Is this good or bad? I think Bad...

[Southern Rebel]

Tolerance is a level of acceptance. That's the point.

It's laughable to think that the change in acceptance is the result of religion or lack of religion. It has nothing to do with religion. It's a result of a deliberate, and very well thought out, campaign of normalization on the part of a minority group. Read up on "silence=death" and similar efforts if you want to know the truth.

Ed, if you insist on that train of thought, then I predict that it will just be a few short years before rape is an accepted practice. After all, the practice of that action has certainly increased over the years. This must mean that it is gradually gaining a measure of tolerance among the female population and the more we encourage the natural rights of the male population to procreate the quicker that the "minority group" of males that practice it will gain acceptance for their actions.

On the other hand, it could just be that the fear factor against this act is more related to the fear factor of generalized aggressive attacks. Hmmmm - maybe this is where the radical gun-haters get the idea that gun possession has something to do with phallic representation.

I still maintain that it is indeed even more laughable that you overcome inborn fears by ratcheting up the very behaviors that invoke the activation of that fear. If anything, the fear of rape by the female population has caused a ratcheting DOWN of aggressive male behavior by the use of laws that make that aggressive behavior fall in the category of a crime in the workplace known as sexual harrassment.

Can you not see that fear (a natural emotion in mankind) is not generally overcome by aggressive behavior, but is more responsive to persuasive discussion and data to back up that discussion that their fears are unfounded. I sorta hate to admit it, but even I would feel the hairs on the back of my neck rise up if I where walking the park trails with my granddaughters and encountered a guy carrying a shortened version of an AK-47 and I only had my meager SIG 357 caliber. Maybe I would feel a little more evenly matched if I happened to be carrying my PLR -16 with the large-capacity round magazine.

But continue on with your cutting edge demonstration of your "gun rights" and you will lose most of the support of the uncommitted group in the middle along with an undetermined number of current gun rights supporters. Even I, as strongly as I feel about gun rights, would support limits on magazine capacity and gun type rather than to succumb to the types of behavior of the individual in question becoming the norm. Besides, I have an easy way out - having been a generous contributor to conservative candidates, I have been approached by some of my liberal friends to switch my financial and political support to their side and I would be assured that a way would be found for me to carry legally if and when the right became a very limited priviledge as it had been in Tennessee for so many years.

If I have learned nothing else about life, one unchanging fact is that we all have to live with the results of our decisions, whether it involves a political vote or the practicing of our rights as we perceive them.

 

[fatelk]

You might have missed my point slightly.

I didn't miss it, it WAS exactly my point as to why we're further down the slippery slope than we think we are.

You did not feel safe, because in your words, "I'm not going to be around an unstable person with a loaded gun."

I understand that you're saying that I should not feel threatened, and in a perfect world, I probably wouldn't be. I'm saying that if I were with the family and a guy walks by dressed like that with a gun like that strapped across his back, I would assume:

• he's probably a nut looking for attention (again, no problem with the AK, but carrying something like that in public like that is really looking for attention)- probably harmless
• there's a slight chance he could be unstable or have nefarious intent, in which case I take no chances with my family.

I simply have to assume, based mostly on the fact that he's displaying a firearm deliberately intended to provoke serious attention from law enforcement, that he MAY be unstable. I've lived long enough to know that people who do bizarre things are more likely to be unstable than the average person. Right or wrong, this is simply the judgment that I would make for my family's safety.

I would not base this concern on whether the gun was loaded or not, or even that it's a "scary" gun. The concern would come simply from the bizarre behavior, in this case openly carrying a gun that's pretty much guaranteed to get him the LE attention that he got (again, not a right or wrong judgment, just reality).

I would exercise the same judgment when around anyone exhibiting unusual or intoxicated behavior with any firearms or motor vehicles.

For a real-world example, look at homosexuality. Over your lifespan homosexuality has gone from commonplace but illegal to commonplace and generally socially accepted. What changed? Not homosexual behavior...the perception of that behavior. It is now normal instead of deviant. How? People were exposed to it.

I disagree. This particular change has taken decades of serious campaigning by many very powerful forces in media, academia, and Hollywood. It is The Cause among the liberal elite. And believe it or not, there is still a very significant percentage of the population that views it as deviant. I'm not judging (that would be taboo here), just stating fact.
I doubt that we'll ever see that level of support from those forces for RKBA.

