Open Carry at Presidential Town Hall

[Poseidon28]

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.

Not accurate. When the gay folks started coming out the cops beat the tar out of them, they got abused, etc. The media has one goal: self-perpetuate, and sell products. At the start, they sold it by selling gays as outrageous threats to our society, and the cops as the white knights, for beating them up. As the media continued to do this, folks like my aunt and uncle, raising kids, 2 male children, decided being within spitting distance of the Castro was not healthy for their children, so they moved to Palo Alto, etc. As the makeup of the city changed, and became more gay, a funny thing happened. Gays have WAY more disposable income then straights: no kids.

As the media realized this, they changed tunes, and supported the gay movement.

The same is going to happen with the Second Amendment. Violence is already a big seller for the media. Firearms in particular. Some day, someone is going to wake up and realize the media has made billions of dollars off violence, and the use of firearms in movies. Now, think what might happen if we got together, identified the money guys who finance movies, and the media, that attacks gun rights, publish their record, and boycott their productions?

There are companies that put up 100's of millions of dollars for movie production. Just for example, let's say that we find out Brocoli whatever, the company that produces James Bond movies, backs MSNBC, and a bunch of other liberal anti-gun papers, and networks.

What if they open, and, they are picketed, and, the movie looses 100 million dollars? Daniel Craig comes out, and says the reason he said he was anti-gun was, and is, that if he comes out pro gun, he'll loose his job as James Bond.

Mel Gibson has already paved the way for this, since it happened to him.

The media doesn't know it, but, they WILL become our friends...

Also, keep in mind that I suspect the average gun owner to be on the well to do side as well, and, quite capable of affecting the media, and hitting them in the pocket book.

 

[JohnKSa]

The media doesn't know it, but, they WILL become our friends...

It's possible that over many decades the makeup and goals of the media will change. I'm not arguing against that.

What I am saying is that CURRENTLY the media is violently opposed to our cause and that is not going to change anytime in our lifetimes.

The move of the media to support the gay rights movement is far more complicated than you make it appear. It was NOT simply about money, there was a predisposition in the media to support the movement due to their societal and political views just as there is a predisposition in the media to oppose our movement due to their societal and political views.

It would be more accurate to say that initially the media appeared anti-gay because they were afraid of the opinions of the general public but later realized that they had tremendous power to manipulate the public and took advantage of that power.

We can argue about the details but the bottom line is that the gay rights movement effectively made zero progress until the media openly got on their side.

I agree that if we could get the media to openly take our side we could change our tactics considerably, but that's not the way things are and your examples of how to get them to take our side are wildly optimistic.

 

[OuTcAsT]

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

Seriously? You are going to state, here, on a public forum, that you do not believe that firearms in the hands of patriots have not only won our freedoms, but, secured the 2A which secures it? And you have the balls to do so under the Constitution (won by those patriots) that protects your right to do so?

 

[JohnKSa]

The statement you quoted does NOT say anything like your characterization of it in your rant.

You'd better read what you quoted a lot more carefully if you're going to respond that emphatically.

The quote does NOT say that our freedoms weren't won by firearms in the hands of patriots. It does not speak against the value of the 2A in securing our freedoms.

It merely states, very clearly, I might add, that our current freedom (note the present tense in the quote) is not due solely to ("just because") the fact that some citizens own (again note the present tense) guns.

It is a true statement. While firearms helped to win our freedom, the private ownership of firearms today is not the only reason we still have freedom.

 

[OuTcAsT]

While firearms helped to win our freedom, the private ownership of firearms today is not the only reason we still have freedom.

In the "present tense" you may be partially correct, however, within the "realm of possibility" ( that same realm which supports the fear that activism might result in further gun restrictions) It may yet prove to be the reason we retain our rights.

ETA: I will withdraw from this discussion as I can see the scythe descending, but I leave with my position clearly stated, and live (hopefully) to fight another time.

 

[Slamfire]

Considering the number of Presidents that have been killed, or assassination attempts on Presidents (Reagan, Ford), I do not consider it appropriate to openly carry firearms around them.

It may be your right, but that does not mean it is smart.

 

[Poseidon28]

Slamfire1: How dare you bring the elephant out of the closet???

Perhaps instead of that belief, perhaps you should look at the concept that an armed populace would likely stop that attempt?

What I am saying is that CURRENTLY the media is violently opposed to our cause and that is not going to change anytime in our lifetimes.

The ONLY cause they really have is self-perpetuation. The media's affect is slowly but surely loosing out to the internet. I don't have TV. I can watch most of the shows I want to without adds, why would I pay 80 bucks a month for cable? My high school students are savvy enough to know they are being fed a bunch of bull by the media.

Yes, Hollyweird money has long been controlled by a communist/socialist/gay element. Remember, they were accused of being communist in the 50's, and I know some of them to be exactly that. Despite that prejudice, the media threw the gay cause under the bus at the start of the movement, to make as much money as possible. That is their God, and, we can both affect, and control them through that God, once we wake up and realize we are both wealthy and strong.

