Protester armed with Ak and mags

are firearms openly displayed at protests a hurt to our cause?

  • Yes

    Votes: 35 67.3%

  • No

    Votes: 9 17.3%

  • Neither

    Votes: 8 15.4%
  • Total voters
    52
Status
Not open for further replies.
Blkhrt13

Blkhrt13

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
2,305
Location
The armpit of Satan (south Louisiana)
Down here in New Orleans there is a big stink about the removal of confederate sympathizing monuments. The mayor is pushing to have them removed. I do not wish for this thread to go off topic. This is not about pro or con on the monuments. This post is about the open display of arms at protests. Specifically those protests not related to 2a rights. Do you think this is appropriate or is it hurting the cause of 2a and making gun users look bad in the media? Admins please forgive me if this turns into a poo storm.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_6227.JPG
    IMG_6227.JPG
    81.2 KB · Views: 99
Blkhrt13 said:
Down here in New Orleans there is a big stink about the removal of confederate sympathizing monuments. The mayor is pushing to have them removed. I do not wish for this thread to go off topic. This is not about pro or con on the monuments. This post is about the open display of arms at protests. Specifically those protests not related to 2a rights. Do you think this is appropriate or is it hurting the cause of 2a and making gun users look bad in the media? Admins please forgive me if this turns into a poo storm.
Click to expand...
Ok by me. He just over did it with the mags.:scrutiny:
 
FWIW:

Maybe its just because I'm as average and plain Jane as it gets, but open carry always seems like a bad idea...

I understand the original purpose of it and I'm not saying to get rid of it or anything, but why openly display firearms at a protest about something else? Seems like your asking for special attention or trouble?

My thoughts in my opinion.
 
I always ask that when people post a survey they include a "none of the above" or similar alternative because the answer to the question posted is often not amongst the options given.

The answer to the OP's question is bound up in the question of what is the purpose of the person bringing the assault-weapon-style rifle to the protest?

If the presence of the rifles is - as it seems may have been intended in this case - is to create an implied threat that this sort of thing is so irritating the people carrying the rifles and a "Second Amendment Response" may happen if it continues, then it sets back the cause of gun owners. What is the implication? Are the armed citizens going to shoot the workmen removing the monument? Are they going to shoot the mayor who ordered it? We have the right to keep and bear arms, but that right must be exercised in a responsible manner.
 
The other two people whose faces are visible are not paying attention. Why should I care either?

I would not open carry at a protest myself.

Added: are firearms openly displayed at protests a hurt to our cause?
My cause is the Article I, Section 26 right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for all traditional lawful purposes, including self-defense and military preparedness training.
If a protestor showing up armed hurts a cause, it would hurt the cause supported by the protestor. As for this particular individual, all I have is the photo and no context, not even a clear indication of what side he is on.
 
Last edited:
Can the guy in the picture even see his iron sights over his rail?

Part of me says rights that are not utilized will soon be rights that are taken, but I also see how much of the U.S. would paint a broad brush picture of gun owners as fringe, hostile, and retaliatory. But that is their perception, I doubt the person in the picture has malice in his intentions of open carrying, but simply frustrated at the erosion of our liberties and using his constitutional right to show he still is a free man, personal judgement of right or wrong is in the eyes of the perceiver. But the fact of the matter is I'm sure he is within his rights to do so, so if others don't like it then they will inevitably try and change the law, which will cause a 2A fight to brew.

I for one am tired of people trying to erase history, I don't have much in the way of what the south is/was all about, but I can value that it is a part of our history and we can have a dialogue about the good and bad of the confederacy, just as there was no doubt good and bad in the union movement. I won't go any further in this last sentence as that is not what THR is about, but to bring it full circle to a 2A argument, rights that are not utilized will be rights that will be erased with history of our country the PC'ers deem a black eye, with no regard for the other side.

I didn't vote in the poll as I think it does both, hurts us in the eyes of those who have no desire for the 2A, helps in the aspect of utilizing and keeping our rights in the forefront. I can see it both ways.
 
Meh, to me it just gives the antis another "gun nut" to point out in their newscast.

I'd break it down further, no problem with a sidearm open carry but dressing up like GI Joe with a long gun? Nah.
 
Anti's just want them gone period. Gone from protests, gone from open carry, and as soon as they can make it happen gone from your home. Personally I think a lot fewer people would freak out about guns if they saw them in public every day with no ensuing bloodbath.
 
