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

[fatelk]

A little different perspective, perhaps.
I am a gun rights supporter, and have no problem with an AK pistol, though I have no interest in ever owning one myself. I am not a liberal yuppy who is uncomfortable around firearms, and I do have a CHL.

However, if I was at a state park with the family and saw this guy, I would be out of there with my wife and kids. How would I know what his intentions are, or if he had a permit, or if he's a terrorist intent on mowing down some infidels? If I would have this reaction, what kind of panic would he stir up among the average hiker?

You can argue the right and wrong of this all day long, but the fact is I would not risk the safety of my family if I saw some lunatic like this coming down the trail. Would you?

 

[ganymede]

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?

+1 to that.

fortunatatly, there are only a small group of people who want to take free speech/expression away. with guns we are not so lucky. all the more reason not be obnoxious about shoving our rights down peoples throut.

However, if I was at a state park with the family and saw this guy, I would be out of there with my wife and kids. How would I know what his intentions are, or if he had a permit, or if he's a terrorist intent on mowing down some infidels? If I would have this reaction, what kind of panic would he stir up among the average hiker?

You can argue the right and wrong of this all day long, but the fact is I would not risk the safety of my family if I saw some lunatic like this coming down the trail. Would you?

Amen brotha. painted oragne barrel or not, this guy might end up getting capped by an LEO. I can almost garantee that such a shooting would be ruled as justified.
__________________

 

[ganymede]

as far as the legality is concerned, who gives a crap? It might be perfectly legal to shoot a man simply for being on your property at night in texas, that does not make it right, nor do we encourage such behavior on THR. I know it isn't an apples to apples comparison but just because something is legal to do, doesn't make it okay

 

[moooose102]

on one hand, i have to agree with you that carrying descretly is a better policy. on the other hand, i am so stinking sick of all these bleeding heart morons crying whenever anything at all is even mentioned about guns in any way, that sometimes i would like to show up in front of their house with 10 jeeps with a mini-gun attached to the roll bar! things would be a lot better if THEY would just keep their **** mouths shut!

 

[ganymede]

I have now read many of this guy's posts on this and other forums. the thing that frightens me most about this individual, is that his arguments sounds so intelegnet and well thought out. he writes with total lucidity. He makes me think of charles whitman writting notes about why he cant understand the irrational thoughts he can't get out of his head. I'm worried this guy might go over the edge.

 

[James T Thomas]

Bad

I cynically suspect that the man is a shill for the gun control conspirators.

He and his display reek of "let's be reasonable."

 

[highorder]

In an ideal world, we should be able to open or conceal carry any type of weapon we'd like. We all agree that laws prohibiting possession and carry of firearms are completely asinine and utterly worthless for stopping armed criminals anyways.

That is not the world we live in.

"It's legal, and I don't give a damn what anyone else thinks" is the exact OPPOSITE of the entire RKBA movement! Swaying peoples opinions and votes to our side is the very function of activism. The 2nd amendment would be long dead by now if everyone trying to support it had this attitude.

Well said.

If this guy is a Brady shill, we need to worry. They have never played fair, but this is really devious.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

"It's legal, and I don't give a damn what anyone else thinks" is the exact OPPOSITE of the entire RKBA movement! Swaying peoples opinions and votes to our side is the very function of activism. The 2nd amendment would be long dead by now if everyone trying to support it had this attitude.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms movement is not nor should it ever be begging for peoples votes. IT'S A RIGHT PROTECTED FROM BEING INFRINGED BY GOVERNMENT. And, it shouldn't even be considered a movement. IT'S A STAND! All the "movement" has been usurpation on behalf of the anti-gun-rights crowd. Screw them, their opinions, and their usurpations.

All the major progress toward removing the infringements to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms has been via the courts striking down unconstitutional law and a few laws passed by Congress under the power granted in Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. We are in the right, they are in the wrong, and I don't care if we have to staple the Second Amendment to their foreheads for them to understand THEY are treading on the shaky ground and not us.

