OP
OP
Protester armed with Ak and mags
- Thread starter Blkhrt13
- Start date
- Status
Yo Mama
Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2008
- Messages
- 3,230
I have no problem with people having a firearm at a protest.........except that I feel the people doing so are making themselves a target. Recently the left has been using protestors that are paid agitators and violence has become accepted practice in many of these crowds. There is no talking or reasoning with these folks. I can easily see a nutcase protestor targeting an armed citizen first and using some bs defense that they felt threatened by the establishment and were standing for mother earth.
Just because a thing is legal doesn't make it smart. I could go to work tomorrow in shorts and flipflops and with no shirt on. It would be perfectly legal but it would also result in either a suspension or termination. Legal but stupid.
It is perfectly legal for me to spend my entire paycheck on beer and French fries leaving no money to pay any other bills. Legal but stupid.
It is perfectly legal for me to openly carry a loaded long gun in TX, but it wouldn't be smart for me to walk into a police department or a bank with a rifle carried at the ready.
Let's not pretend that just because doing something is legal that automatically means there can't be a problem with doing it in some circumstances and situations.
Last edited:
1. The question was whether or not it hurt our cause--i.e. whether or not it was smart for gun rights advocates to do it. So discussion about whether it's smart or not is precisely on point.
2. Besides, it's ALWAYS a good idea to think about whether doing something is smart or not before you do it. If you think about doing something and realize it would be stupid to do it, then it would be smart NOT to do it. Will that result in you sometimes not doing things? I would hope so. I like being really comfortable, but I'm not going to go to work shirtless because I realize it would be stupid to do so. Restricting one's activities and behaviors based on prudent forethought is just part of being a responsible adult.
We don't know this is the case.
RetiredUSNChief
Member
I don't know the reason behind the individual doing what he did. But nothing I can think of puts this in a good light.
1. Let's say this individual somehow wanted to further 2A rights. Mixing, or hijacking, protest themes in general isn't good. Don't try mixing things up...it dilutes the purpose of the protest, at best, and any number of other thingsdetrimental to the protest.
2. Let's say the purpose was intimidation. There's a time and a place for such, and peaceful protests for unrelated themes is not the occasion.
3. Let's say this was a deliberate ruse, in which someone with an agenda deliberately shows up armed to the teeth to make a spectacle detrimental to his supposed cause...in this case, let's say 2A rights. In this case, it is serving the purpose of his hidden agenda.
4. Let's say this guy is just an idiot. We all know idiots abound, perhaps even know a few personally. He's not serving the 2A rights xause any in this instance, but you won't be able to convince him otherwise.
In the end...I just prefer to do an eyeroll and not give such people any more attention.
1. Let's say this individual somehow wanted to further 2A rights. Mixing, or hijacking, protest themes in general isn't good. Don't try mixing things up...it dilutes the purpose of the protest, at best, and any number of other thingsdetrimental to the protest.
2. Let's say the purpose was intimidation. There's a time and a place for such, and peaceful protests for unrelated themes is not the occasion.
3. Let's say this was a deliberate ruse, in which someone with an agenda deliberately shows up armed to the teeth to make a spectacle detrimental to his supposed cause...in this case, let's say 2A rights. In this case, it is serving the purpose of his hidden agenda.
4. Let's say this guy is just an idiot. We all know idiots abound, perhaps even know a few personally. He's not serving the 2A rights xause any in this instance, but you won't be able to convince him otherwise.
In the end...I just prefer to do an eyeroll and not give such people any more attention.
Whether or not it will "hurt our cause" depends on outcome. Someone brought up whether it was something that could be considered "smart". But the key to our " cause" is exposure.
If he was simply concerned about his safety I am right behind him . If he was simply exercising a right, I am right behind him. A right unexercized as a norm, will vanish. You can take that to the bank. People who debate open carry as "smart" or otherwise, should understand this. The opposition are hell bent on TOTAL abolition. To combat this, open carry as a *norm* is the way to go, and the way to do that is through exposure.
If open carry is legal, and people get upset because someone, or many, open carry and see it as possibly "symbolic" - the fight is already lost. If you juxtapose free speech likewise if you refer to any act of free speech as a "protest" or "symbolic", well the war is about over. And you are going to lose.