 

[QuietEarp]

I am imagining meeting this guy walking down a hiking trail and I could imagine him making me quite nervous in his cammo with his gun (the orange paint is confusing as well). I mean it would depend greatly on his behavior, but I could see him acting quite sketchy. All of a sudden I am in a heightened sense of alert. Now I am thinking about my weapon's readiness as he has his in front of him on a sling, and I have no idea what the heck he is up to. He doesn't appear to be in a defensive mode. Basically he is inciting a fight or flight response in me because of his unpredictable and unique behavior.

Is he within his rights, yes.
Is it smart, no.

I believe that we have both rights and a culture of responsible gun ownership here in the USA. This guy is violating the commonly agreed upon behavior of our gun owning culture. This makes him a wild card with a gun. Common sense and gun safety says "stay away."

I could point my loaded gun at all sorts of inappropriate stuff and it may be legal, yet I do not do so. I also don't go on the news acting like a jackass and argue my right to be an idiot.

So I guess I will stay far away from people like this. I think I am agreeing with fatelk's analysis.

This is one of the more interesting threads I have seen in a while though. At least he got us talking.

 

[Ed Ames]

Ed, if you insist on that train of thought, then I predict that it will just be a few short years before rape is an accepted practice.

LOL...what planet are you on? Rape has been on the decline since forever. Go back just a few hundred years and it was an accepted part of warfare just about everywhere. Today it's a very marginal...very deviant...behavior. And guess what... because it's more rare, it's also a more active fear, and the penalties ratchet higher. Exactly as predicted by sociology. Funny how that works.

If you are going to try to draw ludicrous conclusions from accepted science, you might want to think through the science and make sure it's the conclusions, and not your statements, which are ludicrous.

Let's stretch this out...

Familiar (normal) = accepted, unfamiliar (deviant) = feared (or attacked). You are a LOT more likely to die in a car accident than from violent crime. Yet people happily get into cars and 18% of them refuse to wear a seat belt even though they are required by law to do so. Despite the risk they have no fear of driving...and they drive an average of 36 miles a day. People have fear of violent crime... and a major fear of people going on shooting sprees...even though such occurrences so vanishingly rare that most people have never experienced them. Despite the lack of risk they have a great fear of being shot...and the average person doesn't know anyone who has ever been shot at. Interestingly, people who live in a war zone very quickly lose their fear of being shot even in places with active snipers and the like... they go shopping even knowing there may be an enemy with a gun, because it's a known and familiar risk, like being hit by a car. See a pattern?

Of course "even" you would be fearful of someone exhibiting what you perceive as deviant behavior (shortened version of an AK-47 in public) ... you are human, you behave predictably. That's exactly my point. It's unfamiliar, therefore scary, therefore you react negatively.

The trick is to identify the problem so you can properly formulate a solution. The problem is that it's unfamiliar and therefore scary. The solution?

Someone once said: "The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group for for all groups."

Same holds here... the art of analyzing the results of any policy, including gun policies, consists in looking beyond the immediate effect. Your analysis goes down one level... "Fear will cause an immediate backlash." Your solution is to attack the source of that fear, thinking it is your enemy. That's fine as far as it goes but if you think about it a little longer you'll see the problem...by censoring, by trying to stay under the radar, you are decreasing public familiarity...which means increasing public fear. By trying to keep a low profile, you amplify the fear that is causing you to want to keep a low profile.

You can't win on that path. The quieter you are, the more deviant your behavior will be, and the more it will scare people when they see it, and the quieter you'll have to be. Which brings us back around to silence=death.

I disagree. This particular change has taken decades of serious campaigning by many very powerful forces in media, academia, and Hollywood.

Umm... do you disagree? Think about what you said.... you disagree that homosexuality has transitioned from just about universally derided as deviant to generally tolerated because of a concerted effort to expose people to homosexual behavior through media and education.... because it has taken decades of powerful campaigning by media and academia?????? Your "disagree" shares a lot with my "agree".

As for whether we have access to the same resources... it's all a matter of changing individual minds. The right individual minds. Which we won't do by staying quiet and never challenging anyone.

 

[kwelz]

I haven't read through every reply (sorry) but if this is the guy I am thinking of he is an idiot. He paints the tips of his guns orange so police will think it is a toy. He has been banned from just about every firearms forum out there and is quickly becoming as bad as gunkid.

 

[Isher]

Dang -

I mounted a nice old French needle bayonet to

My baseball bat the other day, went down to the field,

And nobody wanted to play with me.................

Get a clue.

