Open carry is setting us back. IMO

[JohnKSa]

OR, it forces people who didn't realize that it was legal to understand that it is here, it isn't going away, and it isn't impacting their lives in any way. We must be willing to risk to make changes.

Didn't you read my post?

If you offend and frighten enough people it CAN go away. Laws are not carven in stone. If enough people mobilize they can get laws changed.

Second, it's incorrect to say that fright and offense don't impact a person's life.

I agree that there can be positive outcomes but it's foolish and shortsighted to pretend that there can be no negative outcomes.

 

[mljdeckard]

I'm just imagining Rosa Parks' conversations with her friends and family. She was so fed up with acquiescing to those who would deny her rights. Imagine what they told her.

"But you will make people angry."

"We are making progress, why make waves?"

"You will make so many people angry, you will do more harm than good."

"You're not changing anyone's mind."

"It doesn't matter if you're in the back of the bus, you still get there, don't you?"

"Just leave them alone. We are better off if their feathers aren't ruffled. Irritating them will only make them be active when they wouldn't have before."

This sounds so cowardly and ridiculous, the idea that this was the correct way to assert your rights is laughable. You only have the rights you are willing to exercise.

and JohnSka, you obviously didn't read all of MY posts.

 

[jmortimer]

The O/P is so right - the liberals are at it again here in California and will soon have a bill on the Dumbanator's desk to sign. The nice liberal lady legislator in question specifically cited the recent open carry activity in support of her bill. Broom handled once again by the liberals here in California.

 

[Hunt480]

Open carry is not setting anyone but trouble makers back...
I open carry on a regular basis when I'm out and about, I may even go in a convenience store with my gun on. I've gotten used to it and it don't really bother me what anyone thinks when they see the gun.

Although I wear a gun openly alot I do have since enough not open carry in some places no need to draw to much unwanted attention I just conceal it.

My wife and I go on hiking & biking trails in state parks all over North Ga. regularly where I open carry all the time in some very remote areas and I'm constantly amazed at the people that are not carrying especially in these very remote places. I get a weird look sometimes from some people but most are unconcerned. Some will even say they did'nt know they could open carry in the park as they walk by. We do see women alone 3 or 4 miles away from anywhere at times without any obvios means of defense which is really plain dumb.My wife who is not that crazy about guns even thinks thats ignorant.

 

[mljdeckard]

jmortimer-

You really think that this is the force driving gun control in KA? People open carrying?

 

[TexasRifleman]

t provides tremendously easy to exploit fodder for the anti gunners.


It makes people on the fence and the antis scared and intimidated, and that’s just where the antis want them, so they’re easy to manipulate.

You are entitled to your opinion, but I'd ask you to look at facts instead of emotion.

You are hooked into the whole "feelings" thing, with no basis in reality.

FACT: Open carry is legal in many states and in some states it's quite common. Has been for years. If it had a detrimental effect on gun rights, where are they? All the things you predict will happen haven't happened. Why not? This stuff has been going on for YEARS in many states, and no one even notices any more. If this hadn't happened in a Starbucks recently it would never have made the news.

FACT: Open Carry isn't about changing other people's opinion or some kind of public demonstration of solidarity. In states where it is legal it's just another thing people do. They might play golf, they might drive a convertible, they might wear a gun to dinner. Every now and then it hits the media, like the whole Starbucks stuff, but for the most part open carriers go about their business day to day and no one even notices. It's not a political statement.

Truth is, it just ain't that big of a deal and the only people getting worked up about it are the anti's and the "emotional" gun owner types like you who worry too much.

Simple fact is that none of the things you talk about have happened, and you sound like the blissninny anti's with their "Blood will flow in the streets" nonsense.

 

[JohnKSa]

and JohnSka, you obviously didn't read all of MY posts.

I've read everything you've posted on this thread.

But again I must point out that you're only seeing what you want to see in what I post.

YES, there can be positive outcomes, but one must be prudent in the approach one takes.

Since you used the Rosa Parks example, let's explore that a bit more. The approach she took was very prudent.