People need to exercise their rights, and wherever it is legal to conceal carry, open carry, whatever the case, exercise it. Or else it is going to disappear.
People need to be smart and act prudently. The idea that we should all, always exercise all our rights, no matter the circumstances, simply because it is legal to do so is ridiculous.
Exposure can be good or bad depending on the circumstances. It can have a positive or negative effect depending on how it's carried out.
That is precisely why it's important to be smart about how the exposure is carried out. If it's carried out wisely then people who are exposed to the exercise of the right will likely be left with a positive impression. If it is carried out foolishly, in an unwise manner, then those who are exposed to the exercise of the right will likely be left with a negative impression--and that is not going to create the idea that open carry should be the norm. Quite the reverse, in fact.
Frankly, I find it extremely concerning that someone would actually argue against the idea of thinking ahead and making wise decisions, and argue in favor of just always doing what's legal regardless of the circumstances and without any thought of how their actions might impact their cause.
In reality, what causes rights to be restricted is people exercising those rights in a foolish or unwise manner. That's the type of thing that raises public concern and convinces people and legislatures that laws need to be passed to restrict freedoms.
A right exercised foolishly is a right that will soon be restricted.
It's not hard to find examples.
Last edited:
If you had published this around the year 1790 even in Washington D.C. itself you would have been laughed to scorn. I will be more gentle...
If you live in a state where open carry of handguns and or rifles are legal, and you meet people who "I didn't know that", or have never seen it, there is something wrong. Exposure is crucial. If you think otherwise you do not grasp who and what the forces are behind gun control, and at what stage we are in that battle. The people who are behind this agenda, and the useful idiots they employ on a street level are not going to be swayed by "positive impressions". And the lines are already drawn; the demographics have changed just a little in the last ten years, more women buying guns etc, but they are leveling off. We also have a influx of people being imported from foreign cultures by the millions who have neither any understanding, nor desire to understand nor embrace our ideological base. And they are going to outbreed us; it is happening right now. Anyone who thinks that "some day, when we've made more progress" we can come out and "really" start exercising our rights is dreaming. At some point that "right" is going to go, because there will never be a time when anyone can say that a right is not being exercised "foolishly".
Exposure is crucial because it is the only manner in which to gain *acceptence*. No one is talking about the thousands that die in car accidents, because it is accepted, by exposure. "well everyone has to have a car, we can not do anything about that". And they are reminded every single day by hundreds, thousands, of cars around them. So they accept it. If you go to parts of the country where open carry of handguns is legal - and many people do it - it has become passe. Through exposure.
Alaska has rampant alcoholism especially among the indian population, and drug gangs et al. Alaska also has homicide rates in the upper three quarters (measured per capita) of the nation. Not as high as some states, but it is up there. Alaska also has no permit open and concealed carry of handguns, and rifles, and hardly anyone bats an eye - except tourists. The exposure is there, and people have become used to it - except tourists.
BSA1
member
What exactly is "Our Cause?"
So the idea of being smart is new? You think that the founding fathers wouldn't understand the concept of going about attaining their goals by making wise decisions? Do you think that this nation gained its independence and the founding fathers set up the government without taking care to make wise decisions?
POSITIVE exposure is crucial.
Wait. They can't be swayed, even by positive exposure, but exposure is crucial? If they can't be swayed by positive exposure but you say that exposure is crucial then it's negative exposure that's going to accomplish our goals? You're going to have to explain how not trying to be smart and trying to create negative exposure is going to advance our cause.
Exposure is crucial but it's not necessary to be smart in how we accomplish the exposure? In fact, it's important to NOT consider whether or not our actions are prudent?
Have you really thought this out or are you just typing stream of consciousness?
This is a strawman of your own making. I have not said that we shouldn't exercise our rights. All I've said is that it's important to be smart. Are you saying that "really" exercising our rights requires not taking care to be smart?
This isn't especially complicated. It's smart to be smart. Being smart will help accomplish our goals. It's foolish to be foolish. Being foolish will make it difficult to attain our goals.
