Chipotle vs Tools for Dissent

[conw]

I think the time spent OC'ing around town would be better spent at the polls, or constructively educating people about the subject.
If you have the time to get in full battle rattle and march around town, then you probably have time to lock up your weapon, look presentable, and go out and engage people in conversation about the cause.
"Do nothing activism" as I call it, is being practiced everywhere these days by every faction. Hashtags don't translate to votes, "likes" don't either

Slacktivism.

 

[hso]

2A posuers like the Chipotle attention hounds aren't OCing, they're making a scene and need a swift dope slap and a stern lecture about undermining the efforts to restore and preserve the 2A. Such grand standing behavior helps no one except the Antis and makes Us look like irresponsible idiots (playing right into the hands of the Antis).

 

[Atom Smasher]

hso, I think that's the most significant point that needs to be made. Regardless of your stance on open carry, and whether you support the right to carry long guns or pistols wherever OC is legal, this behavior is not conducive to getting people to understand why we are passionate about 2A rights. It makes all gun owners seem like crazy people.

Together, this board and everyone who wants more progressive steps concerning gun regulation, need to realize that killing with kindness and understanding will be better for our cause than "activism" like this.

 

[HexHead]

Exactly. Did Grimace and his surfer-dood sidekick not think that anti-gun groups would be on the lookout for opportunities to defame all gun owners by association?

To be honest, I doubt they put that much thought into it.

 

[HexHead]

Too true.

We tend to vilify that which we don't understand or that which our opponents use for effectively than we do.

Just curious, how many of you criticizing my position actually have Twitter and Facebook accounts?

 

[leadaddict]

I can only speak for myself, but I have both. Probably half of what I use facebook for is to keep up on firearms and firearms related issues. I don't think anyone would argue with you that anti's and others have used social media effectively in their fight against us. But our reaction shouldn't be to see that as the death of us all; instead, it should (and has) motivated us to continue to use social media to our advantage.

 

[Dain Bramage]

OK, I haven't been through all five pages of this, but can anyone tell me if the police were, or were not, called to that restaurant because of those idiots?

That is a good point. What Shortbus in the picture is doing would be considered "brandishing" in my state, and he could be arrested. It's further delineation of the subject that reasonable (I know, I hate that word, but "average" sounds like an insult) THR members can be against a borderline illegal act and still support legal OC.

 

[Sam1911]

Just curious, how many of you criticizing my position actually have Twitter and Facebook accounts?

How does it matter?

 

[HexHead]

You referred to social media.

Social media are just the latest way in which information is transmitted.

THR is a social medium.

"Social media" is generally referred to for sites like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and Pinterest. Not to mainstream websites.

 

[ATLDave]

To be honest, I doubt they put that much thought into it.

!!!! That would be so crazy that it might be grounds for a finding of mental incompetency! If you're going to be engaged in activism on a controversial subject, obviously your actions will be scrutinized by those who have differing views.

 

[wojownik]

I conceal carry by and large, and occasionally open carry. I generally have seen good examples being set by most folks I've encountered that OC.

Some months ago my wife and I were at a restaurant, and the couple seated near to us were OC (at least the husband was). I guess I was gawking at his 1911 a bit too much, as his wife said, "honey, I think you're just making people uncomfortable". I leaned over politely and apologized for gawking at his firearm, and asked if that was a Nighthawk 1911. He grinned proudly as a papa, and we chatted a bit until our wives both gave us the "ahem" to pay attention to our own tables. Anyway, this was a friendly normal encounter among friendly normal people. The waiter (who overheard) even asked if he was wearing some kind of special pistol - when I told him how much it cost, the waiter paused and said "I'm not much of a gun person, but if I paid that much on a gun I'd sure have to wear it around too!"

Back to the OP, this brand of "activism" does not do much good for a constructive and educated 2A discussion in general. They harmed (or at least alarmed) a business that otherwise would have just stayed neutral in the discussion. Lord knows how many patrons they alarmed.

This was less an exercise in protest or civil disobedience, that it was inconsiderate, boorish and potentially dangerous behavior.

Opinions may vary - and I do not profess to know Texas law - but the character on the right of the picture that's been circulating certainly looks to be "brandishing" by my states' definition (hands holding the pistol grip and forearm, trigger finger off the trigger, but at the ready ... ), If I were a patron at this restaurant, my radar would have been way, way up for the possibility of at least an ND by that guy. Holster it, sling it, just get your d*mn hands off if it.

All these guys did was to raise the question of whether they have the understanding and maturity to exercise their rights ... they have some growing up to do.