The anti-gun-rights crowd just loves all you folks who pussy-foot around the the issue, biting your nails, and raising them and their bogus issues head and shoulders above our right, our truth, and ultimately our freedom and safety. You give them credence when they own none. You allow them unfettered rhetoric while you stifle your own.

Was that guy brandishing his gun? Was he threatening anyone? Doing something unlawful? No. He was doing something politically incorrect, is all! Good for him!

Woody

 

[highorder]

We are in the right, they are in the wrong, and I don't care if we have to staple the Second Amendment to their foreheads for them to understand THEY are treading on the shaky ground and not us.

I'll take begging for votes over armed insurrection any day, and by not giving a damn what people think, blazing guns will be the only option left to defend the 2A.

ETA,

All the "we" and "they" talk sounds like you don't understand that "they" BECOME "we" when we work to educate the masses. We gather support in many ways, including NOT OC'ing a Draco painted like a toy while looking and acting shady.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

I'll take begging for votes over armed insurrection any day, and by not giving a damn what people think, blazing guns will be the only option left to defend the 2A.

Who said anything about armed insurrection? We're discussing exercising a right and being damned proud and determined while doing it.

Nothing we do will change what people think, and anyone who can be swayed one way lacks a solid foundation and can be swayed the other way just as easily and is useless to us. I cannot abide these people nor will I cater to them. Let them educate themselves and make up their own minds. Only then will they be worth anything to anyone beyond what their vote or opinion can be bought for.

The actions of this guy do nothing to stop us from educating those who wish to be educated. The "they" who wish to be educated will become "us" regardless. That's how I came aboard. I learned from others and as a result of my own study.

I'd be careful about describing someone wearing camo as looking shady. Our soldiers wear camo. As for acting shady, what did he do that was shady? What law did he break? Who did he harm?

If you wish to change some minds, discuss the Right to Keep and Bear Arms with Sotomayer, Stevens, Ginsburg, and Breyer on the Supreme Court. Their opinions don't seem to be based upon the Constitution and are, therefore, open to suggestion. Caution: They do appear to cater to left leaning agendas and prospects for swinging them to our side are nil at best regardless of how politically correct you carry your guns.

Woody

 

[Crash_Test_Dhimmi]

A right not used, is a right lost

 

[Gungnir]

Reading this thread makes me think that perhaps the Right to Keep and Bear arms might be already further down the "slippery slope" than even we realize.

Here's why.

I read the statements the guy made, yes he's very likely either somewhat irrational, or extreme, or perhaps both. However look at this conversation, some people are complaining that it's not acceptable, rather than looking at it like he's an idiot. He was perfectly within his rights, admittedly painting his AK pistol to look like an airsoft was a little lame, but whatever.

Someone carrying anything, a gun, a baseball bat, a placard, should not in any way be concerning, and in the case of carrying a gun, why are gun owners so quick to jump on the "well if I saw someone doing that, I'd have me and my family out of there because I don't know what he's going to do.". No we don't but until he's done it, then you'll never know. If you concealed carry, and someone see's your gun, and they react like you suggest, then what does that say about you? Would you no longer concealed carry, because it might scare people? Or would it be preferable for people to not be scared because there's nothing to fear?

When people get scared of something, then it becomes an issue. Concealed carry is all well and good, but it leads the vast majority of the uninterested non-gun carrying public to think that carrying firearms is prohibited. When we self censor we add to that perception, and ultimately we wind up having politicians making "reasonable" arguments that are pushed by the unarmed victim crowd (Gun control lobby) as to why you can't carry a firearm unless it's hidden from view, and hey, we don't have much of a moral leg to stand on because according to a lot of people on this thread, we agree.

