In re: "Army vet disarmed of his AR and 1911 by cop"


PDA






CoyoteSix
April 22, 2013, 08:22 PM
While reading the thread in the title (all eight pages) I found a huge divide between forum betters. It pretty much pertained to:

A: Open Carry should not be practiced, it is dangerous to the carrier (No proper weapon retention, gun being taken and carrier being shot) and will attract too much negative attention in even mildly Anti-Gun areas. (Temple TX apparently).

OR

B: Open Carry should be practiced as much as possible, it will desensitize the local Anti-Gun population if we do it enough, it also deters crime. (Ex: Where a gun is openly visible a criminal will choose a different area to operate.)

This brings the question to mind: Should we conceal carry so we don't scare the nanny antis? Or should we OC as much as possible, displaying our rights excellently during this Anti-Gun crisis, but also receive alot of negative attention ( MWAG calls, some gun owners acting like Jerks to LEO's who are also acting like jerks, with the best part being that it's all on YouTube where a generally liberal internet community can use it to say "What an <removed> gun owner that guy is being to the poor cop!")

So what do you think THR? Do we conceal mostly and appease the antis? Or do we OC and provoke anti-gun legislation while displaying 2A?

If you enjoyed reading about "In re: "Army vet disarmed of his AR and 1911 by cop"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
76shuvlinoff
April 22, 2013, 08:41 PM
I have not read that whole thread, I'll need to go back to it now.

Although OC is our right I personally feel it pulls unnecessary attention to me and in some cases could make me a target, I much prefer concealed.

M-Cameron
April 22, 2013, 10:24 PM
my opinion: do whatever you are comfortable with.

there are pros and cons to each.....which ever you choose will depend on your particular situation.


i have no particular problem with OC in general......i just dont agree with the people who do it solely for a reaction( Ex. the guys who record themselves OC-ing a rifle through the mall dressed in fatigues and tac-gear and getting upset when police show up to talk to him)...

BigBore44
April 23, 2013, 06:30 AM
^^This^^..

tomrkba
April 23, 2013, 08:31 AM
Most gun owners do not support the right to keep and bear arms; they support limited "keeping" of arms. Notice how few concealed carry permits are issued in the states. OC may or may not change that attitude. I hope it does.

The real reason to OC is to send a message to those in power. The message that you are sending is that the citizen has the power to say "NO!" to their petty schemes. Politicians and their supporters do not like this message. OC reminds them that they cannot do anything they want. Cops harass people OCing because a politician in their chain of command told them explicitly or implicitly to do so. The law is clear in OC states, yet cops continue to mess with people exercising their right. This is why we see so much contention in OC threads.

Queen_of_Thunder
April 23, 2013, 09:21 AM
Most gun owners do not support the right to keep and bear arms; they support limited "keeping" of arms. Notice how few concealed carry permits are issued in the states. OC may or may not change that attitude. I hope it does.

The real reason to OC is to send a message to those in power. The message that you are sending is that the citizen has the power to say "NO!" to their petty schemes. Politicians and their supporters do not like this message. OC reminds them that they cannot do anything they want. Cops harass people OCing because a politician in their chain of command told them explicitly or implicitly to do so. The law is clear in OC states, yet cops continue to mess with people exercising their right. This is why we see so much contention in OC threads.
So you view OC as a means to threaten others and impose your will on them. And you wonder why people don't like people owning guns? You take us from a viable self defense argument to a losing " see me I got a gun so don't mess with me stance". Thats a bigger threat to us then Bloomberg and the anti's could ever be.

316SS
April 23, 2013, 10:52 AM
So you view OC as a means to threaten others and impose your will on them. And you wonder why people don't like people owning guns? You take us from a viable self defense argument to a losing " see me I got a gun so don't mess with me stance". Thats a bigger threat to us then Bloomberg and the anti's could ever be.

I don't think that is fair. If I draw my weapon to protect myself from a violent attacker, am I "threatening others and imposing my will on them?" In a sense, yes, but it misses the point.

I don't want to speak for tomrkba, but I read his post to mean that he feels OC acts as a deterrent to politicians running roughshod over our rights, and I agree with him.

Jim, West PA
April 23, 2013, 10:52 AM
Out of respect for law enforcement. I carry concealed.
They have enough to do.

oneounceload
April 23, 2013, 11:09 AM
If you TRULY want to change society's attitude, then become a teacher. Where do you think all the anti-gun hatred gets its start? In elementary school - remember, "The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world" and those teachers have been at it since LBJ's Great Society - almost 50 years. We went from guns everywhere, gun shops, high-end stores like Ambercrombie and Fitch carrying guns to no guns, especially at A&F. We went from mail order delivered to your house to FFL and now background checks. Even when I had my FFL, there was no phone call, the form was filled and filed.

You really think you will gain a lot by having an "in your face attitude" against 5 decades of brainwashing? Maybe, but it might take 5 decades to change it and you'll need to start when they are young

tomrkba
April 23, 2013, 11:19 AM
316SS summed it up nicely. Notice how Queen of Thunder immediately went to the 100% negative case?

Politicians are running over us from every direction. This country started a revolt over a tax that was less than 1%. I paid around 55% of my income to state, Federal, and local governments (including sales tax). This last round of ZeroCare taxes diverts retirement savings to taxes. The President thinks he can have Eric Holder declare me a terrorist and deny me my freedom indefinitely. He thinks he can order me assassinated. The point of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments are to prevent that behavior and people like QoT want to complain about OC.

zxcvbob
April 23, 2013, 11:20 AM
So you view OC as a means to threaten others and impose your will on them. And you wonder why people don't like people owning guns? You take us from a viable self defense argument to a losing " see me I got a gun so don't mess with me stance". Thats a bigger threat to us then Bloomberg and the anti's could ever be.

It's not a threat, but it is a symbol to remind them that they serve "at the consent of the governed" and that consent can be withdrawn. Obviously those in power don't like that message (and generally, neither do the courts.)
__________________
“Government control cannot go on as long as people have some sort of ability to say ‘Hey wait just a doggone minute.’ That’s what the government fears, they don’t really fear the criminals, they support the criminals. What they fear is a law abiding person.” --Sheriff David Clarke, Milwaukee

M-Cameron
April 23, 2013, 11:25 AM
Politicians are running over us from every direction. This country started a revolt over a tax that was less than 1%. I paid around 55% of my income to state, Federal, and local governments (including sales tax). This last round of ZeroCare taxes diverts retirement savings to taxes. The President thinks he can have Eric Holder declare me a terrorist and deny me my freedom indefinitely. He thinks he can order me assassinated. The point of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments are to prevent that behavior and people like QoT want to complain about OC.

Dude, you need to chill out or youre going to burst a blood vessel.

No one is talking about having you assassinated or labeled a terrorist. It's behavior like this that cast gun owners as abunch or radical anti-govt yahoos.

Skylerbone
April 23, 2013, 11:28 AM
If you carry for protection and are situationally aware (as you should be at all times) then you will be continuously evaluating people you come into contact with. Your own prejudices will dictate who may or may not be safe or sketchy whether by clothing or environment and I should think non-firearm owners will be no different. IMO, their reaction to someone openly carrying, however misguided, is no different than yours might be to a nervous guy in an overcoat mid-summer at a daycare: out of place. If you're Jessie Duff, they may not feel more than heightened curiosity but I suspect most grown men will be met with fear. Most people want to believe security is a given and firearms remind them of a harsh reality they simply aren't accustomed to.

Godsgunman
April 23, 2013, 11:41 AM
The way I see it, if your state law allows both then do whichever you feel comfortable doing. I prefer concealed but I can OC if I choose. The problem with these posts on the OC vs CC debate is they are filled with personal prejudice and emotion and very little fact. Take for instance the OP saying "should we only carry concealed so we don't scare the nanny antis". This statement holds very little to no weight because its just filled with bias and name calling and no fact. I don't conceal because I dont want to scare people I conceal because I prefer it and I feel I have an advantage being concealed. Antis are against both OC and CC last time I checked. You may prefer OC and thats great I just dont see any purpose for there to be a rift between Carriers (OC or CC), we're all on the same team.

sfed
April 23, 2013, 12:11 PM
I watched that video of the arrest and disarming of the military veteran, in my opinion, if the veteran had been a bit more courteous to the officer and had left some of his attitude at home he might have avoided being arrested. I realize he had served our country, which I am proud of him for that, but police officers have a hard enough job without any individual being obnoxious as he was to the police officer. I feel if he had handled the situation differently ( especially in front of his 10 YO son) he might have been allowed to continue on his 10 mile hike.

Superlite27
April 23, 2013, 12:15 PM
As a long time open carrier and open carry advocate, I'll toss in my two cents.

Everyone has their own specific method of carry that they prefer. Just as we each express ourselves through our hairstyles, clothing, cars, tattoos/lack thereof, and other means of "style", some of us also choose to express ourselves by our actions.

There isn't only one reason for open carry, just as there isn't only one reason to own a gun in the first place. I choose to do so for numerous reasons. Some of them being:

I am not "ashamed" to be a law abiding gun owner. I do not feel the need to "hide" my firearm. It is a tool just as my belt is used to hold up my pants, my shoes are used to protect my feet, my gun is used to protect my life. Why should I hide it? I am not ashamed to posess it.

It is perfectly legal in my area. Maybe someone could name another perfectly legal activity I "just shouldn't do".

How many people walk up to concealed carriers and begin a discussion about becoming a firearm owner, or gun rights, or any other gun related topic? It happens to me all the time. Running a close second to "Are you a police officer?", I often get asked, "Is that legal?"......What an EXCELLENT OPPORTUNITY TO PROMOTE FIREARMS FREEDOM. When is the last time a concealed carrier got approached and ended a pleasant discussion with a fellow citizen that remarked, "I might buy myself a gun, and learn to shoot."? I have on a couple of occasions. "Out of sight, out of mind." means that when you keep your rights out of sight, they remain out of the majority of people's minds.

I participate quite frequently in defensive pistol competitions. IDPA, but also less formal range sponsored "compettitive events" that aren't as strict on the rules. I have yet to see anyone compete at these less formal events while concealed. Why is this? Maybe because there's a HUGE tactical advantage in open carry? (If there wasn't much of an advantage, why does EVERYONE...ALWAYS shoot without a concealment garment?) Spare me that "tactical advantage of surprise" garbage. Surprise is an OFFENSIVE tactic. You can parrot that "the best defense is a good offense" crap all you want, but the fact is if you are in the process of "surprising" a criminal with your concealed firearm, YOU ARE ALREADY IN A FIGHT TO THE DEATH. I commonly hear the 'ol "You'll be the first one to be shot!" line. Yes, there are a few instances of OC'ers being purposefully targeted. However, this is actually pretty rare. The MAJORITY of crooks are looking for easy prey, and have no wish to DIE. Which appears less likely to be problematic: The apparent defenseless CC'er, or the guy with a pistol? If you like your "surprise" tactic so much, I wish you well with the guy who just decided not to mess with me because of the obvious problem strapped to my hip. Maybe your "surprise" is much more effective at killing him, but hey.....which one of us is in a gunfight? How is the fight to the death you are now in (not me) tactically superior?

I also hear the "Your scaring people!" claptrap pretty frequently. As a matter of fact, I've often had folks walk right up to me and tell me how frightening I am. I am soooooooo scary, they walk right up to me and start lecturing. A complete stranger. With a scary gun. So scary, that folks feel like approaching just to start a negative encounter with a complete stranger. That's pretty scary. They must be so frightened, they forgot to run away in terror. I once had a lady stand up and YELL at a manager in Denny's restaurant that I was causing a scene by carrying that gun! He asked her to please sit down and stop frightening people, so she yelled, "I'm not going to stay here while he's in here!" and left. The entire restaurant applauded as soon as she went out the door and then peacefully went back to enjoying their breakfasts. A couple with a few kids came in and sat next to me. Yup. I'm real scary.

As an open carrier, it is very easy to "take the low road". An open carrier will inevitably get questions from the general public, and after hearing the same, often obviously stupid questions ("Is that a real gun?) it is extremely easy to get annoyed and "react" with a funny retort, or smart-aleck reply. Never EVER "react". Unlike concealed carriers, open carriers are a VISIBLE representative of the ENTIRE FIREARMS COMMUNITY. One snide quip, and the person who was simply uninformed, curious, or ambivolent now has the potential to lump all gun owners in the same pot. "I just asked a question, and he smarted off! Those gun owners are jerks!". So as a visible representative, it is also an OC'ers responsibility to the firearms community to always be polite, and use interactions with the public as an opportunity to portray all gun owners as what we generally are: Law abiding people who are some of the most polite folks in the world.

Interactions with police are also fairly frequent. Unlike the vet, I have never been disarmed. I also am very polite, and refuse to voluntarily interact with the police. When approached, I inform the officers that I am doing nothing illegal, carrying a lawfully owned firearm is not probable cause for detention, I do not require any assistance, and politely state my desire to end any voluntary interaction. I then politely ask if I am free to go. The answer has always been "yes". I have often been approached by police and have had inquiries made. I have never been detained.

Bottom line: When OC'ing, the OC'er represents the entire firearm community. Everything from people's perception, to your own hassle free expression of your freedom can easily be all to the good by simply remaining a good steward of firearm ownership and being polite to all you encounter.

