Testing of rights/testing police

[Tom Servo]

Neglect will do that, in that a right will wither if it is not excercised enough.

I've heard this argument before, but I have no recollection of such a thing happening with other civil rights. Can you provide an example?

[Closing The Gap]

Tom,
Why do we need examples of other civil rights withering? Isnt the constant withering of the 2A over the past century example enough?

[jimbob86]

I've heard this argument before, but I have no recollection of such a thing happening with other civil rights. Can you provide an example?

There are none so blind as those with eyes that will not see .....

Right off the top of my head, IIRC, black men in the South had the right to vote after 1869 and full rights of Citizenship after 1868 ....... yet almost a century later had no political power and could not even eat in the same places as whites, under penalty of law, because their rights were whittled away a bit at a time, and they were discouraged from excercising them ..... the parallels between these two situations are as plain as day to me..... how are they not to you as well?

Blacks were at first discouraged from excercising their new rights by social pressure ..... sometimes by violent repression ...... after Reconstruction ended, laws chipped away at their rights a bit at a time...... until a black woman had to give up her seat to a white man, and that was thought of not only as right and proper, and to refuse to do so would get the black woman arrested for "Disturbing the Peace".

Excercise your Rights, People. Resist those who would discourage you at every turn. Make violation of your Rights as difficult and as Public as you can.

[Tom Servo]

the parallels between these two situations are as plain as day to me..... how are they not to you as well?

Because blacks didn't simply neglect to exercise their rights; they were intimidated and bullied from doing so. Big difference.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by jimbob86

... the parallels between these two situations are as plain as day to me..... how are they not to you as well?

Blacks were at first discouraged from excercising their new rights by social pressure ..... sometimes by violent repression ...... after Reconstruction ended, laws chipped away at their rights a bit at a time...... until a black woman had to give up her seat to a white man, and that was thought of not only as right and proper, and to refuse to do so would get the black woman arrested for "Disturbing the Peace"....

And there are huge strategic and social differences.

1. So since your brought her up, let's take a closer look at Rosa Parks:
   
   
   1. On 1 December 1955, Rosa Parks was the third African-American since March of that year to be arrested for violating the Montgomery bus segregation law. That night, Jo Ann Robinson, head of the Women's Political Council, printed and circulated a flyer throughout Montgomery's black community starting the call for a boycott of Montgomery's city buses.
      
      
   2. Martin Luther King, Jr., as president of the Montgomery Improvement Association and pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church, together with other Black community leaders, then organized the boycott of the Montgomery bus system. That boycott reduced Black ridership (the bulk of the bus system's paying customers) of Montgomery city buses by some 90% until December of 1956 when the Supreme Court ruled that the bus segregation laws of Montgomery, Alabama were unconstitutional (Gayle v. Browder, 352 U.S. 903 (1956)).
      
      
   3. Mrs. Parks actions and arrest were part of a well orchestrated, well organized, program leading to a successful conclusion.
   
   
2. Indeed the Civil Rights Movement in many ways is a poor model for the struggle for the RKBA:
   
   
   1. Different times, different causes, different social, political and legal climates.
      
      
   2. When Rosa Parks shook things up, her actions won wide support in editorials in major newspapers, from pulpits in houses of worship across the country and on college campus.
      
      
   3. The Civil Rights Movement of the '50s was the culmination of 100+ years of abolitionist and civil rights activity. It had broad and deep support. The goals of the Civil Rights Movement were promoted regularly in sermons in churches and synagogues all across the nation. The Civil Rights Movement had charismatic leaders like Martin Luther King who could inspire the country.
      
      
   4. During the days of the Civil Rights Movement of the '50s and '60s, civil disobedience, as favorably reported by the mainstream media, and as favorably commented upon on college campuses and in sermons in houses of worship across the nation, helped generate great public sympathy for the cause. That sympathy helped lead to the election of pro-civil rights legislators and executives. And that led to the enactment of pro-civil rights laws.
      
      
   5. The acts of civil disobedience, violations of law, involved very normal, benign, human acts: taking a seat on a bus for the ride home after a hard day at work; sitting at a lunch counter to have a meal; a child registering to attend school; registering to vote; voting; etc. These are normal, every day thing that White folks took for granted. And it became profoundly disturbing for many White to see other humans arrested for doing these normal, benign things simply because of the color of their skin.
      
      
   6. A tired black woman arrested for taking a seat on a bus is something that many ordinary people could respond sympathetically to. Does anyone really think that a man arrested for the illegal possession of a gun is likely to produce anything like a similar degree of sympathy in a non-gun owner -- especially after Columbine, Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook?
      