Society, however we curse it,

Generally recognizes idiots of the bad persuasion.


isher

 

[Gungnir]

I am imagining meeting this guy walking down a hiking trail and I could imagine him making me quite nervous in his cammo with his gun (the orange paint is confusing as well). I mean it would depend greatly on his behavior, but I could see him acting quite sketchy. All of a sudden I am in a heightened sense of alert. Now I am thinking about my weapon's readiness as he has his in front of him on a sling, and I have no idea what the heck he is up to. He doesn't appear to be in a defensive mode. Basically he is inciting a fight or flight response in me because of his unpredictable and unique behavior.

And with that I rest my case.

Sam Clemens, who visited Bodie and who spent some time in Aurora working as a miner and writing for the Esmeralda Star, said that he had never had occasion to kill anybody with the Colt Navy revolver he carried, but he had "worn the thing in deference to popular sentiment, and in order that I might not, by its absence, be offensively conspicuous, and a subject of remark."

So do you think that back in Aurora when Mark Twain was writing for the local Newspaper, this behavior would be seen as deviant, clearly not, since he explicitly says he wore a Colt Navy so as not to be "offensively conspicuous", at the end of the 19th century. Yet a little over 100 years later this behavior is seen to be so. What's more seen to be so by gun owners.

I think the question we all need to ask ourselves is why?

I think me and Ed Ames are arguing the same point from different directions... Just realized that.

 

[ganymede]

Ed, southern, it's a pleasure to have you both on this website, you both make such good arguments without the conversation getting out of hand.

 

[Southern Rebel]

LOL...what planet are you on? Rape has been on the decline since forever. Go back just a few hundred years and it was an accepted part of warfare just about everywhere. Today it's a very marginal...very deviant...behavior. And guess what... because it's more rare, it's also a more active fear, and the penalties ratchet higher. Exactly as predicted by sociology. Funny how that works.

Actually Ed, I live in the area of Tennessee where your friend made his now celebrated display of his rights. If you were to review the TGO forum of gunowners in this state, you would find that the opposition to his actions is pretty much united within this group.

As far as your delusionary belief that rape has decreased, I have a family tree in Tennessee that goes back over a several generations. I can assure you that your statement for this area is quite untrue. As to it's practice during times of war, I don't think that is any more relevant to the discussion than the gun laws in those areas of war in your world.

As our discussion seems to be edging toward sarcasm as opposed to discussion, I will end my part of it with this thought:

This incident happened im my area and was not condoned in my area. My gun rights in my state are far more important to me than any thoughts that you may have. You can welcome him to your area if you so desire. But your encouragement of childish behavior bordering on the elementary schoolyard level of "I can do whatever I want" is not helpful to our struggle in Tennesse for reasonable gun rights. (I am sure you have heard the term, "reasonable", in the other side's gun control efforts may times over). Whether you like that term or not, it resonates very loudly to the middle group when presented to them after incidents such as your friend's.

As Andy Taylor of Mayberry would say, "I done 10-4rd ya, so our conversation is finished". Have a good day and I wish you well in your state to secure reasonable gun rights. whatever that term may mean.

 

[Artiz]

The whole point of it is that it's LEGAL. Who cares if it scares soccer moms, who cares if the police is scared, you have RIGHTS, and these rights shall not be taken away.

The one who takes them away should get shot, really.

 

[ruger700]

This is a true case of "it is legal" but STUPID. It sounds like he has an image problem and is trying to make up for his shortcoming by doing something "Ridiculously STUPID". Had he gone with the weapon; he was afraid no one would notice him. This is a sad case of someone doing more harm than good.

Is it possible - this guy is an anti-gunner and used this incident to bring bad news to guns and responsible gun owners.

 

[Ed Ames]

Southern.... I don't know or care about this guy. He ain't my friend and I'm not supporting him. I am trying to explain why your attacking him is counterproductive to your claimed goals.

You say your gun rights are important to you. Good. Problem: The rest of what you are saying is actively harmful to your gun rights in your state. Your words are eroding your rights, giving ammunition to people who would take those rights away.

I'm not surprised that people are united in opposition to this guy's actions. Does that mean they are right? Does their united opposition actually help the RKBA? Or is it short sighted? You assume it's right, mainly because you are on that particular bandwagon too. I shouldn't have to tell you, though, bandwagons rarely travel in the right direction. They usually follow the most primitive mob impulses...and primitive mob impulses are, as a rule, embarrassingly wrong.