2nd Amendment is 2nd Amendment. However, I think open carry is a bad idea. If this is part of the Marxist/ANTIFA agenda, it should be labeled by the Feds as armed rebellion, and dealt with. If because some snowflakes got their asses handed to them, they are going to respond with AK's, it is sure to get ugly.
 
The 2nd isn't about posturing and that is what this guy is doing. The 2nd is simply about protecting against government abuse. Since there's no suggestion of abuse of the citizen by government force there he's not engaged in any 2A activity.

Had this been a 2A protest his display might have made sense.
 
hso said:
The 2nd isn't about posturing and that is what this guy is doing. The 2nd is simply about protecting against government abuse. Since there's no suggestion of abuse of the citizen by government force there he's not engaged in any 2A activity.

Had this been a 2A protest his display might have made sense.
Click to expand...
Was kind of my take too.
 
If he is legally doing what the law allows, more power to him. I personally think looking like you are about to assault Ho Chi Minh City is a little goofy, in the middle of down town. If I was going to attend a "protest" where my rifle would be a positive asset to the protest, (I know, I know, bear with me on this one), I am going to go with trying to look calm and professional, and the rifle is most likely going to be slung, perhaps without a magazine inserted, and any spare magazines will be few and hidden. If I am going anywhere that I think I will NEED my semi-auto Modern Sporting Rifle, I will most certainly rethink my destination as I am not SWAT or Delta Force. If I decide to take a shoulder arm with me because I want to have a long gun with me for one lawful reason or another...you aren't going to see it. ;)
 
I think any open carry activism should be confined to its own place, not mixed up with other political causes. And it should be in mass, and with clear signage and literature, not a lone nutjob doing it without purpose. Once open carry has been normalized then maybe we could branch out and make it a part of everyday life, but first people have to become aware that it's legal and not a threat to their existence. Even I as a gun nut will likely think the worst of some random dude carrying an AK down the street, and head for the hills in the assumption he's either a jihadi or an otherwise disgruntled individual.
 
I think the bigger question is whether we should maintain that ALL Constitutional rights apply simultaneously, and that a very strict scrutiny should apply to justify curtailing one Constitutional right in order to exercise another.
 
Blkhrt13 said:
I agree here too. But considering it bad taste doesn't mean I want it infringed.
Click to expand...

I try and make a distinction between what I would do and not do and things for which I would criticize another citizen.

I do not open carry at all, except at gun ranges and while hunting. But I won't criticize other citizens for it, not even AKs and not even at protests.
 
If you are open carrying to a Trump rally and a dozen of the fascists start harassing you, spitting on you and throwing garbage at you, what will you do? They are filming themselves and like monkeys throwing feces that are not a real danger, just disgusting. But, you have an AK47, locked and loaded and now you point it at one of them. They all start screaming, like the monkeys in question and demanding the cops arrest you. You are armed and the most dangerous threat to the cop, thus you are suddenly the target of fascists and law enforcement.

Now if you had a concealed carry firearm under a shirt they had no way to single you out for attack. If they came after you with clubs and knives then you can simply produce your firearm and defend yourself. Or yell for the cops, demand they protect you and press charges. No one would be the wiser if the concealed firearm stayed concealed. It's like insurance, only used if you need it and no one knows how much coverage you have.

Just my thoughts.
 
If our cause is important, then we should do things that advance it, not just things that are neutral or not harmful to the cause.

I think that the real question is this: How does taking an AK and magazines to a protest help our cause?
 
To the examples in #23, the guy open carrying at the protest is "making a political statement" not "going armed for defense".
In an alternate hypothetical, a protestor open carrying on the receiving end of feces-throwing monkeys, but taking the humiliation and not using a lethal weapon defensively would be a powerful statement drawing a clear bright line between the sides. (The problem with hypotheticals is you can hypothethize so many alternatives. For all I know, he was protesting the forced confiscation of private arms in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.)
Carrying concealed is just "going armed" and not "making a statement". The goal of the New Orleans protestor was political symbolism. Carrying concealed would be a poor way of making a public statement. Whether the statement is unclear or not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
Understanding Arms Control
Replies
3
Views
449
hso
hso
G
  • Locked
Thoughts on a complete rewrite...
2 3
Replies
73
Views
9K
Robert
Robert
P
  • Locked
Media bias - an excellent article
Replies
6
Views
880
7.62FullMetalJacket
7
Back
Top