      
   7. How has the public thus far responded to the thus far minimal "civil disobedience" of RKBA advocates? Where have there been any great outpourings of sympathy for the plight of gun owners, especially from non-gun owners -- as whites showed sympathy for the plight of non-whites during the days of the Civil Rights Movement? Where are the editorials in the New York Times and Washington Post lauding the courage of gun owners in their resistance to the oppression of anti-gun prejudice? Who has heard a pro-gun rights sermon in his church? Where are the pro-gun rights rallies on college campuses? Where are non-gun owners joining with gun owners in pro-gun rights demonstrations, just as whites joined with non-whites in marches and demonstrations during the Civil Rights Movement? Where are our charismatic leaders inspiring the nation?
      
      
   8. During the Civil Rights Movement a largely sympathetic media was able to build widespread public sympathy for the cause. Today a popular media largely hostile to the RKBA helps build fear and antagonism.

[jimbob86]

Because blacks didn't simply neglect to exercise their rights; they were intimidated and bullied from doing so. Big difference.

Are you saying gun owners are not intimidated and bullied into not carrying their guns ???

I seem to recall a viral video of a LEO in Canton, Ohio threatening to execute a guy for CCW*..... I'm sure a quick search will turn up many other instances of people MTOB and being threatened with arrest, confiscation of their guns, etc, simply because they choose to excercise theri rights. Hell, we have people right here on this very thread that characterize those engaging in perfectly legal conduct as "asking for trouble".... I have no doubt that TPTB at the time characterized those in the Civil Rights movement of the 1950's-60's as "asking for trouble", or "rabblerousers"....

The Civil Rights Movement of the '50s was the culmination of 100+ years of abolitionist and civil rights activity. It had broad and deep support. The goals of the Civil Rights Movement were promoted regularly in sermons in churches and synagogues all across the nation. The Civil Rights Movement had charismatic leaders like Martin Luther King who could inspire the country.

I would submit to you that the Progressive Movement of today is the culmination of 100+ years of activity as well, and has steadily resulted in more government power and less individual freedom ..... the "resurgence" of 2A Rights is merely a backlash to that, and is not nearly as powerful as the movement it opposes.


*and were it not for video evidence and a personthat stood up for his rights, he'd still be out there doing it.

[jimbob86]

During the Civil Rights Movement a largely sympathetic media was able to build widespread public sympathy for the cause. Today a popular media largely hostile to the RKBA helps build fear and antagonism.

BINGO.

How has the public thus far responded to the thus far minimal "civil disobedience" of RKBA advocates?

I don't know how they respond to that, but they have responded to further attempts at 2A regulation by buying more guns and ammo than ever.

The media generally continues to paint 2A activists a crackpots and idiots ..... but the folks are buying guns and ammo at a record pace. There are more gun owners now than ever.

I don't think I am too terribly far wrong in saying that the MSM and those who think they are running things are more than a little out of touch with the folks.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by jimbob86

I would submit to you that the Progressive Movement of today is the culmination of 100+ years of activity as well, and has steadily resulted in more government power and less individual freedom ..... the "resurgence" of 2A Rights is merely a backlash to that, and is not nearly as powerful as the movement it opposes....

Submit whatever you want. And there might be some validity to that characterization.

But that still doesn't make the Civil Rights Movement a good model for the RKBA movement. I've outlined a number of reason why it's a bad fit.

Originally Posted by jimbob86

BINGO...

Okay, but now the real question is what we do about it. The kinds of activities described by the OP certainly are unlikely to change that.

Originally Posted by jimbob86

I don't know how they respond to that, but they have responded to further attempts at 2A regulation by buying more guns and ammo than ever...

Swell, but how does that do the RKBA any good. What we need to do is a better job of changing the minds of some of the voters who thus far have been happily electing ant-gun politicians. Some are surely unreachable, but some are not necessarily so.

[jimbob86]

Okay, but now the real question is what we do about it. The kinds of activities described by the OP certainly are unlikely to change that

I disagree.

It's all in how you do it. Present yourself well, and you will be well thought of.

I often OC'ed when our CCW law did not include pre-emption of local ordinances .... I never had a confrontation, and had quite a few good conversations, as did several others in our State 2A organization, including in the local paper's online comment section...... be polite, rational, and resolute.

It certainly does more good than ceding "normal" to the Other Side. Logic and reason are on our side. The only ways to lose are abandon those, or to fail to show up.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by jimbob86

I disagree.