That said, we do have the power to dilute, and destroy their control over the media. We just need to target them, protest, and address their agenda. The irony is they don't really have any agenda that is more important then keeping control, power, and making money. Threaten that, and they cave in, or have to go find new financing.

Believe me: Sony is now a major player, and, the Japanese are not inclined to support anything that costs them money. It may take them a bit, but, all the liberal-gay-political agendas mean nothing to them. The Japanese are one thing: long term, well thought out CAPITALISTS.

 

[rwilson452]

Packin' near a town hall meeting

There could be some positives out of exercising your rights. More people are becoming aware. Here in PA we have been pushing open carry for some time now. We have forced the police to get trained better on the law. One thing I have not seen come out of this open carry at hese events, which is primarily a political thing, All these people packing heat and OH MY, but nothing bad happened. Strange, isn't it. The pro gun talking heads need to push that side of the story. The law abiding people carry all the time, and you just now notice? Where is the "blood in the streets"? Why isn't it "Dodge City"? People carry and it's not a bad thing.

Sorry if this ground has been covered before I must have missed it.

 

[JohnKSa]

The ONLY cause they really have is self-perpetuation.

Given that starting premise I can see why you believe what you do.

Despite that prejudice, the media threw the gay cause under the bus at the start of the movement, to make as much money as possible.

You're ignoring the fact that the media underwent fundamental changes in terms of both composition and philosophy during the timeframe you're talking about. It's inaccurate to attribute those changes purely to financial motivation or self-preservation.

I'm not at all interested in getting into how and why the media (and the country) changed dramatically between the fifties and the seventies but it is a topic of some interest to many and as such it has been written about extensively. Assuming that you're willing to approach it with an open mind I believe that a little research will provide you with some valuable insights.

That said, we do have the power to dilute, and destroy their control over the media.

Why don't you get right on that then. It would solve a lot of problems.

It's really all moot anyway. Before we can use the media as a tool its agenda must be redefined. We differ on how that would be effected but agree that it must be done. We can theorize about what could happen if we could change the media's collective mind but until it happens it's all just pie-in-the-sky. They're against us now and since 'now' is where we are that's what we have to deal with.

Which gets us back to the topic. Openly carrying at high-profile events will be spun against us by the current mainstream media.

There could be some positives out of exercising your rights.

Sure there could. There could also be negatives or the effect could even be totally neutral.

I'm all for people exercising their rights prudently such that it results in a positive outcome for the cause of gun rights.

 

[jimpeel]

SlamFire1,

Considering the number of Presidents that have been killed, or assassination attempts on Presidents (Reagan, Ford), I do not consider it appropriate to openly carry firearms around them.

In neither case you cite -- or for any of the other assassinations or attempted assassinations throughout American history -- were the firearms used in the attacks carried openly.

 

[JohnKSa]

That's an interesting bit of trivia. What's the relevance?

Specifically, unless you can defend the assertion that openly carried guns could not be used in an assassination or that anyone who carries a gun openly would never assassinate someone I don't understand the point of your objection.

A semi-auto pistol has never been used to assassinate a president, but that wouldn't make it any more appropriate to try to smuggle a semi-auto pistol past the Secret Service than say a .22LR revolver or a Carcano rifle.

 

[jimpeel]

The relevance: The contention of open carry around a president was specious.

An assassin would not telegraph his intentions by exposing his weapon prior to his intended use. I never stated that a firearm, regardless of the method carried, could not be used to assassinate someone; nor did I assert that the method of carry precludes the intention of the perpetrator.

McKinley was shot by a man who wrapped up the firearm in his hand with a bandage to mimic an injury.

Click HERE to view image.

 

[JohnKSa]

nor did I assert that the method of carry precludes the intention of the perpetrator.

Now you have.

An assassin would not telegraph his intentions by exposing his weapon prior to his intended use. ...

This is explicit, but in the post I responded to it was implicit which was why I responded as I did.

 

[Homerboy]

Some of the people rsponding to this post remind me of the ones who start the "Zombie" threads. You know: What would you carry if the zombies came? They go on and on about the choice of weapon "I need two AR's, a shotgun for close-up work and a Glock 9mm with a 30 round magazine, and about 5000 rounds of ammo. Oh, and some food and water". Something tells me these two guys have imagined themselves in that scenario, especially Mr. Blinkey.

Some people go WAY overboard. I have AR's, semi auto shotguns, you name it. NEVER would I think to strap one on and go to a town hall meeting.

 

[Hkmp5sd]

And you have the balls to do so under the Constitution (won by those patriots) that protects your right to do so?

Simple questions:

Does anyone really believe that the 2nd Amendment currently protects us from an overbearing government?

The government does what it wants right now. How far do you let them go?