Rosa Parks was in no way threatening, dangerous or frightening. Now, let's change things a bit--let's say that instead of Rosa Parks boarding the bus the same technique had been employed by a rowdy group of young black men legally carrying various weapons. Do you imagine that the outcome would have been as positive?

I'm NOT drawing a parallel between the group of rowdy young men and OC'ers, only pointing out that it's not simply a matter of doing something. Sometimes the WAY it's done, or even WHO does it that is what's most important.

As I said before, this all comes down to being prudent. It comes down to understanding that if you offend/frighten/irritate too many people you can end up hurting yourself and others who share your views.

Truth is, it just ain't that big of a deal and the only people getting worked up about it are the anti's...

Are you really trying to say that they don't matter? Are you really trying to imply that antis can't get laws passed restricting firearms?

I can hardly believe what I'm reading on this thread.

You really think that this is the force driving gun control in KA? People open carrying?

Strawman. No one said it is THE force driving gun control. The comment was that it can provide fodder to be used against us. That is not debatable--it is clearly providing SOME people a reason to support gun control in CA.

 

[Lou McGopher]

It provides tremendously easy to exploit fodder for the anti gunners.

To the contrary, it helps undermine their claims. As more people begin to open carry, and the anti-gunner's claims do not bear out, the weakness of their position will be more obvious.

 

[mljdeckard]

She absolutely WAS threatening, dangerous, AND frightening. This is why it was a big deal.

 

[NavyLCDR]

But we are the minority, until we’re the majority our goal should be to win converts.

I beg to differ.

http://www.facebook.com/#!/bradycampaign
7,284 People Like This

http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Fairfax-VA/National-Rifle-Association/22561081832
151,256 People Like This

The problem is that the anti-gun MINORITY is screaming their heads off from every rooftop that will tolerate their presence. Meanwhile, for some reason, the pro-gun, supposedly pro-RKBA MAJORITY is too afraid to stand up and say anything. And then, when a pro-gun, pro-RKBA group does emerge that is willing to say with almost equally loud voice that we believe in the Constitution and we believe in the freedom of Americans to be able to provide for their own protection - half of the gun community cries in fear and runs away from them as much as the anti-s do!

Look at all the recent internet polls and public meetings happening around the country. On almost every single one of them you will find twice as many pro-gun votes as anti-gun votes. The problem is that the anti-gun MINORITY is clamoring three times as loud as the pro-gun MAJORITY!

 

[jmortimer]

MLJdeckard - Yes that was exactly what the nice lady cited as the reason she drafted her bill - the recent open carry activity here in California. It scared her. I'll post a link or new thread with more info - it is getting the remaining right thinking people here really upset. It will for sure make its way through to the Dumbanator and I expect that it will be on his desk within six months.

 

[mljdeckard]

Just because she CITED this as the reason doesn't mean jack, and I think you already realize this. Look at TR's post.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Yes that was exactly what the nice lady cited as the reason she drafted her bill - the recent open carry activity here in California. It scared her.

If you believe a politician put forth a proposal to change a law because they were scared of something I have a bridge to sell you.

You gotta be kidding me, it scared her? Her voting record shows someone who is VERY soft on crime, that's not usually what you see from someone who is afraid.

She voted YES for:

Increases the value threshold for various property crimes to be prosecuted as a felony

She voted YES for:

Prohibits the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation from returning an individual to prison for any parole violation if the individual was evaluated by the Department using a validated risk assessment tool and was determined not to pose a high risk to reoffend

She voted NO for:

Vote to pass a bill that defines instances when a non-violent drug offender whose probation has been revoked can be sentenced to specified amounts of time in jail

So, she's not scared of people out of prison on probation.

She voted YES for:

Vote to pass a bill that allows a drug felon to receive food stamps

Here is her voting record:

http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=29365

Her voting record does not appear to be that of someone who is afraid of things.

 

[JohnKSa]

She absolutely WAS threatening, dangerous, AND frightening. This is why it was a big deal.

This is a logical fallacy called equivocation.