It's all in how you do it. Present yourself well, and you will be well thought of....

How do you know? What evidence do you have to support that claim?

We certainly have some evidence to the contrary:

• In the late 1960s in California, the Black Panthers openly carrying guns resulted in the open carry of loaded guns being made illegal. And a few years ago, demonstrations involving the open carrying or unloaded guns resulted in that being made illegal.
  
  
• See this post 6 regarding the history of the loss in Florida of the right to openly carry in this thread on another forum.

When people legally open carry their guns hoping to achieve a particular political result, we can reasonably expect a range of responses from, "Cool" to "Yawn" to "A nut with a gun; there ought to be a law." What the distribution is will decide whether openly carrying is politically helpful or politically harmful. But we can't know whether open carrying is doing any political good without having a better idea of that distribution. And the distribution will probably be different in different places at different times.

I continue to be dismayed by the failure of so many in the RKBA community to recognize the importance of positively influencing public opinion or to have any real clue about how to determine how to go about doing that.

During the course of my career I've had a pretty fair amount of experience working with business clients who needed to be able to influence public perception, understand how to make advertising effective and find the best ways to effectively communicate their messages. When a lot was at stake, they didn't just guess or say "if it worked for Rosa Parks."

When they sat around their conference tables (I was there), they didn't assume that their audiences would think the ways they did or have the same values and perceptions. They consulted with psychologists and others who have studied human motivation and perception and beliefs. They thoroughly analyzed the demographics of the audiences and tried to understand what they cared about, what they were scared of, what made them happy or feel secure, what they believed and didn't believe.

They also tested their conclusions with surveys and focus groups. They paid attention to what was happening and made adjustments in their messages and techniques if things weren't working the way they wanted them to.

And I strongly suspect that our opposition is doing at least some of those things.

Originally Posted by jimbob86

...I often OC'ed when our CCW law did not include pre-emption of local ordinances .... I never had a confrontation, and had quite a few good conversations, as did several others in our State 2A organization, including in the local paper's online comment section...... be polite, rational, and resolute...

Fine, but you also have no way of knowing how many people might have been annoyed, troubled or even outraged. People who think it's cool that you're carrying a gun are likely to offer positive comments. But I don't see someone who is angered or frightened taking a guy with a gun to task.

Originally Posted by jimbob86

...It certainly does more good than ceding "normal"...

It's not about "ceding normal." It's about effectively furthering our interests.

[Tom Servo]

Are you saying gun owners are not intimidated and bullied into not carrying their guns ?

How are we being intimidated or bullied? I'm not seeing it.

Nobody denies me a job because I'm a gun owner. My kids don't have to go do separate schools because I'm a gun owner. The fight to restore and strengthen the RKBA is not the same as the struggle for folks to be treated as equal human beings.

[jimbob86]

The fight to restore and strengthen the RKBA is not the same as the struggle for folks to be treated as equal human beings.

Oh, but it IS.

How are we being intimidated or bullied? I'm not seeing it.

Incidents such as the one in Canton, OH intimidate gun owners. How can you not see that?

One man may carry a gun and threaten to execute another because he is doing the same? THAT was a viloation the second man's civil rights, and under cover of Authority, even.

Officer Harless was dealt with, but that kind of thing happens .....

Self Defense IS a Human Right, and you can not convince me otherwise.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms was originally enshrined more deeply in our Constitution than the Right to Vote .....

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by jimbob86

...Self Defense IS a Human Right, and you can not convince me otherwise.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms was originally enshrined more deeply in our Constitution than the Right to Vote .....

None of which has anything to do with finding the most effective ways to further our interests.

[jimbob86]

So what do YOU think the most effective ways are?

Hide your light under a bushel, Sir, if you feel you must.

I do not, and will OC when I think I should.

I will not condemn others who do so.

I certainly will not jump on the MSM bandwagon and accuse those who do of "looking for trouble".

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by jimbob86

So what do YOU think the most effective ways are?

Hide your light under a bushel, Sir, if you feel you must....

Phooey.

Some of the things I've seen be effective in my own dealings with people have been:

• Being a good ambassador for gun ownership. What kind of ambassador are you?
  
  
  • Are you the type of person, in your manners, tastes, interests (aside from guns), about whom someone might say, "Gosh, I would never have expected you to be a gun owner"?
    
    
  • Are you a multilayered, well rounded person; active and contributing to society in a variety of ways and spheres -- your careers, your community, local charities, the arts, etc. We're just be identified as "gun nuts." We're active, participating members of our communities, and we just happen to own firearms and are interest in, and knowledgeable about, them. The points are (1) to break down stereotypes; and (2) to increase our credibility.
    