Even if the government banned guns tomorrow, does anyone really plan on walking away from everything they own and their family to take up arms to defend themselves against the government?

If the answer is yes, do you have the skills required to survive in such an environment?

Who do you attack?

Go you think the average US citizens would support you in such actions?

 

[MajorWhiteBoy]

i don't think i'd have the guts to basically get myself killed over my guns if someone came to collect them. just being honest with myself.

 

[m.p.driver]

The average citizen would turn their weapons in in a heartbeat.They would follow the governments orders in the belief that it does what it does for the good of the people.Smells of 1933.Do me and my family know what to do?An army instructor once told "me we're not training you to be victims".My family once wore gray it looks good on patriots.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Does anyone really believe that the 2nd Amendment currently protects us from an overbearing government?

Some here on TFL believe it and we have debated it frequently.

I do not believe it.

The message that is heard by John Q when those who do believe it say so, is that gun owners might use their guns to obtain what they can't get at the ballot box. That is treason and scary to John Q and does not further our rights.

I believe our democratic institutions (courts and free elections) protect us from an overbearing government.

The government does what it wants right now.

Who we elect. They couldn't do it if we didn't allow it. However, participation in the process is he only way to turn that around. No minority group of publicly totin' AR-15 owners can effect that change.

Remember, we get the government we deserve.

 

[jimpeel]

Hkmp5sd,

My answers are pure common sense logic determined by study of how such scenarios have played out throughout history. THIS is a good read with which to start.

Does anyone really believe that the 2nd Amendment currently protects us from an overbearing government?

The right to arms existed prior to the Second Amendment. It "protects" nothing. Words on paper declaring the right to arms are no more effective than the words on a paper stating that the woman being killed by her significant other should not be killed by the person named thereon.

The government does what it wants right now. How far do you let them go?

Americans are a fickle lot. There is no knowing where the tipping point would occur. One thing is for sure, though. There comes a point where they will no longer be pushed.

Even if the government banned guns tomorrow, does anyone really plan on walking away from everything they own and their family to take up arms to defend themselves against the government?

You envision an army of citizen patriots marching on Washington or wherever. That is not how it would occur. It would be a guerrilla warfare effort led by those who have formed cadres of three to five people capable of training others. Attacks would not be some battlefield scenario. There would be numerous concerted attacks on infrastructure and personnel.

If the answer is yes, do you have the skills required to survive in such an environment?

One simply goes about their usual routines until an action is determined. See above.

Who do you attack?

Those who enforce the laws which are in contravention to the Supreme Law of the Land.

Go you think the average US citizens would support you in such actions?

No more than supported those who fought the Revolutionary War.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The problem with the argument that the 2nd Amend protects our liberty is that we have not seen it actually do such in many cases. Not to insult folks but many of the classic gun culture have been quite supportive of many infringements of the liberties of citizens as those have clashed with a controlling social conservative world view.

It has been cultural change, legislation and the SCOTUS that have moved against the tyrannical impulses of social conservatives.

However, I believe that privately owned arms to act as an ultimate buffer against such oppression and potential genocidal actions. The history of genocides usually indicates that they are carried out against folks who can't defend themselves. Thus, I advocate that minorities and those not of the social conservative ilk should consider that they might have to defend themselves. Certainly, we have evidence of that in the African-Amercian community. The controversial actions of the Black Panthers (which social conservatives went nuts over) indicated that they used the 2nd to say no more.

Gays actually point to the Stonewall rebellion (a somewhat violent action) as the start of their movement to get out from under the social conservative oppression.

Thus, if we look for success - we don't see it in the classic gun world's stew of tin foil conspiracies or now popular cry to take our country back. You lost the election because of failed president - get over it. Have better candidates who are competent and not anti-intellectual, anti-science, morality controlling potential tyrants who really just want to make a buck for big firms.

Despite the wailing and lamentation - current gun rights are important as a last bulwark against a right that would institute a world view that is antithetical to liberty.

But, most changes today can be instituted by the electoral and judicial process. Stewing about armed revolution or how the 2nd brought major increases in liberty just are not true. I received the right not to be discriminated against on basis of religion because of the electoral and judicial process. I did not see one classic member of the conservative gun world rise in rebellion so my mother could get a job denied her because of religion. In fact, most of that group, in those times, would probably support the discrimination.

To conclude - I think that the gun carry was not an effective means of communication. Signs saying we support the 2nd Amend by large numbers of polite folks probably would work better. But we know the gun world isn't much for that. Organized demos are chortled about but don't come off. The NRA works more effectively and law suits like Heller work much better.

The 2nd and arms of the civilian are important to large groups of us as a last bulwark if we went the way of something like Reich. But the claim that the 2nd has brought about liberties in a major fashion isn't true now.

If this was too politcal - I should be scolded but I was trying to dispell the rash of cliches that are posted without real analysis of the claim.