You are using the same words I used but in a different sense in an attempt to invalidate the accurate assertion I made.

A small young unarmed woman is not threatening, dangerous or frightening in the same sense that a person with a weapon is threatening, dangerous or frightening to some people.

I beg to differ.

http://www.facebook.com/#!/bradycampaign
7,284 People Like This

http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/Fai...on/22561081832
151,256 People Like This

Again, I'm finding it difficult to believe what I'm reading on this thread.

Are you really using facebook hits to try to prove that people favoring OC are in the majority in the U.S.?

For the record I'm not going to get into an argument over whether they are or aren't, I'm just astounded that you believe that's a valid method.

If you believe a politician put forth a proposal to change a law because they were scared of something I have a bridge to sell you.

You gotta be kidding me, it scared her?

You're splitting hairs. It doesn't matter whether it actually scared her or not. All that matters is whether it sounds plausible enough to enough people for her to get enough support to pass it.

We've seen antis use lies over and over to get laws passed. The fact that the laws were conceived in falsehood doesn't make the laws any less binding.

There are people out there LOOKING for ways to get support to pass their pet bills or to further their pet agendas.

I believe that was exactly the point of the OP.

 

[mljdeckard]

I have shown a real example of how open carry has positively influenced legislation. You have shown exactly none for how it has NEGATIVELY influenced legislation.

 

[TexasRifleman]

We've seen antis use lies over and over to get laws passed. The fact that the laws were conceived in falsehood doesn't make the laws any less binding.

Yes but the statement that she did it because she is scared it simply not true. Yet that was put forth as the reason.

So you admit what I'm saying, that she's a dishonest politician.

If you admit that then you realize that she's dishonest about the whole thing. This is just a handy excuse to get her face in the media. If it hadn't been this it would have been something else.

So it's not really open carrying that has caused a problem here, it's a media attention driven politician looking for something to get famous for.

She could have chosen ANYTHING for that. To avoid that we basically have to hide in closets and pretend we don't know what guns even are. Even then politicians like her would find a way to promote their agenda, they always do.

So the truth is that open carry was just the first thing to come along that would allow her some front page time. Open carry didn't cause this.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Are you really using facebook hits to try to prove that people favoring OC are in the majority in the U.S.?

For the record I'm not going to get into an argument over whether they are or aren't, I'm just astounded that you believe that's a valid method.

If you don't believe that the MAJORITY supports RKBA, then you haven't paid any attention to the public opinion expressed whenever the subject of a new ban comes up. For instance, the latest big ban suggested in Washington state, in SEATTLE! Hello! SEATTLE! Probably one of the left wing liberal capitols in the US:

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...eed-public-rejection-of-gun-ban-63783682.html

BELLEVUE, Wash., Oct. 8 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The Second Amendment Foundation today warned Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels to heed the public rejection of a proposed gun ban at city parks facilities or face the consequences in court.

SAF obtained information from the mayor's office that the overwhelming majority of citizens living both inside and outside the city turned thumbs down on the mayor's plan to ban even legally-carried firearms in city parks facilities. Nickels has already been advised by Attorney General Rob McKenna that the city has no authority to enact such a ban, which would be illegal under the state's preemption law.

Only 8 percent of Seattle residents commenting on the idea support it, according to figures from the mayor's office. Ninety-two percent of Seattleites who opined rejected the idea. Only 2 percent of respondents who live outside the city support the proposed ban, and 98 percent oppose the idea. Deadline for comments was last Sunday. SAF has learned that the city received 1,088 comments via e-mail, and only 44 supported the mayor's proposal. Ten more telephone comments were received, with only one favoring the ban.

"This is a crushing defeat for Mayor Nickels," said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. "His office has argued that nobody would be prosecuted specifically for violating the ban, but only be charged with criminal trespass if they refuse to leave a facility after being told to do so. That is disingenuous. It is still a ban and it is still a violation of state preemption."

SAF has also learned that the mayor's strategy now is apparently to have such a ban enacted by order of the director of Parks and Recreation.