Arizona_Mike
April 23, 2013, 12:15 PM
My observations:

1. How do you concealed carry an M4
2. "We don't care what the law says" and "In this day and age" are much much worse than Grisham getting loud in tone (put still cooperative and even helpful in actuality).

Mike

Trung Si
April 23, 2013, 12:18 PM
I watched that video of the arrest and disarming of the military veteran, in my opinion, if the veteran had been a bit more courteous to the officer and had left some of his attitude at home he might have avoided being arrested. I realize he had served our country, which I am proud of him for that, but police officers have a hard enough job without any individual being obnoxious as he was to the police officer. I feel if he had handled the situation differently ( especially in front of his 10 YO son) he might have been allowed to continue on his 10 mile hike.

I agree 100%!;)

Swichblade
April 23, 2013, 12:19 PM
I would prefer concealed carry so I don't attract attention, but unfortunately, state law doesn't grant me that privilege until I am 21 years old, so its OC for me until then.

Frank Ettin
April 23, 2013, 12:56 PM
The real reason to OC is to send a message to those in power. The message that you are sending is that the citizen has the power to say "NO!" to their petty schemes. Politicians and their supporters do not like this message. OC reminds them that they cannot do anything they want....On the other hand there is far too little evidence that wide spread openly carrying guns would necessarily have a positive effect for the RKBA.

Certainly in the late 1960s in California, the Black Panthers openly carrying guns resulted in the open carry of loaded guns being made illegal. And a few years ago, demonstrations involving the open carrying or unloaded guns resulted in that being made illegal.

If enough people do something that's legal but they do it in a way that enough other people find obnoxious, the activity might not stay legal for long.

See this post 6 (http://floridaconcealedcarry.com/Forum/showthread.php?46-Open-Carry-in-Florida&p=201#post201) regarding the history of the loss in Florida of the right to openly carry in this thread on another forum.


There are plenty of examples of rights being lost because enough folks didn't like the ways in which they were being exercised. Over the years, in many communities, we have seen many zoning and other laws adopted restricting how you can use your own property. In some places you may not work on your car in your own driveway in view of the public street. In some places you must get design approval of remodeling or landscaping visible to the public. In some communities, you may not park or store large vehicles like boats on trailers or RVs on your property so as to be visible to the public. These sorts of restrictions have in large part been the result of strong enough public sentiment that some things previously lawfully done by private parties on their own land were unseemly or unattractive.

If a lot of people start legally open carrying their guns hoping to achieve a particular political result, we can reasonably expect a range of responses from, "Cool" to "Yawn" to "A nut with a gun; there ought to be a law." What the distribution is will decide whether openly carrying is politically helpful or politically harmful. But we can't know whether open carrying is doing any political good without having a better idea of that distribution. And the distribution will probably be different in different places at different times.

Some tools like properly conducted surveys or focus groups can be useful in measuring public opinion and predicting likely effect. But the flip side is that without that sort of evidence, we really can't know whether open carry, from a political perspective, is good or bad.

... it is a symbol to remind them that they serve "at the consent of the governed" and that consent can be withdrawn. Obviously those in power don't like that message (and generally, neither do the courts.)And what evidence do you have that open carry has anything like that effect?

I continue to be dismayed by the failure of so many in the RKBA community to recognize the importance of positively influencing public opinion or to have any real clue about how to determine how to go about doing that.

During the course of my career I've had a pretty fair amount of experience working with business clients who needed to be able to influence public perception, understand how to make advertising effective and find the best ways to effectively communicate their messages. When a lot was at stake, they didn't just guess.

When they sat around their conference tables (I was there), they didn't assume that their audiences would think the ways they did or have the same values and perceptions. They consulted with psychologists and others who have studied human motivation and perception and beliefs. They thoroughly analyzed the demographics of the audiences and tried to understand what they cared about, what they were scared of, what made them happy or feel secure, what they believed and didn't believe.

They also tested their conclusions with surveys and focus groups. They paid attention to what was happening and made adjustments in their messages and techniques if things weren't working the way they wanted them to.

And I strongly suspect that our opposition is doing at least some of those things.

miller.lyte
April 23, 2013, 01:36 PM
Only reason I don't OC is because I'm only 5'3" and it would end up making me appear as more of an easy-grab target than a deterrence.

And Superlite27 hit the nail on the head.

DeathByCactus
April 23, 2013, 01:49 PM
If this is in reference to the man carrying a semi-auto rifle with a 1 point sling front loaded for protection against cougars.

It's was an absurd notion on that mans part. 30 rounds of 5.56, a disgusting attitude toward the police officer and all for ... protection. A shotgun or appropriately sized calibre pistol would have been more than sufficient.

We don't live in the wild west, nor is our country so violent that we need open carry wherever we go. Heck I carry a .32 pocket pistol and am about to sell my 17 round XDm .40. I don't feel threatened where I live, not by criminals, police or law makers (Texas). I do understand things happen and I am prepared. I do have a shotgun in my bedroom corner (safe full) and I keep my pistols in my drawer (no kids), but more so I can fondle them at night than worry about some fool bypassing my awesome alarm system and actually attempting to keel me.

It is of my opinion that while it is our right to bear arms (I am a CHL and do carry), I don't want to see people walking around with semi-auto rifles and pistols strapped to their legs/hip. Whatever their reasons may be.

I understand people are not a shamed of their right to bear arms and they enjoy promoting firearms. However, you don't see anyone promoting to you how awesome their political beliefs are and how lame yours are or trying to shove their religion down your throat by running around with a bible/Qua-ran preaching how to save your soul.... erm~ ... wait what? Oh yeah, we do, and most of us agree it's kind of annoying and not wanted.

There is a time and place for 'promotion'. I don't see the point in making things uncomfortable. Yes I would be greatly uncomfortable if I encountered someone on a trail with a fully loaded militarized rifle while I was with my family and I might act with severe force if I felt the least bit threatened. There is no need for this behavior in our society.

Would I feel the same way about passing a man and his son with a bolt action rifle, hunting shotgun or outdoorsy pistol? If I was in Houston, yes because it isn't normal (no predators here besides ninja criminals). If I was in a national park or some place with wild animals, no. Last I remember, most animals (predators included) have needed one shot to either put down or get to run.

I dunno guys. I am not out to call anyone here misguided or talk down about your beliefs. If you like the above things, I am happy for you. Seriously. I just... I am tired of all this militarization and what I consider to be radical thinking that has stemmed from fear.

(Note, I am not an 'anti'.)

Xiphoticness
April 23, 2013, 02:51 PM
(Note, I am not an 'anti'.) Yes, you are. You are anti open carry. Your reason for this is it is unnecessary. The point we are making is that what is necessary is not your call anymore than it is Diane Feinsteine's call. Nor is this debate about what is necessary, if the law does not prohibit open carry then we are free to exercise that right, and if it does prohibit it then we need to work to change the law. Have you ever actually tried open carry? I can tell you from experience it is a lot more comfortable and from having practiced my draw I can tell you there is less chance of getting hung up in something when seconds count. I don't walk around shouting "Hey, I'm carrying a gun openly because it's my right and there's nothing you can do about it!" What I do is openly carry my firearm and go about my business the same as I would if it weren't even there. If you feel this is obnoxious then I don't think I am the one with the problem. And this and I might act with severe force if I felt the least bit threatened. There is no need for this behavior in our society. gives me pause. What exactly do you consider "extreme force" and exactly what would they have to do to make you feel "the least bit threatened"? And why is open carry, not making a scene but just going about your business while carrying openly, a behavior you would view negatively? Lastly, I've seen pit bulls that took more than one shot to bring down, I would hate to try to bring down anything bigger than that trusting to a one shot stop. I apologize if this comes across as combative, I've gone over it several times before posting to try to make it as polite as I can. It just amazes me when I come across someone who claims to support 2A and then in the same breath advocates infringement upon the very rights protected by 2A.

smogmage
April 23, 2013, 03:11 PM
It's was an absurd notion on that mans part. 30 rounds of 5.56, a disgusting attitude toward the police officer and all for ... protection. A shotgun or appropriately sized calibre pistol would have been more than sufficient.

We don't live in the wild west, nor is our country so violent that we need open carry wherever we go.

That's why we call them RIGHTS. You do not get to decide what someone else does with them. I don't have to show a "need" its my right should I choose to exercise it. You are attempting to force your own views of "sensibility" on someone else.

M-Cameron
April 23, 2013, 03:40 PM
If you want to OC, regardless of the reason, go ahead, I won't try and stop you.... But you have to realize there is a time and place for everything, and varying levels of appropriateness for each situation...

Long story short, just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD.

I have the legal right to wear a clan hooding shout " hail hitler", nothing illegal about it.... That doesn't mean I should do it at a civil rights parade.....it is inappropriate wear for the situationsomeone in that situation would likely stir up some unruly behavior among the population in attendance and it would not be unreasonable for a police officer to ask that person to leave.

The same applies to your 2A rights.

I have every legal right to strap on an AR 15 and walk through the streets of Boston.....doesn't mean it's a great idea....you will stir up some unrest and you will cause some panic because it is not appropriate for the situation..... And it would not be unreasonable for an officer to talk to you about it.

zxcvbob
April 23, 2013, 03:44 PM
If you want to OC, regardless of the reason, go ahead, I won't try and stop you.... But you have to realize there is a time and place for everything, and varying levels of appropriateness for each situation...

If not walking along a dirt road in Bell County, Texas with your kid, where?

smogmage
April 23, 2013, 04:00 PM
Political Correctness heralds the death of our Freedoms.

M-Cameron
April 23, 2013, 04:05 PM
Political Correctness heralds the death of our Freedoms.



That sounds great and would make a fantastic signature quote...... But political correctness is not analogous to situational appropriateness.

Frank Ettin
April 23, 2013, 04:47 PM
Political Correctness heralds the death of our Freedoms.

It's also nothing more than a throwaway line that ignores the demonstrated reality that what we do and how we present ourselves in public has social and political consequences.

TheOld Man
April 23, 2013, 04:52 PM
True story with real names: In the mid-1960's I was living in the desert Southwest. The town had some kind of of Pioneer Days event going on. Wyatt Earp, grandson (?) of the original, was demonstrating his famous quick draws. During a break in his renowned quick draw demonstration he went into a nearby small store to get a snack.
He walked in wearing his famous pearl-handled revolvers.
The manager and the clerks freaked out.
He was ordered out of the store with those guns.
Despite knowing full well they were loaded with blanks.
He had to hand his gunbelt to an assistant who waited outside the door while he bought his Pepsi and sandwich.

Deaf Smith
April 23, 2013, 06:29 PM
This brings the question to mind: Should we conceal carry so we don't scare the nanny antis? Or should we OC as much as possible, displaying our rights excellently during this Anti-Gun crisis, but also receive alot of negative attention ( MWAG calls, some gun owners acting like Jerks to LEO's who are also acting like jerks, with the best part being that it's all on YouTube where a generally liberal internet community can use it to say "What an <removed> gun owner that guy is being to the poor cop!")

So what do you think THR? Do we conceal mostly and appease the antis? Or do we OC and provoke anti-gun legislation while displaying 2A?


Carry concealed so we surprise the robber BEFORE they realize we are armed. The whole POINT OF CONCEALED CARRY IS TO KEEP THE BAD GUYS GUESSING AS TO WHO IS AND WHO ISN'T ARMED.

Got that?

Deaf

Averageman
April 23, 2013, 07:04 PM
The thing about watching a video is it has always been edited.
I don't care who did what to whom, two guys opinions collided and here we are.
I dont think either of these guys set out to come to this point, either could have throttled down the machine that brought them here to this point. I would have to place equal blame right up to the point the second Officer arrived.
You see a situation like this you are bound to diffuse it, in my opinion the second Officer only made things worse and his flagging the cranium of his prisoner at that point should get him some time at home unpaid to reflect upon his errors.

Trung Si
April 23, 2013, 07:27 PM
Political Correctness heralds the death of our Freedoms

Others may disagree with you, but I agree with You and realized that many years ago, it got us to the shape our Country is in today.:(

Frank Ettin
April 23, 2013, 07:44 PM
Political Correctness heralds the death of our Freedoms

Others may disagree with you, but I agree with You and realized that many years ago, it got us to the shape our Country is in today...It's too bad that more people don't understand the difference between, on one hand, political correctness, and, on the other hand, courtesy, manners, decorum and respect.

I dare say you believe that we had greater freedom 100 or 200 years ago. However, in those days, based on the literature of the times, people generally had better manners, were more respectful of social conventions and generally more self regulated in their social interactions.

HOOfan_1
April 23, 2013, 08:08 PM
based on the literature of the times, people generally had better manners, were more respectful of social conventions and generally more self regulated in their social interactions.

Maybe based on the literature. Based on real life? Not likely. I don't think Tory on rebel and rebel on Tory violence, nor situations like bleeding Kansas, show that manners and social conventions were any better than today. Not sure we can say there was more freedom 100-200 years ago either.

Then again...based on literature...go read some stuff the Marquis de Sade wrote....

Is throwing anything in anyone's face generally a good idea? No.

I don't think we can say open carry is always for "show" though. I certainly don't see where it can be said to have been for "show" in the case mentioned in the OP.