That bandwagon is going towards increased restrictions on this marginal and deviant behavior...and, guess what...if the behavior is restricted, it will be even less common, which will make it more deviant, which will raise the fear when it happens again... AND, very importantly, most people don't differentiate types of gun as finely as you do. So next time it'll be a guy with a 1911 or a model 10 that is visible for a few seconds due to a wardrobe malfunction.

The only way to get through these situations without harming your rights is to make them seem more normal. Rather than saying, "in a park? with an orange tip? OMG that's insane!!!!" you might say, "Why is it a big deal? He was in a public place where he had a right to be, he didn't hurt or threaten anyone, I'd say people need to calm down...and, by the way, what does it matter how his gun was painted, exactly? The whole orange tip for toys idea was inane...anyone with spraypaint can duplicate or mask it at will, and that was obvious even before the law was passed, so the law couldn't possibly fulfill it's stated mission of reducing the chance of panicky cops shooting children...so why are we doing anything except laughing at whatever legislator came up with that silly law?"

For the rest...
Rape has decreased. Go find yourself some crime statistics if you want easy confirmation, but even more fun is to check out some world history. Wartime practices are very relevant because they gauge social acceptance of rape...and, of course, they account for a large number of the total rapes throughout history.

 

[HexHead]

This is like open carrying and a store bitches, and you tell them" you don't like it, put a sticker in your front window saying no handguns"..... rather than walk out, put a jacket on, and walk back in.... What are your thoughts....?:banghead:

That's exactly what the same guy did a month or so ago and now Costco here in Nashville is posted as a result.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I see many here are equating the simple, benign, and innocuous carrying of a gun - not in use - to the obtrusive use of words, the illegal use of a penis, brandishing, threatening, and supposition. The words kept safely in your brain, your zipper closed, fists unclenched, all your weapons slung or holstered, and your fear in check is more akin to keeping and bearing.

That bandwagon is going toward increased restrictions on this marginal and deviant behavior...

I wouldn't call his behavior neither marginal nor deviant. The bandwagon is trying to plod along, looking for anything to fuel it. Many here seem to be providing that fuel in mass quantities. But, anything that runs on outrage certainly can't go far, though. Even though the behavior that caused the outrage continues, the outrage withers, common sense prevails, the band wagon comes to a halt, and the inexorable road travels on.

Woody

 

[HexHead]

Okay, I don't know this guy personally, but I've read enough of his previous internet posts prior to this or even the Costco incident to know where he's coming from.

First of all, he's not stupid. He probably knows TN carry laws better than most people and better than most cops. He seems to know exactly where the line is drawn, so as not to step over it. He's also a fervent believer in "open carry" and that's what his actions are about. He intends to push the boundaries and if he can push someone into violating his rights, all the better since he intends to file lawsuits if that happens. He normally carries a voice recorder for this purpose.

He seems to be taking the approach, in his twisted logic, that gay rights groups have been using for years with things like "gay pride" parades. It seems like his thinking is, if enough people see other people open carrying on a regular basis and not breaking the law, it will become mainstream and accepted.

I completely disagree with his tactics, especially since he got Costco posted and I had to cancel my membership on principle, but the fact remains that what he did was completely legal. The liberal bedwetters that are normally found at Radnor Lake would have acted exactly the same no matter how he was dressed, if he was open carrying a holstered J-frame. Trust me on that.

 

[TCB in TN]

He seems to be taking the approach, in his twisted logic, that gay rights groups have been using for years with things like "gay pride" parades. It seems like his thinking is, if enough people see other people open carrying on a regular basis and not breaking the law, it will become mainstream and accepted.

While I don't agree with it, I have argued this point for years. We "gunnies" want to take a principled stand, and have everyone else see that we are right. Unfortunately it doesn't work out that way. It pains me to say it, but in the long run, we are going to have to get down and dirty, and play to win like these other politically correct groups do or we are going to lose!

For example, when you get the whole its for the children arguement, we get labeled that we don't care. We need to turn the argument around. Give examples of the elderly and women getting beaten, robbed or raped and then say that those arguing for gun control are really scum that just want to be able to exert their "power" over those who have none. We all know it is an emotional argument, not based it fact, but unfortunately far to much of the electorate today is made up of the emotional sheeple to whom those points make sense! I don't like it, think it is stupid (as are those who fall for it), but it works (as evidenced by so much of the anti's success to date).

 

[TCB in TN]

I have the right to do a lot of things - that doesn't make it right. What happens when I walk up to you and your wife at the mall and tell her she's hot and I'd like to bang her? Are you gonna be proud of me for exercising my right to free speech or are you gonna punch me in the nose?