"This controversy began with Nickels threatening to issue an executive order banning guns from all city property," Gottlieb recalled. "He has now backed away from that, and apparently thinks he is being clever by having a surrogate sign an order to post city parks off limits to firearms. If that is the case, the chicken has, indeed, come home to roost."

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation's oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

The problem is groups like the Brady Campaign cry and moan so loudly and with so much publicity that they have pushed their propaganda so hard that it has even infiltrated into the pro-gun community and affected a large portion of our population. But, God forbid, we should push back...

Just ask Starbucks how their push back to the Brady Campaign treated them. Starbucks is posting record profits.

 

[mljdeckard]

The threat Rosa Parks posed to the status quo was every bit as real as the threat WE make to the status quo.

Do you think that just because someone open carries they are dangerous, threatening, and frightening?

 

[Lew]

My two cents:
1. I agree with the gentleman who said that the OC "movement" has done more for gun rights than anything else. The activists are making serious progress. I've been following OCDO for a long time, and it basically started in VA and has exploded out across the country.
2. I personally am not an activist. Like TR said, some people just OC because that's what they do. I just do it because that's how I like to carry.

 

[JohnKSa]

I have shown a real example of how open carry has positively influenced legislation. You have shown exactly none for how it has NEGATIVELY influenced legislation.

First of all I didn't say it had negatively influenced legislation, I said it had resulted in additional restrictions on open carry. Since you have read my posts you would know that.

And since you are clearly an OC proponent I think you know of at least one example of open carry resulting in additional restrictions being placed on open carry.

If you don't, and you want a recent example, you can do an internet search using the terms:

peet's coffee open carry

I have made several comments about the possibility of offended and frightened people providing the impetus to pass laws. That's also a given--we've all seen that happen enough to know it can happen, particularly in a situation where there are politicians with an agenda looking for just such a group of people to play to.

The threat Rosa Parks posed to the status quo was every bit as real as the threat WE make to the status quo.

This is still equivocation, but now you've incorporated a strawman as well.

You're still using the word threat (but in a different sense of the word) to try to tie your response to my assertion. But now you're talking about a "threat to the status quo". It's quite clear that my comments were not about a "threat to the status quo".

If you don't believe that the MAJORITY supports RKBA, then you haven't paid any attention to the public opinion expressed whenever the subject of a new ban comes up.

I'm pretty sure I said I wasn't going to debate the fact, that I was merely expressing my incredulity at your method of proof.

Yes but the statement that she did it because she is scared it simply not true. Yet that was put forth as the reason.

So you admit what I'm saying, that she's a dishonest politician.

Still splitting hairs. As politicians have repeatedly demonstrated over the years, their honesty and outwardly stated motives are irrelevant to the outcome.

 

[mljdeckard]

That's not legislation. Forget Peet's. Try Starbucks.

 

[JohnKSa]

That's not legislation. Forget Peet's. Try Starbucks.

I'm pretty sure that in the post immediately above yours I explicitly stated that it was NOT legislation but rather a case of additional restrictions.

What's confusing is how you dismiss the Peets case using the rationale that it's not legislation and then quote the Starbucks case which also has nothing to do with new legislation.

 

[NavyLCDR]

Oh for Peet's sake!

Sorry, just couldn't resist. BTW, had anyone even heard of Peet's Coffee before the Brady bunch got a hold of them? And California Pizza Kitchen?!? Who the heck are they?

 

[JohnKSa]

Before we get too bogged down in this thread I would like to state that I do not believe that the title of this thread is correct.

I believe that in SOME ways OC has probably set us back and that in other ways it has been a positive influence.

What distresses me is that it seems that there are many people who refuse to concede the fact that OC does sometimes have a negative influence and that it would be prudent to minimize that effect to the extent that it is reasonable to do so.

 

[G.A.Pster]

"You are entitled to your opinion, but I'd ask you to look at facts instead of emotion."

Everyone I’ve talked to on other non gun forums has been distressed by seeing open carrying people.


People think with their feelings not with rationality. It’s been shown time and time again.

Facts are irrelevant.