Frank Ettin
April 23, 2013, 08:48 PM
Maybe based on the literature. Based on real life? Not likely....What do we know of real life 100 or 200 years ago except what we can know from the literature of the time depicting everyday life? That would include journals, biographies, as well as fiction.

...I don't think Tory on rebel and rebel on Tory violence, nor situations like bleeding Kansas, show that manners and social conventions were any better than today...But inferring daily life from such would be like inferring what daily life is like today from Waco, Virginia Tech, Newton or other such idiosyncratic violence.

...Not sure we can say there was more freedom 100-200 years ago either...And that's probably true. It would depend on how one looked at freedom.

Certainly acquisition and possession of firearms wasn't as tightly controlled, except in New York City (and carrying a gun was illegal in Texas, except if on a journey). And there might have been more freedom in some other respects -- unless of course you were Black, Chinese, Italian, Irish, etc.

A hundred years ago, you could freely and legally buy marijuana, opium and other mind altering drugs. But at least today, we can still call into question the wisdom of our current policies on that subject. Of course some folks think the war on drugs is a fine thing, and they are free to say so.

Of course a hundred years ago pornography was tough to come by. It's now freely available. Chalk one up for freedom.

Once upon a time, it was illegal some places in this country to sell an ice cream soda on Sunday. That's how the sundae came to be. And it was also illegal some places here to do other sorts of business on a Sunday.

And during much of our history consensual carnal relationships between persons of different races, or persons of the same gender, or persons who were not married to each other were crimes.

On the other hand, there were fewer zoning and land use laws, fewer taxes, less regulation of business.

It all depends on what freedom means to you.

texasgun
April 23, 2013, 09:24 PM
I'm still curious about the Temple / Texas mountain lions and cougars... I don't think any has been sighted within the last 100yrs or so.

Sorry... OC has it's place. I do OC (or poorly conceal) when hiking in the Olympic Mountains in WA State. No big deal. And I never feel the need to video-tape my OC hike in case a cop shows up so I have a nifty youtube clip.

I like my OC rights for when I actually use/need them. Keeping cops busy with pointless OC'ing an AR15 in populated areas is not the best way to "make friends" for your cause.

And contrary to what some belief here... OC'ing can be banned by a state legislature fairly quickly. Cops are busy and the last thing they want is to follow up on ANOTHER MWAG call and the dude acts like a jerk and puts the clip on youtube....

barnbwt
April 23, 2013, 09:57 PM
And I never feel the need to video-tape my OC hike in case a cop shows up so I have a nifty youtube clip.


FWIW, that doesn't appear to be the motive in this case. I can't even imagine how easily this guy could've been railroaded had he not had the foresight to have his son get it on video after being confronted by the officer. Faulty dashcams, and whatall.

I do OC (or poorly conceal) when hiking
And that is the real reason why open carry needs to be legal. It's the only way to truly protect people's conceal-carry rights, get it? I don't want to CCW in Texas, because I can be arrested if I'm blown (the laws have been made a bit better, but there's still a scary grey area). Would you drive a car if you could go to jail for not driving exactly the speed limit at all times? No. The penalties are prohibitive of CCW for many people here in Texas. If we can get people on board with OC, and defeat state governments that limit it, both OC and CCW people are protected, and the question becomes purely one of manners at that point.

Social mores and personal discretion replacing arbitrary laws with fearful penalties; the way it should be, if you truly do trust your fellow man to be free. We get along just fine with police no longer enforcing dress codes, even though people are able to dress like idiots at Walmart without fear of an indecency charge. If OC shouldn't be against the law, we must work against these statutes, which of course involves promoting OC.

Hell, you can't even show off your "BBQ Gun" at a public place here in Texas :rolleyes:

As far as "politeness" in the old days; it took a hell of a lot less to set men off into mortal combat back then. Of course, the polite among us put up with a lot more disrespect in the name of decorum today. Perhaps the real question should be; Do we live in a society built more upon respect for eachother, or fear of eachother, compared to our forefathers?

TCB

Sam Cade
April 23, 2013, 10:17 PM
a disgusting attitude toward the police officer and all for ... protection.

Police officers should be treated with the exact same amount of respect and deference as any other municipal employee or public servant, no more no less.

Cop=Sanitation worker=Court Clerk=School Lunch Lady.

Frank Ettin
April 23, 2013, 10:28 PM
a disgusting attitude toward the police officer and all for ... protection.

Police officers should be treated with the exact same amount of respect and deference as any other municipal employee or public servant, no more no less.

Cop=Sanitation worker=Court Clerk=School Lunch Lady.Or you.

No reason a public servant or municipal employee should be accorded less respect than anyone else.

316SS
April 23, 2013, 10:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by smogmage
Political Correctness heralds the death of our Freedoms.
It's also nothing more than a throwaway line that ignores the demonstrated reality that what we do and how we present ourselves in public has social and political consequences.

It's too bad that more people don't understand the difference between, on one hand, political correctness, and, on the other hand, courtesy, manners, decorum and respect.

I take your point that actions have consequences, but one man's political correctness is another man's courtesy, manners, etc.

If we exercise our "rights", to coarse and offensive speech or open carry, at the whim of our government or the majority of low information voters, then we should drop the pretense of "rights" and recognize that maintaining our tenuous privileges is an exercise in public relations. The tyranny of the majority is tyranny nevertheless.

Averageman
April 23, 2013, 10:37 PM
I live 20 minutes from the location where this took place and yes there are Coyotes, Hogs and some people claim that there have been Cougars sighted. I have spoken to someone I work with who claimed he saw one as he was driving in to work and he was about 500 yds behind my truck.
But thats neither here nor there now is it?
So, if you are sure there aren't any threats from wildlife, in this case what does your opinion matter? He felt a threat, that should be enough.
It's like some anti saying, "You don't need to own a handgun."
Lets face it no matter what you do today you are going to offend someone.

Deltaboy
April 23, 2013, 10:45 PM
After watching the video 5 times I have one question to ask: When did Leo's get to believing they have the right to act Rudely to a man who is just taking a walk with his son. Regardless of the gun issue.

Averageman
April 23, 2013, 10:59 PM
Thats part of the problem, but I see it on both sides.
I'm pretty respectful to LEO's in general; but at what point in a conversation does it begin and end with mutual respect?
Look, I would have cleared the AR as I approached him, stopped, dumped the mag and cleared the chamber and left it locked open.
But I have to ask, at what point do you feel that compliance gets lost to feeling like this guy is on a power trip?

Bonesinium
April 23, 2013, 11:08 PM
So what do you think THR? Do we conceal mostly and appease the antis? Or do we OC and provoke anti-gun legislation while displaying 2A?

Neither.


I conceal to avoid the very thing that video showed. I don't wish to be harassed and/or arrested just because of some over zealous cop who has an ego and/or doesn't know/care about the law. That reason alone.

I do open carry occasionally. And it has nothing to do with provoking anyone. Some times people open carry because they cannot legally conceal, it is more comfortable, or it is a firearm that cannot be or cannot very well be concealed.

You shouldn't have to tailer your lawful activity to cater to the ignorant.

316SS
April 23, 2013, 11:16 PM
You shouldn't have to tailer your lawful activity to cater to the ignorant.

Yet it has been argued that if you fail to tailor your activity to cater to the ignorant, then you should expect your lawful activity to be declared unlawful.

Frank Ettin
April 23, 2013, 11:25 PM
...If we exercise our "rights", to coarse and offensive speech or open carry, at the whim of our government or the majority of low information voters, then we should drop the pretense of "rights" and recognize that maintaining our tenuous privileges is an exercise in public relations. The tyranny of the majority is tyranny nevertheless. Nonetheless, such actions still have consequences. If you act in accordance with your professed beliefs those consequences might well not be to your (or our) liking.

Too many in the RKBA community seem to miss the reality that many people who don't own guns don't understand us, are afraid of us and will look to the government to allay their fears. That is where gun control laws come from. And the more they fear us the more readily they will vote for politicians who promise to enact gun control laws.

Make no mistake that the politicians who are proposing and voting for gun control legislation are doing what the people who put them in office want them to do. And unless we can make some headway with public perception, we will continue to see increasing support for more draconian gun control legislation.

We can to some extent beat these forces back in the courts, but that is a laborious, slow and expensive process. It also will not be 100% effective.

If our real goal is to make some headway in the RKBA, we need to focus on that and start doing things well calculate to advance our interests. And we need to get smarter about how we do that.

The-Reaver
April 23, 2013, 11:29 PM
Open carry should be allowed.

Those of you saying one shouldn't are being the Fed. and infringing.

AT EASE if they or I want to open then I can, if not then I won't. Get my drift. Stop imposing your feelings on others.

Frank Ettin
April 23, 2013, 11:38 PM
Open carry should be allowed. The question isn't whether open carry should be allowed. Of course it should.

The question is whether open carry can be a useful tool in the furtherance of the RKBA, i. e., whether it has positive political value.

If you think it can and it does, let's see some evidence. In post 20, I outlined some reasons why it appears to be unlikely to further the RKBA.

smogmage
April 24, 2013, 02:38 AM
I think the problem we are having with your sentiment is that you are essentially saying exercising your Right to OC wont lead to the furtherence of our right to keep and bear arms. Its akin to saying exercising your right to yell openly in the street whatever you want will lead to restrictions on your freedom of speach. A Right isn't a Right if we have to tiptoe around on eggshells with it. I may not like what most people have to say, but they have the Right to say it should they choose to. Big daddy government has no right to regulate any part of it.

AABEN
April 24, 2013, 05:50 AM
Most gun owners do not support the right to keep and bear arms; they support limited "keeping" of arms. Notice how few concealed carry permits are issued in the states. OC may or may not change that attitude. I hope it does.

The real reason to OC is to send a message to those in power. The message that you are sending is that the citizen has the power to say "NO!" to their petty schemes. Politicians and their supporters do not like this message. OC reminds them that they cannot do anything they want. Cops harass people OCing because a politician in their chain of command told them explicitly or implicitly to do so. The law is clear in OC states, yet cops continue to mess with people exercising their right. This is why we see so much contention in OC threads.
Where do you get your info?? There has been more CC per mints put out in the 6 years than in a long time. OB has been the caws of it all. All he has been the best gun salesman seance he has been in office. That is why it is hard to find some caliber of ammo and also powder and primers

Superlite27
April 24, 2013, 06:05 AM
In post 20, I outlined some reasons why it appears to be unlikely to further the RKBA.

What is the difference between voluntarily not participating in a right, and not even having the right in the first place?

In both instances, the right is not being exercised.

Where I am, it is perfectly legal to openly carry. However, you're telling me it's a bad idea to do so because I might have that freedom taken away.

Well then, it isn't really free then, is it?

What's the point of a right if its free exercise will result in its removal?

There would be no point in having it in the first place.

smogmage
April 24, 2013, 06:10 AM
Wow, superlight said it better than I did. Bravo!

BigBore44
April 24, 2013, 07:06 AM
This is a very good thread. Frank and Superlite need a TV show.

Frank, you believe that OC should be legal. But OC as an exercise of the 2A Right might not be a good idea from the "public eyes" standpoint. But Frank, what is the difference in exercising the right "because it's our right", and exercising it as a purely tactical means of defense, in the public's eyes?

I completely agree that we should always be polite and courteous, but the true antis don't care if we're polite or courteous. They just care that we have a gun.

M-Cameron
April 24, 2013, 07:12 AM
What is the difference between voluntarily not participating in a right, and not even having the right in the first place?

In both instances, the right is not being exercised.

Where I am, it is perfectly legal to openly carry. However, you're telling me it's a bad idea to do so because I might have that freedom taken away.

I don't think anyone is telling you not to exercise your rights......if you OC continue to do so...... Just don't be obnoxious about doing it( not directed you, I mean in general).

Like it or not, guns are a sore subject in America right now...people will look for any excuse to further restrict rights, and a bit of discretion isn't a bad thing.

If you live in an area where OC is somewhat common, then sure, strap on a pistol and go about your day.

However don't be obnoxious about It and sling an AK over your back and go shopping like it I perfectly normal...... Lets face it, carrying a rifle in a well settled/ urban area has never been normal.


Do you think Dr. King would have been successful in the civil rights movement if he just came out and said " hey, it my right to speak, I don't care what y'all think, I'm gonna do it anyways, the hell with all if y'all!".....?

I'm going to guess not, he had to show restraint, be civil, polite, and at times show a great amount of discretion in order for anyone to take him seriously.

Superlite27
April 24, 2013, 07:27 AM
I'm not saying I disagree with those who believe that OC has the potential to degrade our rights through bad public perception. I see my opponent's point, and don't disagree with it.

There are many who are "incited" to become more active against gun rights by the sight of openly carried firearms.

However, there are many who are encouraged to become firearm rights supporters through the very same method.

As I said above, "out of sight, out of mind". If we keep our rights out of sight, the majority of people won't voluntarily think about them.

This is true for BOTH those who support them, and oppose them.

Simply looking at the negative and refusing to exercise your rights because they may be more actively opposed by those wishing to take them away fails to account for the folks who notice and are more likely to become active in support of them. Additionally, it also achieves the same ends as those who oppose them wish in the first place: You not enjoying a right you possess.