Last edited:
Meplat 308
Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2017
- Messages
- 63
Open carry of handguns is one thing, in fact its fairly common up here. Rifles are another can 'o worms. At any Antifa event sooner or later somebody's gonna open fire.
grampajack
AR Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 1,714
I'm all for open carry but it needs to be done in a controlled manner until people get used to it. Get some responsible, mature, presentable folks together, pick a time and a place, give your local PD a heads up well in advance, and make it abundantly clear exactly what you're doing by having literature ready to hand out. Otherwise you're just giving politicians an excuse to further curtail the carry freedoms we've so recently regained, and law enforcement an excuse to arrest you for "disorderly conduct."
With that said, I'm for applying the law as it is written, and this gentleman was well within his rights. If people want to walk around with a rifle for no good reason then far be it from me to stop them. And just because someone is being a dumbarse certainly does not give law enforcement the right to harass them, as so often happens. One thing for certain, we need to demand that police stop responding to open carry calls. If the person is not brandishing or acting inebriated then no crime is being committed and there's no reason for them to be under suspicion of a crime and therefore no reason for police to even talk to them. This nonsense where they demand to see ID, run background, inspect the weapon, etc. needs to stop. For one thing it's giving these jackwagons exactly what they want so they can put it on youtube. The police need to stop feeding the trolls, and they will simply go away once they realize no one is paying attention to them anymore.
With that said, I'm for applying the law as it is written, and this gentleman was well within his rights. If people want to walk around with a rifle for no good reason then far be it from me to stop them. And just because someone is being a dumbarse certainly does not give law enforcement the right to harass them, as so often happens. One thing for certain, we need to demand that police stop responding to open carry calls. If the person is not brandishing or acting inebriated then no crime is being committed and there's no reason for them to be under suspicion of a crime and therefore no reason for police to even talk to them. This nonsense where they demand to see ID, run background, inspect the weapon, etc. needs to stop. For one thing it's giving these jackwagons exactly what they want so they can put it on youtube. The police need to stop feeding the trolls, and they will simply go away once they realize no one is paying attention to them anymore.
Last edited:
This is the poll question -
2/3 of us in this forum think guys like this harm our cause. Just under a third don't see it as doing any harm.
Some arguments presented aren't bounding the argument with the stated conditions while others are. At this point I don't see the ratios changing ore the arguments for any position.
Make note of the results and read through the relevant arguments keeping in mind everyone here is a 2A advocate.
2/3 of us in this forum think guys like this harm our cause. Just under a third don't see it as doing any harm.
Some arguments presented aren't bounding the argument with the stated conditions while others are. At this point I don't see the ratios changing ore the arguments for any position.
Make note of the results and read through the relevant arguments keeping in mind everyone here is a 2A advocate.
Berger.Fan222
Member
False dichotomy. Some people thinks the Constitution allows others to do things we personally don't like. We realize that busy bodies often argue that something "does harm" as a way of restricting the rights of others. Some of us are smart enough to see attempts at manipulating the public toward restrictions on Constitutional rights.
BTW, the organization of Oath Keepers, who regularly organize the protection of people and property at "hot spots", are involved in the protection of this statue and people protesting against it's removal. They regularly organize armed protection where it is legal; this guy could be one of their men.
Edit: studied this photo more and add: this guy has a tattoo, " Infidel" on this arm. Oath Keeper volunteers are largely made up of military vets. I'm betting thus guy is an Oath Keeper on one of their protection details for the pro statue supporters, and the statue. It should also be noted that Oath Keepers normally deploy unarmed guys (they might have pepper spray etc) as well so there is a buffer against non lethal threats.
Edit: studied this photo more and add: this guy has a tattoo, " Infidel" on this arm. Oath Keeper volunteers are largely made up of military vets. I'm betting thus guy is an Oath Keeper on one of their protection details for the pro statue supporters, and the statue. It should also be noted that Oath Keepers normally deploy unarmed guys (they might have pepper spray etc) as well so there is a buffer against non lethal threats.
Last edited:
Positive exposure is exposure that helps our cause. The idea that any and everything we do with guns that is legal helps our cause isn't reality--to say the least.
Given the circumstances it was.
Of course it does. We have many freedoms that we can legally use to irritate/alarm/perturb/worry/etc. others. Just look at the Westboro Baptist Church folks. What they do is legal but the vast majority of people don't see it as positive. And as a result, legislation has been passed to restrict their activities.
