratic process, like it or not. If you shut us out then we have other options. And we are here today to let the rest of America know... it's okay to be powerful.

That lawful AR says: I have the power to pre-empt a nondemocratic power grab. And I have the will to do so.

It's that whispered, forbidden discussion of "other options" that is really getting the news headlines right now.

Of course it's not time (yet, if ever) for other options.

But the reminder of the real meaning of the 2A was well delivered. I still applaud it.

 

[Poseidon28]

As far as gun laws, who do you think suffers the most? Our congress, sitting in their mansions in D.C. or the 60% black population in D.C. that is totally at the mercy of the gang thugs that all have illegal guns, and don't care about our capital's handgun band? To be real, if the Federal government, with the SS, FBI, BATF, PLUS local cops can't do a better job of protecting people, in D.C. and stopping murder, WHY would we delude ourselves that they have our interests in mind, and will do better, in places that don't control their very existence through funding?

Make no mistake: Equal protection is a major issue with firearm restrictions. Feel free to go back the 1868, and trace the steps of the different laws that allowed our state, federal, and local governments designed blacks from being armed.

That's why the black guy carrying the AR-15 was just such a perfect message.

 

[BoringAccountant]

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.

Well, to be honest, I haven't either, but this (TFL) is the only place I would expect to hear about support of it. I can hardly see the MSM mentioning anyone supporting this, except Fox, which if I recall correctly, they did a piece on it, but that was it, it kind of dropped dead in the water after that with them.

As far as the black man toting the AR...I think its hard for us to assume one way or another. People have been arguing "Well, look at the people around him, they are not scared" etc. etc. and to that I would say, duh, he is protesting the healthcare bill, chances are there are a lot of supporters of the 2A there that also object to the healthcare bill and the sight of the gun is either common to them or not that big of a deal. Now if this man happened to be pro-choice and protested a pro-life rally, chances are the results would be different. Again, crowd with which he would be part of would sort of predict the results. Of course before I get slammed for this thought, this is assuming "all else being equal" meaning I know there are contradictions to both of those thoughts, but IMHO, the general idea still holds.

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.

Agree 100%, more images of guns as inanimate objects and completely non-violent actions of the carrier would be much better for gun supporters.

 

[Tom Servo]

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. Just because it's legal doesn't assuage their angst.

They'll still be just as hostile (or at best apathetic) to the whole issue. They're not going to go home and tell their friends, "I saw a guy openly carrying a rifle, and I've realized that I should support the 2nd Amendment!"

No, they're going to say, "you wouldn't believe this scary man who had the audacity to carry a gun there!"

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Nope. The people who called the cops were already hostile to the idea.

What is the basis for this knowledge? If they already know the law, what purpose is served asking/telling LEOs about it?

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

the message should be somewhat directed at the choir, because the "choir" consists of several "sections"

Other than extremist I am not sure I go along with your "sections" but be that as it may from most of the posting on here anecdotely it seems Mr. Kostric is not reaching these other sections so his act only would be energizing to the extremist section of the choir. As everyone knows in politics just energizing the base does not win the day. You have to bring over many of the others as well. Reagan democrats comes to mind.

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,

You are right there, but some of us fear what the result may be is not good for our rights.

There IS equivalence.

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.

That lawful AR says: I have the power to pre-empt a nondemocratic power grab. And I have the will to do so.

Remember my post about communication?

That "lawful AR" says such only to you azredhawk44 and other gun absolutists, but to John Q it says: "I will take up arms and kill my fellow citizens and overturn laws passed by a democratically elected leadership supported by law and the courts if I don't like what the result is. If I can't win at the ballot box I will win with a gun."

That is the message they hear whenever we talk this insurrection/militia stuff and to believe otherwise is not looking at reality.

 

[JohnKSa]

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.

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.

You said:

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 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".

...it is a bit disingenuous to try and make those of us who support the activists as extremists.

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.

I have also said that the general public sees them as extremists.

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...

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.

It is very possible to use the media to our advantage.

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.