Frank Ettin
April 24, 2013, 09:49 AM
...Its akin to saying exercising your right to yell openly in the street whatever you want will lead to restrictions on your freedom of speach. A Right isn't a Right if we have to tiptoe around on eggshells with it....Nonetheless, that is reality, whether it makes sense to you or not. I've given some examples of restrictions which have indeed been imposed because the body politic did not like the way certain folks exercised their rights to do things that were, at the time, perfectly legal.

And for examples of First Amendment rights thus restricted, consider noise abatement laws and laws requiring permits for public assemblies or parades.

...Big daddy government has no right to regulate any part of it. Perhaps in an alternate universe, but here the courts have for a very long time recognized that government may regulate (to a limited extent and subject to certain standards) constitutionally protected rights.

The scope and extent of permissible regulation of rights protected by the First Amendment is reasonably well understood, because we have by now a large body of case law on the subject. Second Amendment jurisprudence is still in its infancy, but Heller and McDonald both hinted that some regulation of rights protected by the Second Amendment will be sustained.

...Where I am, it is perfectly legal to openly carry. However, you're telling me it's a bad idea to do so because I might have that freedom taken away...I don't know. But more to the point, neither do you.

Again, I've shown that people have lost freedoms by exercising rights in ways found to be obnoxious enough by enough people. Whether that is a real risk where you are depends. What constitutes "obnoxious enough" also depends on where you are and how folks there feel about things.

You might have had some experiences that lead you to believe that your conduct open carrying will be viewed as benign by most folks where you are. But limited personal experience is not solid evidence of broad, local public perception. At best you're guessing. Making your personal choice based on such guessing is one thing.

But if the purpose of the exercise is to influence public opinion in a positive way in support of the RKBA, guessing isn't good enough. There is a lot at stake, and some ground has already been lost by poor guessing.

...There are many who are "incited" to become more active against gun rights by the sight of openly carried firearms.

However, there are many who are encouraged to become firearm rights supporters through the very same method...Perhaps, but you're still just guessing. And unless you can start to put numbers to each side of that conjecture, it's an inadequate baisis upon which to make strategic decisions.

smogmage
April 24, 2013, 10:04 AM
I do believe the three of us agree to see both sides of the issue. However I take a far more libertarian point of view, one I believe the founders of this great country would have taken.

I've watched police in Quincy Mass openly harass a citizen exercising his first amendment rights and stating a Quincy Ordinance requiring a permit for gatherings of more than four people, while trying to box him into a situation where he was standing next to three people so they could arrest him.

"The Right of the people to Assemble" is in the 1st. It doesn't say more than four and you need our permission. My point is the courts have slowly eroded what our freedoms really meant by opening them up to one "curtailing circumstance" after the other. Then you have opportunistic abuse of those infringements and down the rabbit hole we go.

BigBore44
April 24, 2013, 10:31 AM
M-Cameron,
I don't typically open carry. Only when I coming out from a trip to the woods and going to get a Gatorade or something on the way home.

My point was not to say we should always open carry. Especially an AK or AR for a trip to the grocery store. But I can promise one thing. If there is a guy carrying open in a grocery store or mall and the SHTF, everyone who saw that guy carrying will wish they could find him, or will pray he shows up to save the day.

Now this guy who had his AR slung for his hike with his son? I see absolutely no reason to even stop him. The problem is people see this stuff happen on the news and they fail to understand the demographics and geography of where they really are. Stuff like this doesn't happen in RURAL America. And people should think about where they live. But we get so caught up in "The News" that we forget those things. When I see a man walking a country road with an AR, AK, bolt rifle, shotgun, whatever, I wave as I drive by. Usually it's in response to him waving and smiling first. I could care less that he had a gun. It's his right. God I love rural America. So much less stress. Such a simpler way of life.

Frank Ettin
April 24, 2013, 11:24 AM
...However I take a far more libertarian point of view,...This is not about ideology. This is about achieving real results in the real world.

...one I believe the founders of this great country would have taken...And why do you believe this?

One problem is the implied assumption that they all intended exactly the same thing.

Fifty-five delegates attended the Constitutional Convention in 1786-87. Thirty-nine signed the proposed Constitution. Thirteen left without signing, and three refused to sign. There was then a bitter fight over ratification by the States. And it indeed looked like the Constitution would fail ratification until the Massachusetts Compromise was hashed out -- giving us the Bill of Rights after the Constitution was ratified without the Bill of Rights.

The Constitution came forth out of a political maelstrom. How can we possibly imagine that all of the thirty-nine Founders who signed the proposed Constitution intended the same thing? And how can we possibly imagine that every delegate who voted to ratify the Constitution in each state or commonwealth assembly intended exactly the same thing?

We of course have some records of what some of the key figures might have intended, but projecting their intentions on the rest of the Founders might well be a stretch.

And while the Founders aren't here to fully explain the depth and breadth of their intentions and expectations, they did leave us an amazing legacy -- The Constitution of the United States of America. And from the Constitution, we can infer that they intended us to have, among other things:

A system of checks and balances achieved through a separation of powers among the Congress (legislative), the President (executive) and the Courts (judicial);


Of these three branches of government, the legislative was most directly subject to the influence of the body politic, and the judicial was the least subject to the direct influence of the body politic;


Judicial power vested in a Supreme Court and such inferior courts as Congress might establish, and this judicial power would extend to all cases arising under, among other things, the Constitution and the laws of the United States;


A Constitution that could be changed, albeit with difficulty.

...the courts have slowly eroded what our freedoms really meant by opening them up to one "curtailing circumstance" after the other. Then you have opportunistic abuse of those infringements and down the rabbit hole we go. Nonetheless, it is what it is.

And indeed the Founding Fathers did in the Constitution assign the judicial power of the United States to the federal courts and authorize the federal courts to exercise that judicial power in, among other things, cases arising under the Constitution (Article III, Sections 1 and 2). Many of the Founding Fathers were lawyers and well understood what that meant.

DeathByCactus
April 24, 2013, 11:34 AM
Yes, you are. You are anti open carry. Your reason for this is it is unnecessary. The point we are making is that what is necessary is not your call anymore than it is Diane Feinsteine's call. Nor is this debate about what is necessary, if the law does not prohibit open carry then we are free to exercise that right, and if it does prohibit it then we need to work to change the law. Have you ever actually tried open carry? I can tell you from experience it is a lot more comfortable and from having practiced my draw I can tell you there is less chance of getting hung up in something when seconds count. I don't walk around shouting "Hey, I'm carrying a gun openly because it's my right and there's nothing you can do about it!" What I do is openly carry my firearm and go about my business the same as I would if it weren't even there. If you feel this is obnoxious then I don't think I am the one with the problem. And this
Quote:
and I might act with severe force if I felt the least bit threatened. There is no need for this behavior in our society.
gives me pause. What exactly do you consider "extreme force" and exactly what would they have to do to make you feel "the least bit threatened"? And why is open carry, not making a scene but just going about your business while carrying openly, a behavior you would view negatively? Lastly, I've seen pit bulls that took more than one shot to bring down, I would hate to try to bring down anything bigger than that trusting to a one shot stop. I apologize if this comes across as combative, I've gone over it several times before posting to try to make it as polite as I can. It just amazes me when I come across someone who claims to support 2A and then in the same breath advocates infringement upon the very rights protected by 2A.

Yes, you are an anti... Everyone is an anti on some level. Most people are anti against fully automatic weapons being able to be bought with no background checks, no regulation, no consequences (or maybe I am wrong and we should be modeling our country after Somalia). My point was I just don't want to open carry myself. As I stated, I am not out to tell someone what to do as long as they are following the law. What other gun owners want to do with their guns, even if I don't agree with it, is not my business unless I or society deem them a threat.

Have I ever tried open carry? Yes, I open carry when I hunt. No, I would not open carry anywhere else really. For the most part I dwell in the city, I don't go a block without seeing police where I live. I agree draw time would be much faster though than my concealed pocket carry. Still, I'd rather not in populated areas, I don't want my children thinking that in this great country we need to run around with guns on our hips everywhere we go. I also note this is somewhat hypocritical as I do actively carry my pocket pistol almost everywhere I go. I just prefer the walk quietly and carry a big stick approach. I am fast enough with the practice drills I run.

Is it my call? Never said it was. But I have a right to have my own voice and vote same as anyone else.

If the law doesn't prohibit it... Then that is great for you. Like I said, it's not my choice, but if that is your thing then I advise you to do your thing. From a personal stand point though, I don't see what anyone is accomplishing by running around with a semi-auto and 30 rounds of firepower strapped to their chest. Which is the main reference in what I am referring too.

Extreme force... I'd shoot him in the chest a lot (to be blunt), if I felt my life or the lives of my family was in imminent danger. In fairness to your argument, I should have stated with extreme hostility. Starting with, "Get the hell away from my family." However, I have reason to believe that most people who walk around with ar-15's strapped to their chest on a leisurely walk should understand that some people would want nothing to do with them and in turn expect no problems from walking on by. (I am not getting into crazy what if situations).

It's a tough line to walk really. Guns will thankfully always be a part of our society. Everyone has a different view on what should or should not be allowed, as with any hobby. There are some things I support and some things I oppose. Labeling someone an anti is to say the least, hypocritical on everyone's part.

I guess you are right, I am an anti though. I need to become more used to accepting that. I have become 'anti-militarization' of the shooting world. A lot of this decision didn't come from liberals or PETA... but from watching gun owners become more radical over the years. Out of fear.

Also, last I checked as with most amendments in the constitution, they are vague and left to the interpretation of society. For flexibility to adapt to changing times. I support the second amendment. I just hope that people can find a balance and live in moderation.

IE, open carry your pistol? Cool deal... but why is that idiot open carrying a shotgun on his back and front loaded ak-47 to the grocery store?

smogmage
April 24, 2013, 12:40 PM
I infer their intentions quite clearly. When Franklin declared a Constitutional Republic if we can keep it, he meant exactly that. A consensus was reached and we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, in which the role of the government is to protect the Rights of the Individuals against the wishes and whims of the folly majority.

We are losing, if we haven't already lost that Constitutional Republic already and have morphed into a Democracy; which the founders never intended us to be. Now by majority mob vote, property and Rights are stolen from the minority. Democracy never lasts. Eventually as the majority has discovered in the last election, they can vote themselves money. And so the scales of power tip till there is no more minority to plunder from. An Oligarchy will rise and freedom will be lost.

"It is what it is" Has got to be one of my most despised phrases every since I first encountered it during training with Military members. It's synonymous with, "the situation is wrong, we know it but we can't change it."

I refuse to accept that for an answer and I will be the change I wish to seek.

316SS
April 24, 2013, 12:44 PM
For better, or more likely for worse, libertarians will always have a crisis of self-promotion because convincing others that we are right is antithetical to the philosophy.

Skylerbone
April 24, 2013, 12:45 PM
It's been many years but I recall wearing a tuxedo to every prom I attended. It was not mandatory but rather both customary and appropriate. I could have dyed my hair orange, shaved it to a Mohawk and grabbed a Ramones t-shirt but I would be a fool to believe that people would not have stared, whispered or disapproved of my dress including those six or seven hundred of my classmates who knew me.

There are not simply pro and anti sentiments out there. Any non-owner of firearms cannot simply be labeled as the opposition nor can all owners be counted in favor of unlimited or unregulated rights. Libertarian thought may be a fine thing in principle but society will always dictate what is acceptable for its members and translate those sentiments to law.

For all those who OC with dozens or hundreds of stories of positive encounters with the curious, ask yourself how many thousands of silent onlookers may or may not have approved of your display before dismissing how negative the choice may be. As Mr. Ettin has written, no solid data has accompanied either side.

But I can promise one thing. If there is a guy carrying open in a grocery store or mall and the SHTF, everyone who saw that guy carrying will wish they could find him, or will pray he shows up to save the day.

Just as likely they will be thinking they saw the perpetrator. Billions of brains out there and none of us can predict what any of them may or may not be thinking.

My point is the courts have slowly eroded what our freedoms really meant by opening them up to one "curtailing circumstance" after the other.

Shall I then have the Right, given my greater freedom to obtain and view pornography, to display such material on my automobile? Can I host movie night at a public school and show X-rated material? There have always been limits and many are based on an appropriate audience.

Frank Ettin
April 24, 2013, 01:41 PM
...
I refuse to accept that for an answer and I will be the change I wish to seek.Let us know how it works out.

But remember that rhetoric is no substitute for facts or knowledge or ability. If we can actually succeed in restoring to any meaningful extent the RKBA it will be the result of the efforts of those who understand and can work effectively in the political system and the legal system and can effectively influence public opinion.

Billy Shears
April 24, 2013, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by Frank Ettin

On the other hand there is far too little evidence that wide spread openly carrying guns would necessarily have a positive effect for the RKBA.

Certainly in the late 1960s in California, the Black Panthers openly carrying guns resulted in the open carry of loaded guns being made illegal. And a few years ago, demonstrations involving the open carrying or unloaded guns resulted in that being made illegal.
Gerry Brown, in 2011, signed a law to make OC illegal in California also, and this seems to have been done at least partly in response to local California news stations doing stories on open carriers and their youtube videos in that state.