 

[Joe Demko]

"Social media" is generally referred to for sites like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and Pinterest. Not to mainstream websites.

Let's stipulate that social media are a danger to this country. I am still waiting to hear your solution to the problem.

From my POV, social media have this much in common with guns: They are neither good nor bad. Or rather, they are only as good or bad as the person using them. I guess, like guns, we could also note that they cannot be uninvented.

 

[GEM]

The incident is already being used to tar decent pro-gun activitsts like the police chief of Detroit.

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/22/detroits-police-chief-stands-his-ground/?ref=opinion

Even so, the last thing that hard pressed city needs right now, with its wasteland tracts of abandoned neighborhoods, is to become a magnet for gun enthusiasts flaunting their weapons, however legally.

As far as the posture of the little one - of course, he is brandishing and enjoying it. Let's say you were in the movie theater and as you being seated, a person carrying in that position enters. A noble activist or Holmes II at Aurora?

If you were with your kids? Stand up and say Hip, Hip, Hurrah for the RKBA or being ready and on the way to shoot him DRT?

 

[HexHead]

Let's stipulate that social media are a danger to this country. I am still waiting to hear your solution to the problem.

From my POV, social media have this much in common with guns: They are neither good nor bad. Or rather, they are only as good or bad as the person using them. I guess, like guns, we could also note that they cannot be uninvented.

Let's just say I'm lamenting the state of society and leave it at that.

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by HexHead: "Social media" is generally referred to for sites like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and Pinterest. Not to mainstream websites.

Internet fora are indeed "social media". Whether most people include them when they refer to social media is irrelevant to the discussion.

The advent of those media have spelled the demise not of the country but of a myriad of other media. Many newspapers and magazines are gone with the wind. Have you picked up a skinny little American Rifleman magazine recently? When is the last time you saw The Saturday Evening Post? While years ago we went to the sore to buy publications containing articles by our favorite writers, they now post on blogs, Twitter, and Facebook. One whom I still refer to with the title "Sheriff" puts some neat stuff on Facebook, and you can bet your boots that if he were still with us, Skeeter Skelton would too. One major firearms personality was among the first out of the gate criticizing these Texas goofballs--using Twitter.

Businesses who do not employ social media cannot expect to survive today. Nor can most of us go about our daily affairs efficiently without them.

It is not the world of social media that has influenced public option, any more than it was the printing press that led to the Reformation, the writings of Tom Paine that led to the American Revolution, the Hearst newspapers that got us into a war with Spain. These were just the media. What influences people are thoughts and information.

It's just that the speed of dissemination has become steadily faster, with the advent of the telegraph, the trans-Atlantic cable, the telephone, radio, television, the Internet, and now, mobile connectivity.

 

[Joe Demko]

Let's just say I'm lamenting the state of society and leave it at that.

Nobody will ever write a song like this about you if lamentations are all you offer:

He's a really useful engine, you know

All the other engines they'll tell you so

He huffs and puffs and whistles

Rushing to and fro

He's the really useful engine we adore!

 

[conw]

Just curious, how many of you criticizing my position actually have Twitter and Facebook accounts?

Dood, could you do me/us a favor and please not derail this by talking about how you hate social media (which by all definitions includes internet forums ). This kind of stuff gets threads closed.

I respect your opinion and I'm sure there could be an interesting discussion, but that's probably for a different site. Thanks.

Back on topic I do have a question for anyone who feels that way about Facebook and Twitter: how else do you propose we counter messages from our political opponents on those media? Are you saying it's a lost cause altogether and we should abandon the battle on that front? Seems pretty pessimistic.

 

[TennJed]

Now, setting that absurdity aside, what you are ignoring, or ignorant of, is that these things are merely tools, just as the internet is a tool, for connecting people and getting messages out.

That is a very good point.

Hexhead, do you believe guns are dangerous or are they just tools?

If you believe social media "will be the death of the country" you have the same mindset as antigunners

 

[NavyLCDR]

Or maybe people are exercising self-control and thereby preserving their legal rights. And doing so with an understanding that gun rights are currently a topic of public discourse in America and that we need more friends, not fewer. We need to be perceived as calmer and more sane than the stereotype of a gun owner, not more impulsive and confrontational.

Preserving a legal right by choosing to not exercise that right out of fear of losing the legal right to do it??? Interesting concept. That might not be your intended message, but that was the mentality that I was posting about which you replied to.

I'll say it again: Being rude is rarely an effective advocacy technique.

We are discussing two entirely different reasons for not engaging in a behavior.

1. Not engaging in a behavior specifically due to the reason that if you engange in that behavior then "they" will make it illegal and we don't want it to be illegal so don't do it while it is legal. I can't support that one at all, at any level.