Yes, there are a few examples where the media has been useful in spite of itself, but those examples are rare and happened mostly by chance. It's very difficult to engineer something like the Selleck interview because the media will do its best to resist being useful to our cause. They don't like being made to sound dumb, they don't like having to refute strong logical arguments in front of "their" audience.

 

[OuTcAsT]

You are right there, but some of us fear what the result may be is not good for our rights.

Then welcome to "The sky might fall" section.

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. 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. Have you considered what you will do if, in fact, your rights (not just 2A) are restricted further? Will you just accept this as a natural progression of the "law of the land"? Or do you have the courage to defend the "actual" law of the land, the Constitution ? What will you do when later down the road, legislation from .gov ( who continues to thumb it's nose at "We the People) decide you can no longer enjoy your 1A, 2A, or any other rights? Will you simply accept this as a part of the process?

If I am to be labeled an "extremist" then so be it, I will wear the moniker proudly, and if it upsets what passes for gun rights now, then you may either blame the fallout on me, and those of like mind, or join the fray. Either way, I have made my position clear for any to see.

That "lawful AR" says such only to you azredhawk44 and other gun absolutists,

I stand corrected, I am now an "absolutist".

 

[JohnKSa]

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 not to take "any action", only that the actions taken should be chosen and executed prudently.

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.

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.

Will you just accept this as a natural progression of the "law of the land"?

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.

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.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. There are very constructive and productive things that everyone on this board could do (some even starting tonight) that would help change people's minds and that don't require them to OC at high-profile events. Writing to congressmen and politicians, contributing to gun advocacy groups (there are several choices), volunteering time and effort to support gun advocacy group activities and events, holding events to safely introduce people to firearms, etc.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Then welcome to "The sky might fall" section.

Since I don't believe that we are free in the USA just because some citizens own guns then I could hardly be in such a section. There is no sky for me to have fall.

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, I live in a world of reality and know that rational participation in our political system is how we defend our rights as opposed to wearing guns in public. If you believe that you can protect your rights as an American in our system only by the threat of violence then you are not only defeated but will never get out the gate to start.

do you have the courage to defend the "actual" law of the land

Defend it how? By forming some crackpot militia and getting into a shootout with the "Man" like David Koresh, Randy Weaver or Tim McVeigh? Only extremists view them as anything other than sad pathetic kooks who got a lot of people killed needlessly and did absolutely nothing to further our gun rights.

then you may either blame the fallout on me, and those of like mind,

I would rather avoid the fallout and keep my rights. By the time I need to blame you we will already be fighting a rear guard action. It would be too late. Fortunately there are very few sympathetic with that view other than those few on TFL et al.

 

[Tom Servo]

Originally Posted by azredhawk44
There IS equivalence.

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.

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.

I have a friend who has scars on her face, inflicted when she was pushed into broken glass on the street by an officer during the civil rights movement. She doesn't see the equivalence.

The right to keep and bear arms IS a civil right, and it IS being unacceptably infringed. However, it's not the same as attempted genocide or the infringement of ALL the civil rights of a certain race.

It rankles me to hear these comparisons from 22-year-old white suburban kids who've never even seen the circumstances they imagine they understand (I am not calling anyone on this forum out; I raised the point in the first place because I've heard these arguments plenty of times before).

This isn't Warsaw or Selma. We can win, but we have to choose our rhetoric and our methods with care.

 

[OuTcAsT]

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.

If that is your opinion, then I do not agree with it, but I would defend to the death your right to state it.

Writing to congressmen and politicians,

Pardon me for pointing out the elephant in the room, but, have you actually seen what is taking place in our republic of late?

While the majority of Americans oppose the intrusion of .gov into a whole litany of issues, they continue to carry on as if we do not exist. I, and I am sure countless others have written to our "representatives" until we have had to replace our keyboards due to wear and tear, the result? they do not appear to be listening. joining encounter groups is a lovely idea, but, I think time is beginning to run out for "passive activism", the time for an "intervention" seems on the (somewhat distant) horizon.