The people who OC for political reasons never like to admit that their actions may have exactly the opposite effect they intended; nobody ever likes to admit being wrong, and it’s embarrassing to take a very public stand and have it backfire. But that’s precisely what happens sometimes. Practicing OC, if it’s done confrontationally, doesn’t get people more familiar, and thus more comfortable with firearms and those who carry them. It scares people. Whether that fear is rational or not is really beside the point, from a practical perspective. What matters is that scared people are exactly the ones who pass laws to make what scares them illegal.

I fully agree that people who are scared of the sight of guns are irrational. I also agree that police officers who don't know the the law are ignorant. However being rude and confrontational isn't going to change those things. It’s just going to scare people.

Originally posted by Sam Cade

Police officers should be treated with the exact same amount of respect and deference as any other municipal employee or public servant, no more no less.

Cop=Sanitation worker=Court Clerk=School Lunch Lady.
In abstract, yes. And perhaps that is how it should, ideally be in reality. However, in actual reality, the sanitation worker, court clerk, or school lunch lady doesn’t have a badge, gun, radio to summon as much back up as needed, and the power to lock your ass up. Does that mean that the cop wasn’t perhaps abusing his power? No, not at all. Does that mean the citizen might not have a case for suing that officer, department, and city for false arrest, and win? Again, no. But never forget, cops are just people – not only do they not all have photographic memories (and thus may be ignorant of this or that detailed point of any particular law), they also react emotionally just like anyone else and respond to stimuli just like anyone else. In other words, when you piss one off, he’s going to try to find a way to make life unpleasant for you too. Now if he’s unprofessional – which some cops unfortunately are – that means he may overreact, as the cop in this video apparently did. If he’s professional, that may simply means he’s no longer going to extend the benefit of doubt, give you that break, and let you off with that warning he was planning to let you off with a moment earlier, if you are, in fact, breaking some law. So don’t provoke him. That doesn’t mean licking his boots; it just means being courteous and respectful, and not losing your own temper and shooting your mouth off.

Read Dale Carnegie’s “How to Win Friends and Influence People.” People – everyone, not just cops – are motivated partly by a desire to feel important. Freud put it just after the sex drive as a motivator. When a cop, in a position of authority, catches you breaking some minor law, he can gratify he’s desire to feel important in one of two ways: by exerting his authority, or by being magnanimous. If you are rude or belligerent, you make it almost a certainty that he will do the former. If you are polite and respectful, and admit any wrongdoing (if you are, in fact, doing something wrong) you make it far more likely that he will get his feeling of importance by being magnanimous.

If this vet had simply been less confrontational, the whole thing might have turned out very differently.

Yes, yes, as someone will no doubt chime in to tell me, we have our rights, and we should be able to to exercise them however we want without having to worry about such things. You know what? I should be able to walk through the south Bronx after midnight with a pocket full of C-notes, without having to worry about being robbed and maybe put in the hospital for my trouble too. Now welcome to the real world.


Originally posted by Superlite27

What is the difference between voluntarily not participating in a right, and not even having the right in the first place?

In both instances, the right is not being exercised.

Where I am, it is perfectly legal to openly carry. However, you're telling me it's a bad idea to do so because I might have that freedom taken away.

Well then, it isn't really free then, is it?

What's the point of a right if its free exercise will result in its removal?

There would be no point in having it in the first place.
What we’re telling you is that rights which get exercised irresponsibly do tend to get taken away. We’ve shown examples where this has happened. Open carry, when it’s done (and I remain convinced that CC is tactically better the vast majority of the time), should be done for defense, not political reasons. As far as the civil rights rationale goes, carrying a gun openly where it is against the law, is advocating for change and pushing people to recognize other's civil rights, just like the 1960s Civil Rights activists, who deliberately broke unjust laws, and were willing to go to jail for it as way of protesting and raising public awareness. Doing it in an area where it's allowed, even if it’s not common, is usually just grandstanding.

Sam1911
April 24, 2013, 02:04 PM
For all those who OC with dozens or hundreds of stories of positive encounters with the curious, ask yourself how many thousands of silent onlookers may or may not have approved of your display before dismissing how negative the choice may be. As Mr. Ettin has written, no solid data has accompanied either side. To be absolutely fair and balanced, though, it would be best to point out that desensitization is a proven scientific and sociological phenomenon. Be the first to do something and you get noticed. Far more often than not, if you're the first to do something out of "the ordinary" you will be noticed negatively. People do not like "the unusual."

But in time, jeans with a jacket become acceptable dinner wear, longer hair and an earring become unobjectionable -- even on your doctor, two men can hold hands in public without being beaten up, and heck, maybe even black people can sit wherever they want to on the bus. And you can walk in a public place with a slung or holstered firearm without going for a ride in a squad car.

Be the change you want to see? Yeah, sounds right to me. It is indeed a risk. Some folks will NOT like it. Some folks will try to bring political heat on you and on us if you do. They'll either succeed or fail. A right you cannot exercise is vapid. A right exercised frequently, commonly, and openly becomes unexceptional and increasingly less objectionable.

Pick your battles, pick your moments, be on your best behavior? Yes, of course, always. But years from now we will be thanking the polite but bold folks who broke ground for us. (And we'll have forgotten the blowhard few who came too close to "ruining" it for us.)

Sam1911
April 24, 2013, 02:08 PM
Doing it in an area where it's allowed, even if it’s not common, is usually just grandstanding.:rolleyes: Funny!

Sometimes it is, of course, but "usually?" Open carrying where lawful is "USUALLY" just grandstanding? You just cast an AWFUL lot of folks, including many members here, in a light I'm sure you'll agree you should not have.

I'm sure most of us here know what you meant, unfortunately, you said what you said.

jon_in_wv
April 24, 2013, 02:13 PM
I don't feel those who would harm me have a right to know I'm armed. The idea they AMY come across someone who is armed is a good deterrent for them to keep their hands off everyone.

Billy Shears
April 24, 2013, 03:02 PM
Funny!

Sometimes it is, of course, but "usually?" Open carrying where lawful is "USUALLY" just grandstanding? You just cast an AWFUL lot of folks, including many members here, in a light I'm sure you'll agree you should not have.

I'm sure most of us here know what you meant, unfortunately, you said what you said.
I meant exactly what I said. I made it clear enough from the context of the entire post (and I expect most people here are intelligent enough to get it -- I certainly hope so), that I am primarily referring to people who open carry for political reasons, as much or more than defensive ones. If you live in an area where CC is permitted, and you can qualify for a permit (which is the majority of states now), and you choose to go most places carrying openly, you are grandstanding. You want people to know you are armed. Now if there is no concealed carry where you live, or you can't qualify for CC, but can for OC, or you are simply so cash strapped that you can't afford the permit (unlikely, if you can afford the gun and practice ammo in the first place), that's another thing. It's also another thing if you're outdoors, working on a ranch, hunting, etc. etc.

But most places where people will be your primary threat, it makes a lot more sense to carry concealed, and you draw less attention to yourself. If you choose to OC in these places, and you can CC... Well, as I said, you are inviting that attention.

Again, there are some times and places where OC makes sense, tactically. For most people, most of the time, CC would be wiser. If you carry OC, you should be doing it for a logical, self defense-related reason. If you are not carrying for such a reason, I stand by my assertion that you are mainly grandstanding.

316SS
April 24, 2013, 03:35 PM
I meant exactly what I said .... If you live in an area where CC is permitted, and you can qualify for a permit (which is the majority of states now), and you choose to go most places carrying openly, you are grandstanding.

I live in California, where OC is illegal (in many places). I have a CCW. I would like the choice of open carry, for many reasons, none of them political. I guess I have a hankerin' for some grandstanding. :rolleyes:

Sam1911
April 24, 2013, 03:51 PM
If you live in an area where CC is permitted, and you can qualify for a permit (which is the majority of states now), and you choose to go most places carrying openly, you are grandstanding.
...
If you carry OC, you should be doing it for a logical, self defense-related reason. If you are not carrying for such a reason, I stand by my assertion that you are mainly grandstanding.

So, "it's more comfortable," "It's too hot for an over-garment," "I like the advantage of a faster draw," "my defensive philosophy is 'deterrent' rather than 'element of surprise," or simply "I prefer..." all fail in your grand opinion that open carriers are just grandstanding?

Wow. Glad we don't charge extra for double-wide opinions 'round here.

:D

(You do realize, don't you, that MOST people who carry concealed are just too cowardly to carry openly, right? I mean, sometimes the law makes them conceal, but where it's not against the law to carry openly, most of the time when folks choose to conceal their guns anyway it is because they are afraid and ashamed. And ugly.)


See what I did there? ;)

M-Cameron
April 24, 2013, 04:04 PM
I meant exactly what I said .... If you live in an area where CC is permitted, and you can qualify for a permit (which is the majority of states now), and you choose to go most places carrying openly, you are grandstanding.


I don't think that us an entirely fair statement.....people do OC for reasons other than attention.

Lets assume for a minute we live in a 'gun owners utopia' where there are no gun law and the entire population is indifferent to OC.

I know for a fact I would OC most of the time.....

Why? ........ Comfort.

It's no secret CC can be a pain.....literally.

You need to find the right sized gun, the right holster, the right clothes, and even then it's still not the greatest experience.

With OC, you can carry a full sized pistol comfortably and you just need to toss it on your belt and go.

Ide imagine I would still CC when going into the city or crowded areas, or in a more formal setting...


Now lets assume we are no longer in ' gun utopia'..... But we live In a place with few gun laws and OC I at least somewhat common( stares like AZ, VT, AK)

It's not hard to see why people who can OC do..... It doesn't make OC right for every situation, but that doesn't mean those that do are 'grandstanding'

Billy Shears
April 24, 2013, 04:18 PM
You need to find the right sized gun, the right holster, the right clothes, and even then it's still not the greatest experience.

With OC, you can carry a full sized pistol comfortably and you just need to toss it on your belt and go.

I carry full-size Browning Hi Power most of the time. Concealed. I don't find it uncomfortable in the slightest. I also don't find having to sweep my jacket or other garment aside slows my draw to any significant degree.

I am utterly unconvinced that open carriers are all that much deterrent, if any. And I prefer not to show my hole card.

We don't live in a gun owner's utopia. We never have, and never will. Even in the days when you could buy them through the mail and there were literally no restrictions, a man carrying openly on the streets of Boston or Charleston or St. Louis, who wasn't a law enforcement official or security guard of some sort was so uncommon a sight as to be, essentially, a freak. If open carriers haven't become common in this country in hundreds of years, I find the argument that carrying openly will persuade more people to do it, and make it more common and accepted to be highly unrealistic, to say the least.

Again, just to clarify: if you're reasons for OC are self defense-related, fine. I may not agree that you're thinking is sound, but fine, it's your choice. On the other hand, if any part of your thinking is along the lines of "this is my right and I'm going to exercise it!" then I stand by my point: you are grandstanding. It would be different if you went and carried where it wasn't legal, in order to stand up for the exercise of a right that is being infringed, but if you are doing it where it is already legal, just to make a statement, rather than for self defense reasons... Yeah. Grandstanding.

Sam Cade
April 24, 2013, 04:57 PM
If open carriers haven't become common in this country in hundreds of years, I find the argument that carrying openly will persuade more people to do it, and make it more common and accepted to be highly unrealistic, to say the least.

How common is common?

There was a guy OCing at the TSC this morning.

I stopped at Wal-Mart for some sundries on the way back and not counting the city cop getting breakfast there were 5 folks that I saw in the store OCing.

This was in Bowling Green KY, population 60k.

Frank Ettin
April 24, 2013, 05:26 PM
...To be absolutely fair and balanced, though, it would be best to point out that desensitization is a proven scientific and sociological phenomenon....Absolutely (it's also a way to treat allergies) -- but a lot depends on what, where and how. A mild annoyance when people think there's nothing they can do about it -- sure. Something that too many people find a serious annoyance, and when someone running for the legislature promise to pass a law to "fix it" -- not so much. Some places desensitization hasn't seemed to work for wrecked cars up on blocks on folks' front lawns.

...But in time, jeans with a jacket become acceptable dinner wear, longer hair and an earring become unobjectionable -- even on your doctor, two men can hold hands in public without being beaten up,...But consider in more depth how some of those things came to be. It wasn't just a matter of the guy at the convenience store, the clerk at the grocery, the local bartender, etc., wearing an earring. It wasn't just a matter of seeing a high school teacher and his "friend" holding hands at the mall.

New fashions generally take hold when validated by the public conduct of the "trend setters" -- the actors showing up in jeans with a jacket on Jay Leno, the sports figure wearing long hair and an earring when being interviewed on ESPN. Who thinks we can look forward to Tom Cruise sporting an openly carried 1911 at some glitterati garden party?

The broadening public acceptance of gays is another, and more complex matter:

There has been significant support for gay rights from mainstream media, academia and even some influential religious organizations.


Many people active in the struggle for gay rights were straight.


The gay rights movement was tremendously helped by the fact that it turns out that many gays were well liked, well regarded, prominent and influential public figures (especially in the arts), all of whom had well established public personae independent of their sexual orientation prior to the revelation that they are gay.


Many of those gay public figures are also extremely affluent and have been able to pour considerable money into support of politicians who support gay rights. (And many of those public figures are also using their money and influence to promote gun control.)