When people say things like well he doesn't need to do that, then that by definition is a restriction, when did you need to prove you had a right to bear arms? Look at the UK, in 1900 it had almost the exact same liberties as the US, those were gradually eroded by two things, people accepting "reasonable controls" that were then extended. Then removing from the public consciousness, the concept that they ever really had those liberties, so when more draconian controls were given these were "reasonable" to most people. Here in the US we have rights, these aren't liberties in the same way, but if we begin to think of these are liberties then that's what they become, and when they're liberties that's when they can be taken.

We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all will hang separately.

 

[fatelk]

No we don't but until he's done it, then you'll never know.

You might have missed my point slightly. Would you want to hang around with your family to see what he just might do? My point is that I'm not going to be around an unstable person with a loaded gun. I would have the same reaction if we happened across some drunk hunters.

I don't think we need more crazy laws, but I think I share a pretty common opinion that it is foolish to needlessly stir up panic and ruin someone's family outing.

 

[Southern Rebel]

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms movement is not nor should it ever be begging for peoples votes. IT'S A RIGHT PROTECTED FROM BEING INFRINGED BY GOVERNMENT. And, it shouldn't even be considered a movement. IT'S A STAND! All the "movement" has been usurpation on behalf of the anti-gun-rights crowd. Screw them, their opinions, and their usurpations.

Well, as Dirty Harry would say, "I am all tore up about this man's rights". When I lose my right to carry in Tennessee's state parks due to this idiot's parading his "rights", then I lose my right to walk with my granddaughters in those parks because I have no means of protecting them from the scumbags of society. My fault, his fault, anti-gun crowd's fault - it makes no difference, I have to live with the results. I have an uneasy feeling as to what those results might be.

If ANY of you guys defending him feel that we have a majority of voters on our side, please review the last presidential election. At present, there exists a small group of anti-gun rights voters and a small group of dedicated gun rights owners. Between the two is a large group of voters who swing like a pendulum, depending on many factors. However, that pendulum does not swing evenly - it takes many positive societal results and persuasive discussions to swing our way. It only takes a few major news stories to readily push them the other direction.

We may not like the concept that in a democracy the majority and their elected officials can be a runaway train crunching all of our constitutional rights, but let that majority become overwhelming strong and stand back and watch how quickly and effectively it can happen.

We can defend this moron and announce to the world that he is one of us and that we support his actions, but be prepared to pay the price. A tree is known by it's fruit. I would rather his particular "rotten fruit" not be identified as a product of the tree of gun ownership to which I belong.

 

[lost river rat]

You have a point

Stupid stunts of brandishing guns even legally is hurting all of us in the fight to keep our rights.

It is not common to see an AK packed around a state park. It will cause a sceen and not a good one. When the ambivalent public sees this, they vote anti-gun. If we keep it polite, they stay with the constitution. How would anyone see this as a good idea?

We are a couple of generations past wearing a six gun in same fashion as your hat, vest, and bow tie. The exception is northwest Montana during hunting season. It is not uncommon to see someone wearing a big revolver in the convenience store paying for his gas. How is the different? It is relatively common in bear country. It is not a case of brandishing to be mocho or prove a point. If you walked into that convenience store with an AK, you might get shot by the cashier or the hunter or both.

 

[Gungnir]

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."

Ok put yourself in the situation for one moment, and assume you could only know what you saw, what would lead you to believe that the man was unstable, and if not why should he not have a loaded gun? Are you basing that assumption on the fact that he has a loaded gun? Now apparently at least the ranger was concerned with him open carrying, and the question is why?

Now even assuming that you based that criteria on his actions before the act, what leads you to believe that he's unstable? Yes the guy apparently wants attention, but that does not make him unstable, everyone needs attention in some way, we're social animals like it or not. If we didn't we'd all be living out in the back of beyond like me.

Legally, if he hasn't been certified to a mental institution against his will, then he has every right to own, and carry his firearm. Since he had to buy the gun with at least a NICS check, and has a HCP from Tennessee, then he has a clean criminal record and hasn't been involuntarily certified. So he's not technically unstable, or at least not enough to be considered a threat. From his comments I'd say he might be a little irrational, but not unstable, but I'm not a qualified psychologist, are you?

