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.
Funny! 