...maybe even black people can sit wherever they want to on the bus...And when considered in depth, reaching this point also involved a well orchestrate journey guided by savvy leaders down well thought out paths. For example:

On 1 December 1955, Rosa Parks was the third African-American since March of that year to be arrested for violating the Montgomery bus segregation law. That night, Jo Ann Robinson, head of the Women's Political Council, printed and circulated a flyer throughout Montgomery's black community starting the call for a boycott of Montgomery's city buses.

Martin Luther King, Jr., as president of the Montgomery Improvement Association and pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, together with other Black community leaders, then organized the boycott of the Montgomery bus system. That boycott reduced Black ridership (the bulk of the bus system's paying customers) of Montgomery city buses by some 90% until December of 1956 when the Supreme Court ruled that the bus segregation laws of Montgomery, Alabama were unconstitutional (Gayle v. Browder, 352 U.S. 903 (1956)).

Mrs. Parks actions and arrest were part of a well orchestrated, well organized, program leading to a successful conclusion.


The Civil Rights Movement of the '50s and '60s had broad and deep support. The goals of the Civil Rights Movement were promoted regularly in sermons in churches and synagogues all across the nation and editorials in major mainstream media. The Civil Rights Movement had charismatic leaders like Martin Luther King who could inspire the country.


Civil Rights demonstration were joined and actively supported by many Whites.
Taking a close look at the gay rights and Civil Rights movements give us some idea of how far behind the PR curve our RKBA movement is. Gay rights and Civil Rights made the progress they did in part because of sympathy and active support from straights and Whites, respectively, as well as support from mainstream media.

...A right exercised frequently, commonly, and openly becomes unexceptional and increasingly less objectionable....Sometimes and in some places.

316SS
April 24, 2013, 06:59 PM
Taking a close look at the gay rights and Civil Rights movements give us some idea of how far behind the PR curve our RKBA movement is. Gay rights and Civil Rights made the progress they did in part because of sympathy and active support from straights and Whites, respectively, as well as support from mainstream media.

I don't see that you conclusion follows from your premises. The success of the gay rights and civil rights movements and the setbacks of the gun rights movement can all be explained by the trend of urbanization, toward socially liberal values that continues to occur in American society, rather PR successes or failures. Your analysis of the both the civil rights and gay rights movements also neglects the defiance and lack of manners and decorum that characterized both those movements, at least from some viewpoints.

Exercising open carry privileges, where they exist, will both desensitize and irk others, and the consequences will follow. But not to open carry for fear of the consequences is indistinguishable from not open carrying because it is illegal, from a practical standpoint.

Billy Shears
April 24, 2013, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by 316SS

I don't see that you conclusion follows from your premises. The success of the gay rights and civil rights movements and the setbacks of the gun rights movement can all be explained by the trend of urbanization, toward socially liberal values that continues to occur in American society, rather PR successes or failures. Your analysis of the both the civil rights and gay rights movements also neglects the defiance and lack of manners and decorum that characterized both those movements, at least from some viewpoints.
I would say the defiance and lack of manner came more from the other side, burning churches and lynching and so forth. And again, a crucial difference, I point out, is those people were exercising a right where it was illegal to do so, and were willing to take the consequences as a display of civil disobedience to an unjust law. That is not what is happening when you openly carry in a jurisdiction where it's legal.

And don't underestimate the PR angle. Frank Ettin is absolutely right. One of the reasons civil rights legislation passed is that, with the help of the media, and influential public figures, the rest of the country came to see the racist laws in the south as retrograde and immoral. We don't have anything like that kind of influence on our side as yet.

Originally posted by 316SS

Exercising open carry privileges, where they exist, will both desensitize and irk others, and the consequences will follow. But not to open carry for fear of the consequences is indistinguishable from not open carrying because it is illegal, from a practical standpoint.
Not at all. To exercise that right responsibly -- that is to say, to openly carry, where and when there is a valid reason, related to self defense -- will help preserve it. There may be times when OC makes the most sense and is the most practical option. And on those occasions, it should be done, and the right should not be infringed. And people who carry for that reason might actually help show non-gun owners that law-abiding gun owners are just ordinary people they don't need to be concerned about. But to OC solely for the purpose of drawing attention to oneself or making a political statement, or to provoke and videotape a confrontation to "raise awareness" is actually counterproductive grandstanding that will alarm and alienate people, not persuade them.

Frank Ettin
April 24, 2013, 09:20 PM
...The success of the gay rights and civil rights movements and the setbacks of the gun rights movement can all be explained by the trend of urbanization, toward socially liberal values that continues to occur in American society, rather PR successes or failures....Are you suggesting that the successes of the civil rights movement and the gay rights movement were purely evolutionary and that the changes would have occurred without the efforts of the various individuals and groups who participated?

But certainly there was a synergy there. The urbanization and trend toward more liberal social values probably helped fuel the civil rights and gay rights movements just as those movements helped fuel the trend toward urbanization and liberal social values. And just as the trend toward urbanization and liberal social values inhibit the gun rights movement.

So we can either give up or deal with the fact that the current direction of societal change makes our job tougher. While the civil rights and gay rights movements road a favorable current of societal change, we must buck that current.

How will alienating people help us do that? Or do we just give up?

Open carry if it's legal and you find it a convenient way to go about armed. But don't delude yourself that doing so makes a positive contribution to the promotion of the RKBA.

texasgun
April 24, 2013, 10:06 PM
A guy OC'ing an AK when running errands and thinking that this will advance the 2nd amendment is like:

two gays making out in public in front of a catholic church - thinking that this will advance the LGBT movement

316SS
April 24, 2013, 10:13 PM
So we can either give up or deal with the fact that the current direction of societal change makes our job tougher. While the civil rights and gay rights movements road a favorable current of societal change, we must buck that current.

How will alienating people help us do that? Or do we just give up?

Open carry if it's legal and you find it a convenient way to go about armed. But don't delude yourself that doing so makes a positive contribution to the promotion of the RKBA.

Since you asked ;) I don't think alienating people will help our cause, and I make an effort not to alienate those who are open to at least considering my point of view. In other words, I attempt to be an ambassador for gun ownership and responsible use. And I do open carry when and where legal (there are still a few of both here in CA, as you know). But whether or not it makes a positive contribution to the promotion of the RKBA(which, you admit, neither of us knows for sure), if I were to avoid OC for fear of the potential consequences, then the whole question is moot. "The terrorists have already won," as they say.

BigBore44
April 25, 2013, 01:48 AM
So Frank,
What you're saying is until we do a little "live societal research", all arguments are basically moot becaus no one really knows for sure what the perception will be. Obviously some will be offended no matter how they/you/we OC. But some may perceive our actions in a positive manner and that may in turn either further our cause or "dull the senses" of some to not be so quick to overreact.

If that's true, and I understand you correctly, I completely agree. But I feel very strongly that those who choose to OC are voluntarily becoming the face of 2A supporters. And they should understand that, and act as ambassadors.

Sam1911
April 25, 2013, 05:46 AM
...To be absolutely fair and balanced, though, it would be best to point out that desensitization is a proven scientific and sociological phenomenon....Absolutely (it's also a way to treat allergies) -- but a lot depends on what, where and how. A mild annoyance when people think there's nothing they can do about it -- sure. Something that too many people find a serious annoyance, and when someone running for the legislature promise to pass a law to "fix it" -- not so much. Some places desensitization hasn't seemed to work for wrecked cars up on blocks on folks' front lawns.Yup. Not a perfectly linear path, nor one without pitfalls. On the other hand, just keeping it hidden forever does nothing for us. So there's a balance to be struck.

Keep pushing that boundary when, and where, it is advantageous to do so and the "envelope" widens.

Now, how much damage will the "grandstanders" (:neener:) cause? Only time will tell. Could they do catastrophic damage that hurts the main push? Quite possibly. That's always a risk in any such endeavor. You must push just as hard as you can, but no harder. Knowing where that line is is the real magic.

...But in time, jeans with a jacket become acceptable dinner wear, longer hair and an earring become unobjectionable -- even on your doctor, two men can hold hands in public without being beaten up,...But consider in more depth how some of those things came to be. It wasn't just a matter of the guy at the convenience store, the clerk at the grocery, the local bartender, etc., wearing an earring. It wasn't just a matter of seeing a high school teacher and his "friend" holding hands at the mall.I'm enough of a student of history to have considered in quite a bit of depth how these things came to be.

New fashions generally take hold when validated by the public conduct of the "trend setters" -- the actors showing up in jeans with a jacket on Jay Leno, the sports figure wearing long hair and an earring when being interviewed on ESPN. Who thinks we can look forward to Tom Cruise sporting an openly carried 1911 at some glitterati garden party?That certainly helps, but it isn't the whole chalupa. A bunch of hollywierd types doing odd stuff doesn't make a grass-roots change happen. You've got to know people, and see people every week, in your own community, doing this new thing to really begin to understand that the change does not threaten you. You know how WEIRD it was when one of my own school teachers "came out" back in middle school? Pretty unsettling to a lot of people for the first year or so. But you know what? I didn't have to wait for Will and Grace to air before I was "cool" with gay folks.

The broadening public acceptance of gays is another, and more complex matter:

There has been significant support for gay rights from mainstream media, academia and even some influential religious organizations.
Many people active in the struggle for gay rights were straight.
The gay rights movement was tremendously helped by the fact that it turns out that many gays were well liked, well regarded, prominent and influential public figures (especially in the arts), all of whom had well established public personae independent of their sexual orientation prior to the revelation that they are gay.
Many of those gay public figures are also extremely affluent and have been able to pour considerable money into support of politicians who support gay rights. (And many of those public figures are also using their money and influence to promote gun control.)
That's true to a point. But if we don't have a bunch of rich elites open-carrying on our side, what are we to do? Wait until we do? ;) Naaah. Probably not a great plan.

And when considered in depth, reaching this point also involved a well orchestrate journey guided by savvy leaders down well thought out paths. For example:
...
Taking a close look at the gay rights and Civil Rights movements give us some idea of how far behind the PR curve our RKBA movement is. Gay rights and Civil Rights made the progress they did in part because of sympathy and active support from straights and Whites, respectively, as well as support from mainstream media. Sure! And we have groups doing somewhat similar things occasionally. (Open holster protests. Guys "grandstanding" :neener: on youtube going viral. Open Carry rallies. Open Carry dinners out and days in the park, etc., etc.)

A big part of our "problem" it seems is that we're NOT as hated as the black community was. That we don't garner the extremes of social antipathy that Ms. Parks and others churned up. We don't have ANYWHERE near as "far to go."

All we have to do is keep it out in the open a bit more each year and it becomes acceptable. It won't take a march on Washington and an "I Have a Dream" speech. It just becomes something that folks DO.

...A right exercised frequently, commonly, and openly becomes unexceptional and increasingly less objectionable....Sometimes and in some places.Eventually and hopefully in ALL places. Not all at once tomorrow. But sooner than we'd believe possible.

Sam1911
April 25, 2013, 05:51 AM
While the civil rights and gay rights movements road a favorable current of societal change, we must buck that current. I don't agree. I'm looking at the history of the last 20-30 years and the advancement of gun rights is NOT a retrograde trend right now. It was so, leading up to the beginning of the 1990s, but then the nation started to shift.

Now is "strike while the iron is hot" time.

Superlite27
April 25, 2013, 08:10 AM
Now is "strike while the iron is hot" time.

As long as you "strike" them as polite and courteous, and your "iron" is carried in a responsible and appropriate manner.

I think the demeanor and professionalism of the carrier has 90% more to do with public perception than the tool strapped to an OCer's side.

Sam1911
April 25, 2013, 08:26 AM
I'd agree 100%. Give ZERO reason for any observer (officer, citizen, grandmother, store keeper, etc.) to mistrust you, be afraid of you, or think poorly of you. Let the gun on your hip or sling be the only possible bone of contention between you, and force the other person to decide just how much of a "problem" they really have with you after all.

When I look over the pics that NavyLCDR, Mainsail, and many others have posted of themselves and their pals open carrying, I see average looking, pleasant, professional/casually dressed folks, going about their business with a cheerful demeanor. Great ambassadors for guns and gun rights.

While you have the RIGHT to go armed looking and acting like you just got kicked out of the Pagans for being too unfriendly, that's not going to help the cause. :)

BigBore44
April 25, 2013, 10:41 AM
Bangarang Sam1911!!!

Frank Ettin
April 25, 2013, 11:21 AM
So Frank,
What you're saying is until we do a little "live societal research", all arguments are basically moot becaus no one really knows for sure what the perception will be. Obviously some will be offended no matter how they/you/we OC. But some may perceive our actions in a positive manner and that may in turn either further our cause or "dull the senses" of some to not be so quick to overreact.

If that's true, and I understand you correctly, I completely agree....And that's my point.

...But I feel very strongly that those who choose to OC are voluntarily becoming the face of 2A supporters. And they should understand that, and act as ambassadors....Well, we all the the face of Second Amendment supporters and are all ambassadors -- good or bad as we choose.

...Now, how much damage will the "grandstanders" () cause? Only time will tell. Could they do catastrophic damage that hurts the main push? Quite possibly. That's always a risk in any such endeavor. You must push just as hard as you can, but no harder. Knowing where that line is is the real magic....But as I pointed out, defining a line doesn't need to be "magic" or just chance. We aren't using some of the tools available and that are used in regularly in business and politics. As far as I can see, we're not really looking closely at our audience and considering, in a disciplined and rigorous way, how to communicate our message. We're not paying attention to how they are responding to us and making adjustments in how we tell our story based on such observations.