If you can see the perception problem I'm talking about then you can see that we likely are further down the slope than we believe. You seem to be basing your assumption primarily on the fact that a loaded gun is dangerous, which would equally apply to you if you have one. However I'm pretty sure that you don't see a loaded gun in your hands as dangerous (otherwise hanging around on a firearms forum would be pretty pointless), but what about everyone else in the non-gun owning camp? Which is exactly the problem, by literally concealing the fact from them, then do we not possibly foster the potential that anyone carrying a loaded firearm is viewed as an extremist, a red-neck, or unbalanced?

Finally, and more pertinently, why is open carrying "foolish to needlessly stir up panic and ruin someone's family outing"? By that definition, out of your mouth the anti crowd have a great opportunity to pass "reasonable" legislation to ban open carry.

Can you now see why I think we're further down the slope?

Now I personally wouldn't do what he did, actually IIRC he p*ssed me off royally on the "Concealed Carry Badges" thread on this board (http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=491342). Mainly because he seemed like a moron, who argued that these were a good idea.

 

[Ed Ames]

If ANY of you guys defending him feel that we have a majority of voters on our side, please review the last presidential election.

That's not at issue. In fact it goes right into the straw man pile.

The issue is pretty simple. If you attack people who exercise their rights because that exercise pisses you off... by, for example, saying it is unreasonable for someone to exercise their rights the way this guy did, you are arguing AGAINST that right. You are churning out little sound-bites for opponents.

You are, in short, no different than the hunters and "sportsmen" who seem to line up to be interviewed any time there is an effort to ban semi-auto guns, saying things like, "there ain't no legitimate reason why a law biding citizen would need a death machine like that... you can't kill but one or two deer in a season anyway so who needs all them extra bullets?"

The proper response is, "Why is this news?"

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

be judged by the company you keep

 

[Ed Ames]

No, be judged by how you treat company.

You can't really be judged for what other people do... even people who own the same things you own... all you can be properly judged for is your own actions.

 

[Southern Rebel]

The issue is pretty simple. If you attack people who exercise their rights because that exercise pisses you off... by, for example, saying it is unreasonable for someone to exercise their rights the way this guy did, you are arguing AGAINST that right. You are churning out little sound-bites for opponents.

Ed, you are missing most of my point. The issue is pretty simple. It has nothing to do with whether his actions piss me off. Nor does it have anything to do with whether I think his action of "exercising his rights" is unreasonable or not. It has EVERYTHING to do with his actions and their effect on the "uninvolved majority" of Tennessee voters.

I have watched the process of gun rights in Tennessee for several years. The positive changes were not overnight miracles of legislators coming "into the light"! It involved much discussion and persuasion to convince those legislators of two facts:

!. What we are asking is neither unreasonable nor a danger to the welfare of the citizens of this state.

2. A legislator who agrees to vote for this will not risk losing his position in the state senate/state house.

The activist citizens did a tremendous job on the front end of selling the first fact and the gun-owning population did a great job of confirming the first fact by their behavior after the enabling legislation was passed.

The second fact, however, was a tougher sale mainly because it isn't nearly as predictable as the first and obviously is subject to a quick negative turnaround. It turned out that a significant percentage of legislators were primarily interested in number 2 as opposed to number 1.

The LEGAL ability to carry in Tennessee state parks was passed so recently that the ink may not yet be dry. The number of citizens in Tennessee who make use of this LEGAL ability are actually a quite small percentage of the voting population. If the quite large percentage of voters not involved in carrying decide they are uncomfortable with this guy's actions, they can readily make their elected congressmen VERY uncomfortable.

I have already heard rumblings from several of my friends who are in that aforementioned large majority of non-carriers. They feel that maybe the law should be rewritten to control both magazine capacity and type of weapon (do those terms sound familiar). I would predict that the legislative members would duck both of those confusing and difficult controls and just decide to go back to the good old days of "you can't carry weapons in our state parks".