2. Not engaging in a behavior due to the reason that it will likely do more harm than good in achieving the set goal. To me that is a personal choice and I won't find fault with anyone who chooses not to participate in an action for that reason. I am not condoning the actions of the two men carrying the rifles - but at the same time I am also of the opinion that vehement and loud disapproval of their actions by the pro-gun side is also doing more harm then good to achieve the set goal of broadening acceptance of 2A rights and loosening restrictions upon that right.

 

[JRH6856]

"Social media" is generally referred to for sites like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and Pinterest. Not to mainstream websites.

Considering the number of users that frequent those sites compared to THR, it would appear that they are the "mainstream."

FWIW, I'm on FaceBook, LinkedIn and Google+. And FWIW, I have been online using whatever social medium was available at the time since 1984.

If social media is part of the Chipotle problem, remember that it works both ways. Delcampo posted the pic on FB which is how the Bloomies became aware of it. If they had posted a pic of themselves eating burritos with their rifles slung, and looking non-threatening, and no one in the place paying them any attention, there might have been a different reaction.

 

[TennJed]

Preserving a legal right by choosing to not exercise that right out of fear of losing the legal right to do it??? Interesting concept. That might be your intended message, but that was the mentality that I was posting about which you replied to.



We are discussing two entirely different reasons for not engaging in a behavior.

1. Not engaging in a behavior specifically due to the reason that if you engange in that behavior then "they" will make it illegal and we don't want it to be illegal so don't do it while it is legal. I can't support that one at all, at any level.

2. Not engaging in a behavior due to the reason that it will likely do more harm than good in achieving the set goal. To me that is a personal choice and I won't find fault with anyone who chooses not to participate in an action for that reason. I am not condoning the actions of the two men carrying the rifles - but at the same time I am also of the opinion that vehement and loud disapproval of their actions by the pro-gun side is also doing more harm then good to achieve the set goal of broadening acceptance of 2A rights and loosening restrictions upon that right.

So you stated before that it does no good to criticize the people carrying long guns in Chipolte

Then you repeat that absurd concept that "a right not exercised is a right lost"

I assume you are ok with giving up personal right to free speech




** see how absurd that "right not exercised is a right lost" idea is

 

[Fred Fuller]

For those decrying the uses of the Internet at large and the "social media" in particular, please let me offer a small history lesson.

It was called NOBAN, and it was a listserv. Only other oldpharts like me will remember listservs. It's what we had before we had places like THR.

We don't usually paste stuff here, for various reasons, but I'm going to do it in this case because more people will read it if it's put in front of them than if it's offered as a link.

So please read the following, and recall that the Internet is older than the WWW, and there were people out there in the electronic trenches long before now... I use this example because it's the best I know of, because I used to be on NOBAN too. While I didn't know Jim personally, We did correspond and spend time on the phone as well as on the list.
======================================

http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle1998/le36-19980201-07.html

THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE
Number 36, February 1, 1998


Jim Bohan: A Personal Remembrance

By L. Neil Smith
[email protected]

Exclusive to The Libertarian Enterprise

The Old Blue Howler is dead.

James Frederick Bohan of Yoakum, Texas, passed away Thursday, Jan. 29, at his computer keyboard of a heart attack. He was 52 years old.

Many people knew Jim Bohan (pronounced as if it were written "Bowen") by the "handle" that appeared in one form or another in his various e-mail addresses: "Lobo Azul", or "Blue Wolf". He was a singularly valuable individual, a valiant freedom fighter, and a great man who will be sorely missed, both as a public figure and a personal friend.

For my family, for me and my wife Cathy and my daughter Rylla, this is a bitterly painful loss. Jim was one of those colorful, larger-than-life personalities of whom there are all too few in the pitiable weenieocracy that America has become. As Robert Heinlein advised us all, Jim took "big bites" of life and knew without having been told that anything worth doing is worth overdoing. He was a true son of the Texas prairie who reflexively displayed that "you paid for the drinks, I'll pay for the Cadillacs" attitude that Heinlein described.

Although we often disagreed on strategy and tactics -- my recent suggestion that libertarian candidates "pick off the stragglers" among Republican office holders who were elected by a 5% margin or less made him pretty mad at me -- one principle we never disagreed about was the central political importance of the individual right to own and carry weapons.

We didn't know Jim well in some ways -- I had to get his age and middle name from his aunt, who called me with the terrible news -- but he and I liked each other from the outset of our acquaintance several years ago and respected one another as professionals. He took an immediate shine to my womenfolk when he met them at a Second Amendment leadership conference in Denver and never failed to ask about them afterward.