These are all things I've seen used effectively in business, and they are techniques applicable to us as well.

I'd agree 100%. Give ZERO reason for any observer (officer, citizen, grandmother, store keeper, etc.) to mistrust you, be afraid of you, or think poorly of you....For some of the people I know, the mere fact that you're wearing a gun would be reason enough.

...When I look over the pics that NavyLCDR, Mainsail, and many others have posted of themselves and their pals open carrying, I see average looking, pleasant, professional/casually dressed folks, going about their business with a cheerful demeanor...But the point is that's not necessarily what everyone sees.

Skylerbone
April 25, 2013, 11:25 AM
Problem with that is not everyone fits the profile of "normal" looking. When I eat at a traditional "Mexican" restaurant, the waitstaff speaks to me in Spanish. I've been asked if I am Hawaiian, Hispanic, Italian, Japanese, Somoan and an Arab, among other things. Where I live, the acceptability factor of me openly carrying, IMO, would be low. I don't care to be hassled, I dislike it when the first question I'm met with is "What are you?" or "YOUR ENGLISH IS VERY GOOD!" Not everything plays in Peoria so, rather than become the source of 911 phone calls, I stick with CC. In other places, I might "look" normal but that isn't where I live.

PS: I don't live in IL, for those unfamiliar with the Peoria reference.

316SS
April 25, 2013, 11:37 AM
But as I pointed out, defining a line doesn't need to be "magic" or just chance. We aren't using some of the tools available and that are used in regularly in business and politics. As far as I can see, we're not really looking closely at our audience and considering, in a disciplined and rigorous way, how to communicate our message. We're not paying attention to how they are responding to us and making adjustments in how we tell our story based on such observations.

These are all things I've seen used effectively in business, and they are techniques applicable to us as well.

I nominate Frank to convene some focus groups and get to work on this on behalf of the "RKBA Movement." :D

BigBore44
April 25, 2013, 11:43 AM
^^Amen to that.

Frank Ettin
April 25, 2013, 12:02 PM
I nominate Frank to convene some focus groups and get to work on this on behalf of the "RKBA Movement." I'd just need someone to pay the bills.

Sam1911
April 25, 2013, 12:54 PM
For some of the people I know, the mere fact that you're wearing a gun would be reason enough.Right! As I said, let that be the ONLY thing that puts them off. And accept that we'll never make every single person happy to see us. Just like there's plenty of people who still hate black folks, or still cringe and hurl epithets when they see two guys "together." At some point we don't have to care because they don't represent a large enough block of society to do us any harm. We're not quite there yet, but with patience and perseverance, we will be.

But the point is that's not necessarily what everyone sees.Of course, but when there's nothing whatsoever, besides the presence of that object, to indicate a reason to think otherwise, perception eventually is informed by (positive) experience. For most folks anyway. Enough good experiences will lead to social acceptance.

Frank Ettin
April 25, 2013, 02:11 PM
...Enough good experiences will lead to social acceptance. A reasonable enough conjecture, but merely conjecture nonetheless.

Sam1911
April 25, 2013, 02:18 PM
Conjecture? Sure! As is any similar suggestion that a person's general decision to open carry sometimes (or always, or never) causes more harm than good in the broader picture.

Upon some theory must all action be founded. :) I imagine when we all get to wherever we're going, whomever is expected to meet us at our own version of the pearly gates will finally let us know if all our actions panned out as we'd hoped in the end. Give us a final score card, you know? And on that final score card, somewhere down near the bottom I'd bet, it will say, "Folks influenced positively for gun rights: 3,281. Folks influenced negatively against gun rights: 3,279 -- You WIN!"

Till then, we'll never really know... :D

Frank Ettin
April 25, 2013, 02:40 PM
Conjecture? Sure! As is any similar suggestion that a person's general decision to open carry sometimes (or always, or never) causes more harm than good in the broader picture....Sam, a while ago you wrote (http://www.thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=7268710&postcount=6) this in another context:...We do tend here to look beyond a minimum sufficient answer and try to discern the best possible response to a given problem.... I submit that same perspective applies here.

If one's purpose for open carrying is simply to conveniently go about armed (when legal), that's one thing.


But if one claims his purpose in open carrying, or when wants to justify his choice to open carry (even though he really doesn't need to), as benefiting the RKBA and promoting greater acceptance of people carrying guns in public, he really needs to support that with something better than mere conjecture.

Lonestar11
April 25, 2013, 08:24 PM
With respect to the original post and the video in question, I have the following observations, first the open carry of a rifle in Texas is legal, as long as done in a safe manner. The low slung carry of a rifle is not considered to be a safe manner to most LEO. Since the subject in question was military, he was probably carrying as trained, not necessarly in compliance with the law.

The number one rule of most encounters with LEO is don't piss off the authority having jurisdiction. The LEO had every right to disarm the subject until he determined his intentions. The subject stated that he was concerned about Cougar and hog attacts. This is pure BS!, both animals are nocturnal, this was a public highway in the middle of the day.

Lastly and in this case and most importantly, this individual had an attitude. Right or wrong, you will never win a road side argument with an LEO, save you breath. Save your argument for a court of law.

By the way, there is no such law as "rudely displaying" a firearm.

Sam1911
April 26, 2013, 07:28 AM
I submit that same perspective applies here.
If one's purpose for open carrying is simply to conveniently go about armed (when legal), that's one thing.One thing? Separate from any other concerns? When does a person ever do anything that's purely one-dimensional? And are you suggesting that it is "ok" to carry openly if you have some "good and sufficient reason" (in who's opinion)? That good and sufficient reason then trumps concerns over the opinions of observers we might offend? At some point this becomes absurd, I think.


But if one claims his purpose in open carrying, or when wants to justify his choice to open carry (even though he really doesn't need to), as benefiting the RKBA and promoting greater acceptance of people carrying guns in public, he really needs to support that with something better than mere conjecture.The trap of demanding unobtainable statistics as a means of stifling action.

How many more points of (soft, fuzzy) "data" do we really need on this score? I could pull up hundreds of testimonials right here on THR from folks who report positive social interactions when they carry openly. And I could also extract a very small handful of negative reports, too.

Then we can compare the old, highly situationally/racially weighted data from the CA experience with the Black Panthers back in the day, and try to come to some consensus about how relevant that really is to the current situation (almost no relevance, honestly).

Then into the balance pans we dump all our speculations about the (few, some, a lot, or many) folks who observe our open carrying friends make negative assessments but never say anything about it. Oh, but then we also have to count up all our opposite speculations about people who react positively but never say anything about it! Then we have to calculate, to our highest degree of precision, how many of each hypothetical set of non-reacting observers then act in some physical way (calling representatives, voting, supporting or opposing candidates solely or partly based on their observations) that actually affects us and our goals. How many significant figures do you think we should record? What's the margin of error here? 50%, plus or minus...uh...all of it? ;)

The upshot is that, in the face of no recordable hard data, we all fall back on our own preferences and prejudices, informed by our own experiences.

The open-carry side can't "prove" that they make net positive social change, and the anti- side can't "prove" that they make net negative social change.

So, in my opinion, you do what you want and work for the change you want to see.

Frank Ettin
April 26, 2013, 11:21 AM
...When does a person ever do anything that's purely one-dimensional? And are you suggesting that it is "ok" to carry openly if you have some "good and sufficient reason" (in who's opinion)? That good and sufficient reason then trumps concerns over the opinions of observers we might offend?...It's not my place to decide if it is okay. But I also strongly object to the "I open carry and therefore am a true champion of the RKBA" business. There is no good basis for such claim, and it doesn't help our interests to thus fool ourselves.

...The trap of demanding unobtainable statistics as a means of stifling action....No, the trap we set for ourselves is letting anecdotes and wishful thinking guide our strategy.

...Then into the balance pans we dump all our speculations about the (few, some, a lot, or many) folks who observe our open carrying friends make negative assessments but never say anything about it...No, that is not how it's done. I've already discussed some of the ways it is done, in other contexts, when people who want to influence public opinion and care about doing so effectively make decision about what they do.

The problem, of course, is that kind of thing cost money. Studies need to be well constructed and executed by people who know what they are doing, and they don't work cheaply.

...The upshot is that, in the face of no recordable hard data, we all fall back on our own preferences and prejudices, informed by our own experiences...Yes, that is indeed what we do. Is that the best thing to do? Would other ways be more effective? Do we not want to look for better answers? Did you not really mean it when you wrote:...We do tend here to look beyond a minimum sufficient answer and try to discern the best possible response to a given problem....

...So, in my opinion, you do what you want and work for the change you want to see...Like the folks in Florida who wound up helping getting open carry banned shortly after winning "shall issue" concealed carry (see post 20). Like the folks in California who, in the last few years, wound up helping get laws banning the open carrying of unloaded handguns and long guns enacted.

HOOfan_1
April 26, 2013, 01:53 PM
The subject stated that he was concerned about Cougar and hog attacts. This is pure BS!, both animals are nocturnal, this was a public highway in the middle of the day.
.

Ummm...people have been attacked...and even killed by cougar in the middle of the day...

r1derbike
April 26, 2013, 02:05 PM
Like the folks in Florida who wound up helping getting open carry banned shortly after winning "shall issue" concealed carry (see post 20). Like the folks in California who, in the last few years, wound up helping get laws banning the open carrying of unloaded handguns and long guns enacted.Couldn't help but think that the above reminded me of Newtonian Law, but as unrelated references! :D

AR has no OC, and if it did, I wouldn't carry in places that would instill fear in the populace (i.e. theaters, if allowed). I wouldn't OC at all, unless on my property. I wouldn't do this out of fear of exercising my right to do so. I'd do this out of respect for the fears of the public, given current events.

If and when AR passes OC, I would let others gauge public acceptance and tolerance over time, then make a personal decision to follow suit, or not.

Presently we have CC; no harm, no foul.

texasgun
April 26, 2013, 04:16 PM
@hoofan1

There are NO cougars in waco/temple Texas....

zxcvbob
April 26, 2013, 05:21 PM
There are NO cougars in waco/temple Texas....


There's pumas in the cravasses...

Lonestar11
April 26, 2013, 08:56 PM
Ummm...people have been attacked...and even killed by cougar in the middle of the day...

I wouldn't argue that point, but please site any daytime Cougar attacks in Waco, TX.

Averageman
April 27, 2013, 11:44 AM
http://agrilifecdn.tamu.edu/txwildlifeservices/files/2011/08/MountainLionsInTexas.pdf

Distribution The Mountain Lion has the widest distribution of any wild cat, from Canada to South America. Formerly distributed throughout North America, the Mountain Lion is now found mostly in the remote areas of the western U.S., as well as western Canada and much of Mexico. A small population still exists in southern Florida, where the species is considered endangered.

In Texas, the Mountain Lion is found throughout the Trans-Pecos, as well as the brushlands of south Texas and portions of the Hill Country. Sighting and kill reports indicate that Mountain Lions now occur in more counties than they did 10 years ago and appear to be expanding their range into central Texas.

http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/mlion/

http://cougarrewilding.org/CougarNews/?p=5452

Local couple spot mountain lion near Onion Creek in Buda

Posted by Wes Ferguson on Apr 23rd, 2012

A local woman says that she and her husband saw a mountain lion in Buda earlier this month. The large wild cats have been moving into Central Texas, according to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

Skylerbone
April 27, 2013, 02:26 PM
Iowa DNR refuses to acknowledge the presence of mountain lions in the state despite multiple full-color trailcam pictures sent by land owners throughout the State and at least one attack on a 14 yr. old hunter who fought off the cat by striking it repeatedly. Officially the "unknown" animal was headed West, having gotten lost in its migration, though pictures had it headed East...

JohnBT
April 27, 2013, 07:06 PM
Is his defense going to be that there were big cats in the neighborhood and he was hunting over bait (an unarmed Boy Scout)?

alsaqr
April 27, 2013, 07:57 PM
Cougars sometimes frequent Denim and Diamonds in Temple, TX.:D

targetshooter22
April 27, 2013, 11:47 PM
As a rule I think open carry doesn't help gun owners' political or social causes. I think it stirs the other side up and makes them all activated and inclined to act on their foolish, immature, and irrational fears.

The exception to this rule for me is purely in the sporting/rural sense. Sometimes when hunting upland game, it's just easier to leave the 22 pistol on than to take it off. Never been in big bear (or cat) country, I suppose if I was, I might be inclined to OC something appropriate for the mission.

BigBore44
April 28, 2013, 03:11 AM
Ok I've been somewhat active on this thread, and have read every post at least twice. We already know, as I pointed out, that until we do the "live societal research" and see what the perceptions are of OC, no one has a clue whether "as a majority" we are perceived positively or negatively. My belief (not based on facts) is that the determining factor will be how we interact with the public. If we are polite, courteous, respectful, and chivalrous, I think the outcome will be, by in large, positive. Sam1911 said that we should let only the gun be the only thing that someone has something negative to say about us. I believe this to be an excellent idea. I think it will take effort on our part not to get heated when someone, or a lot of someones make negative comments about it. But kill them with kindness and respect. Don't call them "sheep". This doesn't help our cause at all.