That's an excellent example of how doing things that cast a particular cause in a bad light can hurt a cause.
Yes they do. And sometimes they are successful enough in their arguments that they manage to actually get rights restricted. Many laws are passed precisely because someone does something stupid/unwise that's not illegal and enough people band together and make it illegal. But that's not the point.
If the point is to cast gun owners and gun rights in a positive light, then it makes sense to be smart about how we go about carrying out our goals.
I would hope that all of us are smart and perceptive enough to see that. I would also hope that we are smart in the ways that we "manipulate the public" towards maintaining and expanding our rights.
Interesting, but not relevant. The question wasn't whether or not the protester NEEDED to be armed, it was whether or not such displays are helpful or hurtful to the cause of gun rights.
Apples and oranges. A disruptive demonstration is a direct interference. Simply being armed as an individual, legally, and committing no crime is not an interference. In the context of gun laws and carry, Texas for example, already has two very distinct laws to address misconduct in public places with firearms. One is the display of a firearm in a manner calculated to cause alarm, and the other is deadly conduct; pointing a firearm at a person in circumstances where deadly force would not be justified.
So just what will ever constitute "positive exposure that helps our cause" other than to be armed where it is legal, and not committing any crime?
What Oath Keepers are doing, if in fact this guy is an Oath Keeper, is relevent to the discussion. You can not take a photo of an armed guy at a protest, and ask for simple "good or bad yay or nay", if you do not actually know why he is there. Oath Keepers do this kind of thing regularly. They do it as a practical voluntary service for the protection of people and property to the legal extent allowable. They are not a protest organization, and they do not openly carry firearms as some sort of "display", or "protest", or provocation.
Last edited:
Are we trying to positively influence ONLY those who take the time to do research so that they understand the intricacies of why someone does what they do? Being concerned with educating people who are already inclined to educate themselves probably isn't especially productive.
Or are we trying to positively influence even those who won't bother with such details? Then we need to step back and think about how that audience will perceive our actions.
The point is that one can use freedoms, such as the freedom to protest in the case of the WBC, to either positive or negative effect. If the goal is to have a positive effect, then one should thoughtfully consider how to go about achieving the positive effect rather than blindly assuming that any legal activity is bound to have a positive effect.
Who said anything about it being an interference? Who said that it was illegal? It was neither as far as I can tell and no one has claimed otherwise. The question was whether it hurts or helps. The correct answer is that it depends on the circumstances. Trying to claim that anything legal helps the cause is obviously incorrect since there are clearly legal actions which could be taken that would hurt the cause of expanding gun rights.
The responsibility of being a free person with many rights is using those freedoms and rights wisely to contribute to society and to achieve worthy goals. Goals such as the preservation of freedoms and rights.
If it's not immediately clear how to go about achieving those goals, then a constructive response is to study the relevant topics to aid in constructing productive strategies based on wise decisions.
Preserving freedom requires more than just enthusiasm, strong opinions, and a basic understanding of what is legal and what is not.
We don't know and justification for opinion isn't part of the question. It isn't a 2A protest and we don't know his intent, but since this isn't a 2A event we know his stance isn't as a protester for the 2A.
The question was whether a person, reason unknown, is present with a firearm, at a "protest" (and evidently the type of "protest" is irrelevent to the question), and whether it "hurts our cause" (whatever anyone perceives that to mean).
RE: interference, I was commenting in regard to the Baptist church protesters who were engaged in the interference with veteran funerals, in a manner to disrupt those funerals by their presence. They probably could have been charged with other offenses without making a "new law" to limit their protest activity.
That is completely different from an individual being present in a public place at a protest with a firearm in a protective role, and not committing any crime. As I have stated, it appears this person was there as part of a protective detail by the organization mentioned. The counter protesters in this case have a track record of violence, in some cases with firearms and other weapons including things like molotov cocktails.
I am going to leave it at that. You do not seem to understand what is going on at this (photograph in OP) protest site, and what the nature of the opposing side is in this case. It is not going to go away, and you are going to see this organization fielding these armed details, where legal, at ongoing hot spots - "protests" - in the future. It is because of the nature of the opposing side, their propensity for armed violence. They are not there showcasing for the 2nd Amendment, they are there in a proactive role of protecting people and property.
- Status