That would have a huge, direct, and negative impact on my lifestyle. I am not generally a selfish individual, but I would make an exception in this case. I don't really give a rat's behind about this guy's rights and even less about anyone else's beliefs as to supporting him, unless you reside in Tennessee and actually vote.

It comes down to a basic understanding of our country and it's constitution. Yeah, I know the constitution says the government cannot take away your rights, but I can damn well assure you that combination of the voter's will and the representatives they elect can do it with total impudence. If your so-called rights under your constitution were so strong and infallible, why did it take more than 50 years of my life before I actually saw the average citizen (with no political ties) obtain the right to conceal carry?

 

[Ed Ames]

Not missing. Politely ignoring.

It comes down to a basic understanding of sociology. Unusual behaviors are deviant. Deviant behaviors are stigmatized. Stigmatized behaviors are vulnerable to majority attack in a democracy. We, despite the best intentions of the founding fathers, are now in a democracy.

Your argument is that we should join in the attack against deviant behaviors because we'll seem more reasonable. My argument is that your "good" behavior and "bad" behavior are both so close together that only someone really involved in the subject can tell the difference, and if we want to avoid the stigma (and all the negative repercussions that come from that stigma) we must change the perception of the behavior.

That means normalizing the behavior...making it seem commonplace. By normalizing (mainstreaming) the behavior, you change it from deviant to normative, and diffuse the stigma.

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.

There is a lesson there.

 

[Southern Rebel]

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.

There is a lesson there.

I politely disagree with the analogy. Just because someone says, " Life is like a......) and proceeds to make an argument based on their analogy is not a confirmation of their original comparison of what life is like. I would disagree that homosexuality is generally socially accepted - it is more like socially tolerated.

(Heterosexuality and the blatant display of the physical part of those relationships has become socially accepted. A blatant display of the physical part of homosexuality has neither become socially accepted nor socially tolerated. However, changes in both of those areas and the social attitudes towards them is more of a reflection of our lessening of our nation's moral/religious beliefs than it is a reflection of a flaunting of either behavior actually wearing down the resistance of the average citizen.)

The average citizen does not feel physically threatened by sexual beliefs, but that is NOT the case when it comes to guns. Moral and religous beliefs are learned behavior and subject to change - fear of physical attack and injury or death to an individual or his loved ones is inborn and will always be subject to activation by isolated incidences of indiscriminate attacks. If I were a person that never carried a gun and I saw incidences of unarmed people being attacked with guns, it would not be difficult to persuade me that outlawing those dangerous things would greatly benefit me.

To counteract the knee-jerk reactions to the isolated incidences of violence from guns, common sense tells me that it would be far wiser to argue from the point that those people who commit those acts of violence do not represent the gun owners in general. When we choose to join ranks with the extremist elements that flaunt their rights, we can't get upset when the non-owners assume the mass murder perpetrator is one of our own. After all, we were the ones that originally anointed him!

 

[War Squirrel]

Doing this SHOULDN'T cause any problems... in a perfect world. Sadly it isn't so.

 

[Ed Ames]

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.

There is an important lesson in Silence=Death that applies to all of us who are truly pro-rights. The only way to protect a right is to normalize it... to make people think it really is normal and important to their everyday life... and that means being visible. Even in awkward ways.

 

[Stophel]

Other than painting the muzzle orange, which was STUPID, and very possibly illegal (not that I am really worried about the so-called "law") as "disguising" a firearm, I'm all for it. Carry whatever you want. Pistol, rifle, machine gun, Bazooka.

People will get upset no matter what kind of gun he might have been carrying, and they would likely react with the same amount of sheer horror at seeing someone with a .22 pistol.

As far as "educating the public", I think the majority of the public are WAY too far gone to be "educated" to the point of changing their minds to support Liberty. For the rest, they aren't going to ever get used to seeing people with guns, unless they start seeing people with guns.