I wrote in a previous post that those who OC are the face of 2A/RKBA supporters and should act as ambassadors. Frank said we should all be ambassadors. That's true. But those that truely CC aren't going to be scrutinized to the degree that OCers are. That doesn't give the CCers the right to be "insert plural negative noun here" either. It just means that the OCers are held to a higher standard because the public will focus on the gun first, and the character of the man or woman second. Just the opposite for CCers.

BigBore44
April 28, 2013, 03:26 AM
Lonestar,
We don't have to cite daytime attacks in Waco Tx. All you need is ONE incident where a daytime attack occurred in the Western Hemisphere for it to be a legitimate cause for concern. And there are incidents of that.

Show me one incident before 911 that Muslim hijackers hijacked 3 commercial airlines and flew 2 into skyscrapers, killing thousands of Americans? But it damn sure happened didn't it?

Lonestar11
April 28, 2013, 04:42 PM
BigBore44,

You are correct, I would not argue against your point with you, but based upon the rest of the facts stated, I still think it was a poor excuse. As I originally stated, the manner in which he was carrying the AR and his attitude were the real problems.

HOOfan_1
April 28, 2013, 05:06 PM
Who cares what his attitude was....he can't be arrested for attitude.

Maybe he was just mirroring the attitude of the cops.

The way he was carrying thr gun was perfectly fine as well.

I don't know many people who enjoy being harassed for walking around minding their own business.

His excuse for carrying the gun is no more bogus than their excuse for arresting him....big difference is, he doesn't owe anyone an excuse...they do.

lloveless
April 29, 2013, 05:08 PM
OC can be a positive or a negative depending on the context. PR is a very big thing. Choosing your "audience" to OC to will depend on whether your experience will have a positive or negative impact on the RKBA movement. Just as choosing your attire when CC, you must consider where you are going when you OC. In other words. When you OC are you going to go to the post office, court house to pick up tags, pay land tax? If you OC in those places I can pretty much guarantee a visit with an LEO. If you CC in these places, and you act polite and professional, you will get a pass, unless they have metal scanners.
ll

goon
April 29, 2013, 05:16 PM
I fully respect anyone's right to carry for self defense, but I think this could depend on the area you live in. Where I'm from, few people would much care about open carry. In some urban areas, legal or not, it would alarm people. As a matter of personal preference, I'd rather not offend or frighten people who are less comfortable with guns than I am.
Others have every right to disagree.

texasgun
April 29, 2013, 09:36 PM
... CC in a USPS post office is PROHIBITED

they actually are pretty clear about that in any CC class. it's a federal law.

Infidel4life11
April 29, 2013, 10:19 PM
In the current state our beloved country is in. I think openly carrying in public isnt smart. Here's the way I see it.

You got the professional, like most of us here, who carry our side arm in a smart holster and it is just a part of our daily carry like a cell phone. We don't draw attention to it, we aren't touching it or holding on to it. We are quiet, trained, professionals. Advocates of guns, carrying, and the 2A. I spark up awesome conversations everywhere I go when I'm OC'ing, everybody wants to talk shop when they see me. I've met more new friends and training partners OC'ing in the last 2 years than I have in the last 10 as a Military/LE.

On the other side of the spectrum you have to older unkept person carrying a WWII or Viet Nam service weapon or the younger "columbine" person who again is unkept trench coat, thigh holster hanging below their knee and an AK or AR low slung flying all over the place. Without weapons the "perception" of these types of people aren't welcome to begin with and you throw semi-autos and an attitude with it, it just helps the sheep and gun grabbers with their case.

Concealed carry has the same issues and the same types of people. Everyone who carries has to understand you have a responsibility not a right. You have the responsibility to represent all of us well. You have the responsibility for the safety of everyone around you to enclude the bad guy. You have the responsibility to follow everyone wishes when it comes to your gun, if the business or person doesn't want your gun rather it's posted or not, then they don't want your business or all your carrying friends business. You have the responsibility to shut the hell up, not make a scene, and avoid confrontation when it comes to your gun. And if you can't have a meal without an alcoholic drink then you can't have a meal with your carry.

I wish everyone that is legally able and intelligent would carry a gun. But that my friends would be a perfect world.

Sol
April 29, 2013, 10:53 PM
I think the main root of this is mainly ignored. Politicians and documents don't command every single aspect of our lives every day. Think about one thing most everyone uses every day: Money.

I'll show you my reasoning.

Situation 1

Concerned citizen: "Hello, 911 there is a man with a gun"

911: "We are sending someone there now"

Police: "We got a call about MWAG, i.d. Weapon check etc. Etc.

Oc'r: "blah blah rights blah" (referenced from every YouTube video of OC'r)

Everyone goes away unscathed, OC'r post video , blogs etc.

Situation 2

CC: "MWAG"

911: "Its legal here, even though you don't see it every day, we aren't sending any units"

CC: "But, but....?"

OC'r: Goes about his day and manages not to go "Sinaloa" at the shopping center.

Situation 3 (possible but not probable)

CC: "MWAG"

911: "it's legal, we can't send anyone."

Oc'r: Kills or injures 1 or more people.

Victims families: "This could have been prevented"

Lawyer: "...I see you guys are hurt and need some help, oh this is my wife Sue."

Lawyer: (Cross examination of Police Official): "Well bud, it appears that a call was made about this individual, but apparently your department doesn't feel that a citizens concerns even merit just one officer to check...AND BECAUSE OF YOUR GROSS NEGLIGENCE, LACK OF TRAINING AND DISREGARD FOR THE COMMUNITY X AMOUNT OF PEOPLE ARE DEAD."

Police official: "We believe we made the right call and there is nothing we could have done until a crime was commited..."

Lawyer: "So if you were at work and your wife called and said a man was parading an ASSAULT RIFLE down your street, you would sit idley by and do nothing...is that what you're saying?" *tugging on the heart strings of every bleeding heart*

Civil court judge: "X amount of dollars awarded". Paid by the criminal, the city, the entities property of which it happened. A financial blow and a public shaming for all involved.

Even though most people realize having a cop check will probably not prevent anything. It's not hard to lie, "Just excercising my rights bro..."

Maybe it's not about the Constitution, BoR, liberal governments and an oppresive militaristic police force, maybe it's all just a case of CYA.

barnbwt
April 30, 2013, 01:01 AM
I get what you're saying, but

You got the professional, like most of us here, who carry our side arm in a smart holster and it is just a part of our daily carry like a cell phone. We don't draw attention to it, we aren't touching it or holding on to it. We are quiet, trained, professionals.

They make belt-holsters for cell-phones, so they're more easily accessible and don't take up room in your pockets. Here in Texas (at least) most folks outside the most urbanized areas carry a pocket knife, the clip frequently visible over the pants pocket. They don't always get used much, but they are there for the utility they give over bare fingers. In Ohio, I've gotten some funny looks for this habit, but never a MWAK call. I don't see how a gun is any different, other than a lack of public exposure and education. How many 911-callers even know open-carry is legal when they phone in these bogus tips? Are they reprimanded or punished like other frivolous callers? Heck, I'd call in a MWAG here in Texas if I saw some dude strapped with six-guns in town, but that's only because I know OC is prohibited, and that posted laws are to be obeyed.

I wouldn't go around telling non-gunnies we're "quiet, trained, professionals" either. It's bad enough they think we're evil and stupid; we don't need them thinking we're evil and competent. It's the "evil" perception that needs correcting, not their opinion on the wisdumb of our actions.

On a lighter note, what professionals don't love showing off their fancy cell phones and other toys? It's hilarious that we expect more of a right to bear a device used invariably to throw mindless drivel back and forth, than to posses a tool that may be critical to the preservation of our very lives. Methinks it isn't a fair trade...

"Its legal here, even though you don't see it every day, we aren't sending any units"

Man, I'd settle for "Is he doing anything else besides being a MWAG?" I don't think the operators even ask in these situations, and officers frequently get sent in with no idea what to expect (case in point the subject of this thread).


Maybe it's not about the Constitution, BoR, liberal governments and an oppresive militaristic police force, maybe it's all just a case of CYA.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. The problem is, stupid, unecessary CYA leads to only one logical conclusion--the abolition of all freedom. Dictators exist to C-their own-A ;)

TCB

Billy Shears
April 30, 2013, 01:20 AM
Originally posted by targshooter22

As a rule I think open carry doesn't help gun owners' political or social causes. I think it stirs the other side up and makes them all activated and inclined to act on their foolish, immature, and irrational fears.
I agree completely. I see a lot of people on this board operating on the assumption that seeing people carrying openly will "desensitize" people to open carry an gun ownership, getting them used to it, and convincing them that armed citizens are just ordinary joes. I don't think that is a good assumption, for the most part. I recently posted some letters to the editor from my local paper, where the response by one woman to an open carrier was open contempt. She described the carrier as a "pathetic loser." The letters that came in in response to hers were generally in agreement. They writers thought the open carrier was being foolish, immature, and "confrontational." That may not be the correct assumption about most gun owners, but that is the assumption non-gun owners seem to be making when they see someone carrying openly. Too many people here are making the mistake of not seeing the other person's point of view. Lots of non-gun owners wonder why we think we need guns at all. When they see someone carrying openly, they see (whether correctly or not) a mall ninja. Again, I don't think this perception is fair, but they have it, and that is the reality. It is not helpful to ignore reality.

When they see an open carrier, it doesn't say to them "this is just an ordinary guy carrying, and he's not hurting anybody, so maybe I need to rethink my position on this issue." Instead it rubs their noses in an issue they don't even think about the vast majority of the time, and elicits an emotional response, rather than a rational one -- "holy ****! That guy's got a gun!" And it doesn't matter that the open carrier isn't hurting anybody. As I said, they are thinking emotionally, not rationally. And thanks to such people, open carry got banned recently in California and Florida. California you, as the bleeding hear liberal "left coast", you could excuse as an exception, but Florida is the birthplace of "shall issue." That's a loss we can't afford to ignore.

Double Naught Spy
April 30, 2013, 08:14 AM
Open carry could be beneficial to help make the concept more common to the general populace, but as noted, it probably won't work that way very well, certainly not by some of the in-your-face attitudes shown by some open carriers.

If Grisham and others thinks that Grisham was standing up for his rights by arguing with the cops as he did was a good and patriotic thing to do to make a statement of some sort, then they are all basically wrong. He wanted to debate the law with the officers. Now I don't know about the rest of you, but from the various busts I have seen, debating such law by the arrestees is usually met with indifference, placation, sarcasm, sometimes arguing back, etc. by the arresting officers. The officers never turn them loose, especially when told they don't understand the law.

Grisham is military intel. He knows how the process works. He knows you don't argue with the MP or a private about the tasks they are undertaking. You address concerns to the higher authority that applies that oversees the frontline functionaries enforcing the laws (be they . He also knows that people don't talk themselves out of getting arrested.

Instead, he very well may have been able to exercise his right to remain silent, keep the attitude in check, go through the proper legal process, hopefully be found completely innocent of any problem, and have a court decision behind him to bolster open carry.

You don't argue with the cops about what you think is the legality or the constitutionality of a given law. It might make for a good show on a Youtube video, but if found guilty of any of the charges, then Grisham just looks like another angry person not willing to operate within the law to open carry. That does NOT benefit anybody supporting our cause.

As for the comments about cougars, Temple is within the range for cougars and cougars have been found in nearby counties. However, if truly concern for their safety was such a big deal from such a low level threat, I would have expected Grisham and his boy to be wearing all sorts of other safety gear for their protection. The AR15 wasn't going to make them high vis. to help them keep from being hit by cars...a much more realistic threat about which one should have concerns when walking down the road.

SuperNaut
April 30, 2013, 11:46 AM
Grisham is military intel. He knows how the process works. He knows you don't argue with the MP or a private about the tasks they are undertaking. You address concerns to the higher authority that applies that oversees the frontline functionaries enforcing the laws (be they . He also knows that people don't talk themselves out of getting arrested.

Instead, he very well may have been able to exercise his right to remain silent, keep the attitude in check, go through the proper legal process, hopefully be found completely innocent of any problem, and have a court decision behind him to bolster open carry.

You don't argue with the cops about what you think is the legality or the constitutionality of a given law. It might make for a good show on a Youtube video, but if found guilty of any of the charges, then Grisham just looks like another angry person not willing to operate within the law to open carry. That does NOT benefit anybody supporting our cause.


I've made my feelings clear on Political OC, but I think that it was obviously entirely for the camera. If his goal was to "make a statement" then he reached his goal.

Not saying I like it, just saying...

Averageman
April 30, 2013, 06:19 PM
I can't help but find it ironic that so many of you are so deeply concerned about what others think about your RKBA.
At what point you either decide to or not to OC should be your right as long as all laws about your actions with the weapon are in the clear.
There are many people out there that are offended just because you own a legal weapon, you aren't going to "win them over" my continuing to compromise your rights and perhaps your safety in order for them to feel good.
I would think that if our history of the last 50 years in America has shown us anything it is that the only way to win acceptance is to exersize the rights you want to keep and be very hard on those who wish to take them.

If you enjoyed reading about "In re: "Army vet disarmed of his AR and 1911 by cop"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!