No more will we swap insults, jokes, and other messages over what, to a large degree, was home to both of us, the internet. No more will I have what almost amounted to real-time conversations with him, notes back and forth for hours at a time as each of us tended to his other e-mail. No more will we have the long telephone conversations that both of us used to enjoy and that became more frequent last year when I was offline for so long owing to the flood. Whenever I went too long without sending e-mail, he always called to see if we were all right.

As I say, the loss was bitter and personal. But there's another aspect to it. Jim was a pivotal participant in DeFoley8, the effort that set an historical precedent by successfully deposing then House Speaker Tom Foley as punishment for that politician's turnabout on victim disarmament. He went on to be a cofounder of NOBAN -- a mailing list on the internet grimly dedicated to repeal of the Clinton and Brady gun laws -- which he was proud to say amounted to the largest, most powerful, and diverse political coalition ever put together.

Jim was one of those background movers-and-shakers no historian ever makes an adequate accounting of, important and well respected in the highest councils of the Republican Party and the National Rifle Association, both of which he served energetically in many ways, especially as a grass-roots conduit to those organizations, both of which have lost touch with their constituencies and reality itself. I knew if I wanted NRA leadership, or even key Republicans, to be aware of something I said, I could tell Jim and sooner or later they'd hear it.

An established master of the gruff, curmudgeonly, marshmallow- centered style of charm, he genuinely had little patience for fools. He didn't have much use for libertarians, either, having been put off by some of our liberaloid type in southern California, and I was never able to convince him that I am more typical of the breed than they are.

Jim regarded himself as a practical man. He was remarkable in that he maintained amiable relations with leaders of the GOP and the NRA (all of whose foibles and limitations he had no illusion about -- any more than he had illusions about mine), and at the same time remained in touch with rugged individualists like me, a libertarian disgusted with both groups, yet never gave up a micron of his own hard-edged principles. His low voice and soft Texas accent made an interesting and effective counterpoint to his imposing physical appearance.

In addition to his other accomplishments, Jim was a cattle man, running a spread that has been in his family for generations, and an oil man, as well. He wrote novels that have been compared with the works of Elmore Leonard and Quentin Tarrantino, but which are so forthright and true to reality that he was still trying to sell them, with the help of a New York agent, at the time of his death. He also wrote screenplays, the option money for one of which, he said, kept his ranch afloat during the long Texas drought of a few years back. He even had an acting credit, having appeared briefly in American Grafitti.

He meant to write an investigative book dealing with corruption in high places that should have been exposed long ago, but I never learned how far he got. The undertaking would have been very, very dangerous.

Jim was one of a kind, a man who can never be replaced. The Republican Party and National Rifle Association have a long, long way to go before they're worthy of the love and loyalty he lavished on them.

And I will miss him terribly.

L. Neil Smith is the publisher of The Libertarian Enterprise

 

[conw]

Not engaging in a behavior specifically due to the reason that if you engange in that behavior then "they" will make it illegal and we don't want it to be illegal so don't do it while it is legal. I can't support that one at all, at any level.

That's a false dichotomy. Very few people say don't do it at all. They point to specific instances where it's caused demonstrable harm. They urge avoiding repeating these instances.

The premise that the primary way a right is preserved is simply by exercising it is also unsubstantiated.

Please demonstrate that doing so is either necessary or sufficient, I'll take one or the other even though I'm hearing it is both.


As has been stated several other things are at least as important and ultimately (in the sense of actually preserving a right that may be in jeopardy) perhaps more important, namely

-shifting public opinion through rhetoric, persuasion, proper messaging, and related techniques, many of them evident in our daily lives in the way companies and organizations are able to influence others through use of well thought out strategies (this is the complicated part where we all work together and really put thought into messaging; frank discussed this beautifully on the first or second page).

-winning hearts and minds: not alienating fence sitters or creating enemies, not giving opponents easy targets to deliver an effective attack, giving people who aren't sure reason to sympathize with us and perhaps eventually come partway around even if they never fully "convert," etc. (this is more of an individual consideration, what some people might refer to some as common sense; of it basically Dale Carnegie stuff, a way of conducting oneself that is compatible with the aims of the group)

2. Not engaging in a behavior due to the reason that it will likely do more harm than good in achieving the set goal. To me that is a personal choice and I won't find fault with anyone who chooses not to participate in an action for that reason. I am not condoning the actions of the two men carrying the rifles - but at the same time I am also of the opinion that vehement and loud disapproval of their actions by the pro-gun side is also doing more harm then good to achieve the set goal of broadening acceptance of 2A rights and loosening restrictions upon that right.