Huge difference, you walk up and get into my face YOU are starting something, the fact that someone is walking around not bothering anyone, with what is a legal arm, well it is a lot different.

One is an overt effort to offend, the other is going about his business!

 

[Ed Ames]

I wouldn't call his behavior neither marginal nor deviant.

I'm using the terms in a technical, rather than judgmental, way. It deviates from the norm, therefore it is deviant. It was a pro-RKBA effort but most putatively pro-RKBA people find it too close to an edge to accept, therefore it is marginal. Neither term is intended to render a judgment as to whether the behavior is good or bad, only to describe where it fits within the larger context.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Ed,

I see where you are coming from. However, in that technical view, he did act within accepted societal norms. He broke no law. The law is where we find the limits on what society will accept. If anything, he acted in an uncommon fashion, not deviant. In my view, he is simply among the first to make it a common practice.

As for the "larger context," wouldn't that be the law?

If open carry is ever removed from the list of things illegal in Oklahoma, I'll probably still carry concealed, but on occasion I can see the wife and I walking around town toting a pair of Mares Legs. That will certainly be uncommon, but not deviant.

Woody

 

[Ed Ames]

Law only expresses what has happened before that people wouldn't tolerate when it happened. It doesn't say anything about current accepted societal norms.

There are two broad areas where that distinction is relevant. Laws are reactive and generally aren't passed until someone invents a problem. Laws tend to stick around for years even as social standards change. Those two facts combine to mean that laws are a very bad benchmark of social acceptability.

Think in terms of race laws in the US. During the civil war a group of people invented the term miscegenation and after slavery was abolished many people argued that interracial marriages would destroy the fabric of society... so anti-miscegenation laws were put on the books. (Yeah, they go back further...you get the idea.) That's the "new" side. When those laws were declared unconstitutional in 1967, some states responded by requiring adults to get "cohabitation licenses" from the local government in order to live together...the unstated reasoning behind those laws being that interracial couples would not be issued licenses. Again, that's another "new" problem. Now fast forward to today...multiracial families are widely accepted as normal, blatant racism is unpopular, and no normal person would think twice about a multiracial couple living together...social norms have changed, yet the habitation license laws are still on the books.

Walking around town with a mares leg strapped to your leg is just as deviant as walking around with a purple mohawk. Being deviant doesn't mean illegal (a mohawk isn't) and it doesn't mean wrong (neither hair style nor mare's leg is wrong), it means outside of social norms.

 

[ganymede]

deviant does not equal illegal. It might be perfectly legal to spend 40 hours a watching pornograhpy while strangling yourself, but there are few who wouldn't think of that as deviant.

 

[m.p.driver]

He's an idiot who is just a media whore.It's legal to carry a goat around on your back ,but do you want to do it in public?Sounds like a neighbor i have who got his CCW permit(scary)and started strutting around the hood with a .40 strapped on his leg.Then couldnt understand why the cops kept stopping him.

 

[Sam1911]

Sounds like a neighbor i have who got his CCW permit(scary)and started strutting around the hood with a .40 strapped on his leg.Then couldnt understand why the cops kept stopping him.

Ahhhh, the "slippery slope" rears its ugly head!

What your neighbor is doing is considered here on THR to be perfectly acceptable "Open Carry" and his actions in dealing with local law enforcement -- putting up with the hassles in order to educate them to the law and his rights -- is seen as a selfless act of service to the gun owning community.

However, substitute an AK style pistol and it's not. When we begin to divide "good" open carry from bad simply based on the capacity or muzzle energy (or "scariness"!) of the weapon being carried, we become the hypocrites we always claim the other side to be.

-Sam

(Personally, I believe that if this guy had carried his Draco while wearing slacks and a blazer, or even jeans and a polo shirt -- and had resisted the odd urge to paint the gun like an Airsoft -- this group would be divided a whole different way. We're all about appearances, here.)

 

[FROGO207]

I agree with the OP.
The quote"Common sense is no longer common" comes to mind.
There is a time and place to choose your battles and this instance IMHO was a bad choice.
RKBA posturing can be a minefield and may not end as you expect it to.:banghead:
The time and place to push RKBA is at the voting booth, also educating the general population that firearm ownership is a responsible and necessary position to champion by example.

 

[danbrew]

What your neighbor is doing is considered here on THR to be perfectly acceptable "Open Carry" and his actions in dealing with local law enforcement -- putting up with the hassles in order to educate them to the law and his rights -- is seen as a selfless act of service to the gun owning community.

Not all of us think open carry is a good thing. I don't.