So we agree there's a winning outcome and a losing outcome, and the fight isn't over.

What is surprising to me is that you have a philosophical issue with people who attempt to persuade others to use a strategy that they feel, with good reason, is the winning one, even if it involves eating a frog or two.

If you could see into the future and it could be proven to you that over the next 15-30 years, alienating the public and allowing ourselves to be stereotyped negatively lost us the war for 2A rights, would you be willing to reconsider, or is it simply not worth budging and temporarily swallowing the desire to do what you feel like since it's your right? I'm genuinely curious.

BTW, if you choose to answer the question please temporarily accept the premise for discussion about looking into the future. I'm not trying to get you to concede anything, I'm genuinely curious.

--

No need to respond to what follows but in case you didn't read it before want to post an example that I think illustrate some of the problems with your assertions, if we are focused on the end rather than the means as being primary.

This is from a user who posted a brilliant analogy in another thread, which I'm stealing and using. quoted below.

I would like to make a comparison here. Severely anti second amendment people (Boxer, Biden, Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, etc), have done more to further gun ownership in America than the NRA over the last few years. Their loud and frenetic calls for "Common sense" gun laws, have panicked people into getting guns and getting involved for the fear of losing the right.

I would compare these fellows to the folks on the left. They create more fear against gun ownership than Al Gore at a million mother march. They damage our cause more than those who are organized against us.

Say what you will, justify it how you will but it is ridiculous behavior and causes horrible damage to our image (Those who support 2A rights).

 

[Kleanbore]

Posted by NavyLCDR: We are discussing two entirely different reasons for not engaging in a behavior.

1. Not engaging in a behavior specifically due to the reason that if you engange in that behavior then "they" will make it illegal and we don't want it to be illegal so don't do it while it is legal. I can't support that one at all, at any level.

2. Not engaging in a behavior due to the reason that it will likely do more harm than good in achieving the set goal. To me that is a personal choice and I won't find fault with anyone who chooses not to participate in an action for that reason. I am not condoning the actions of the two men carrying the rifles - but at the same time I am also of the opinion that vehement and loud disapproval of their actions by the pro-gun side is also doing more harm then good to achieve the set goal of broadening acceptance of 2A rights and loosening restrictions upon that right.

I do not see how the first one enters into the picture here.

Regarding the second, this case is not about 2A rights at all. The question about laws and regulations has not entered into the equation--yet.

The issue is about actions that have caused a property owner to exercise its rights in a manner that would not have happened but for the stimulus provided by these rude, imprudent exhibitionists.

Harm than good? "Pro-gun side"? If reasonable discussion by reasonable people should, through negative reinforcement or education or any other means, prevent a repetition of this unfortunate incident, I think it will be a good thing.

 

[NavyLCDR]

So you stated before that it does no good to criticize the people carrying long guns in Chipolte

I didn't say that. What I said was that I feel it does more harm than good.

Then you repeat that absurd concept that "a right not exercised is a right lost"

I certainly cannot repeat something I never said to begin with. What I said was, that to me, making the decision to not engange in a legal behavior due to the sole reason of that behavior becoming illegal if the person engages in it is absurd.

I assume you are ok with giving up personal right to free speech

Whatever rights you want to give up is your decision and up to you. Just don't expect me to give them too. And, in some cases, I might not particularly care how much you feel that the exercise of my right is doing more harm than good.

** see how absurd that "right not exercised is a right lost" idea is

I was never discussing "a right not exercised is a right lost". You seem to have a particular grievance against that concept. Again, try to read carefully this time:

Using the sole reason of fear of losing a right to do something as the basis for the decision to not do it is an absurd idea to me. I open carry a holstered pistol 95% of the time when I am not in uniform because I feel that it does more good openly carried than concealed. There are a few times when I conceal because I might feel that it does more harm than good to open carry.

Whenever the debate about guns in parks comes up, do I conceal my gun when I go to the park out of fear the anti-s will point to me and say, "SEE! LOOK! He has a gun in the park! That's why we need to make it illegal!" Absolutely not. Because what the anti-s will be pointing at is a person who is acting just like everyone else is acting, engaging in some activity with my wife and daughter in the park, and the only difference is that my gun is in a holster on my belt with my shirt tucked in behind it rather than under my shirt.

My wife has long time friends who are uncomfortable around guns. If we are going to their house or out in public with them, do I conceal my gun? Yes. Because I feel that it would do more harm to our relationship to open carry than the benefits I lose by concealing the gun for the 2 or 3 hours we are with them.