    
  • The point is for people you know who do not own guns, but who know you own guns, to think well of you -- especially in matters completely independent of guns. Do you maintain a reputation in your circle and your community for being honest and forthright in your business and personal relationships? Do you maintain a reputation in your circle and your community for taking good care of your family and your home? Do you maintain a reputation in your circle and your community for promptly paying your debts and fulfilling your responsibilities? Do you maintain a reputation in your circle and your community as someone of good and trustworthy character? Are you held in good repute by your co-workers and employer?
  
  
• Actively promoting shooting and responsible gun ownership -- training and bringing new people into shooting. Over the years as a coach and instructor I have, without compensation, introduced hundreds of people to guns and shooting. Currently I'm an instructor in a group that puts on monthly NRA Basic Handgun classes. Almost all of our students have no prior experience. We introduce about a hundred people a year to guns.

[jimbob86]

Are you the type of person, in your manners, tastes, interests (aside from guns), about whom someone might say, "Gosh, I would never have expected you to be a gun owner"?

There are no real secrets in a small town. I live in one. I'm pretty sure that everyone I know knows I have guns, hunt, and/or teach 4-H shooting sports.

Are you a multilayered, well rounded person; active and contributing to society in a variety of ways and spheres -- your careers, your community, local charities, the arts, etc. We're just be identified as "gun nuts." We're active, participating members of our communities, and we just happen to own firearms and are interest in, and knowledgeable about, them. The points are (1) to break down stereotypes; and (2) to increase our credibility.

Volunteer FF/EMT, 4-H leader, small business owner ...... gun owner.

I make new shooters, new gun owners, every year. In a good year, I make new successful hunters. I am politically active on a local and state level.

I also OC on occasion. I doubt if the hundreds of people that know me consider me a nut.
ETA:

"Gosh, I would never have expected you to be a gun owner"?

I read that again and my first thought was: "Gosh, I would never have expected you to be Gay/a Swinger/a Democrat"........

Why hide the fact that you are a gun owner? It is not something to be ashamed of, for Pete's sake! (And I know Pete- he lives across the alley from me, and is a Democrat. Other than that, he's a pretty good guy.)

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by jimbob86

...Volunteer FF/EMT, 4-H leader, small business owner ...... gun owner.

I make new shooters, new gun owners, every year. In a good year, I make new successful hunters. I am politically active on a local and state level.

I also OC on occasion. I doubt if the hundreds of people that know me consider me a nut....

Great, that's the sort of stuff we need more of.

Originally Posted by jimbob86

I read that again and my first thought was: "Gosh, I would never have expected you to be Gay/a Swinger/a Democrat"........

Why hide the fact that you are a gun owner? It is not something to be ashamed of

But you keep missing the point. The point is to challenge and shatter the stereotypes of gun owners.

[jimbob86]

But you keep missing the point.

I don't think so. I am shattering the MSM's stereotype by being a living, breathing, rational, gun owning, gun bearing, example of "normal".

The point is to challenge and shatter the stereotypes of gun owners.

Methinks you have bought into the "stereotypes" of your locality..... or accepted that the MSM's "norm" is in fact the "norm".

AFAIK, California is NOT the "norm"!

I may be guilty of the same locality bias (in the other direction!), seeing that you live in the Bay Area (which, while not actually Mordor, seems to me to be of a similar real estate market) ...... You, Sir, have a much tougher row to hoe, politically (while at the same time having a much more target rich environment for the development of new shooters!) ...... I have pretty much written off California to the Progressives/Statists .... but I am a Pessimist (I can count on being pleasantly surprised much of the time- )...your claim of hundreds of new shooters/annually is certainly impressive ...... I manage single digits, in a gun friendly state .....

[Glenn E. Meyer]

For info - on civil rights and firearms, here is a great book on how most don't know the role of armed self-defense in the civil rights movement in the South:

http://nyupress.org/books/book-detai...3#.UdWFEZYo59A

In fact, IMHO, it is a greater argument for the RKBA as a defense against tyranny that most used in the gun world. I'll hold my thoughts on why.

Frank - great analysis.

Glenn

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by jimbob86

I don't think so. I am shattering the MSM's stereotype by being a living, breathing, rational, gun owning, gun bearing, example of "normal"...

That is not for you to decide. Others decide how they see you. Others decide the stereotypes they hold.

You don't necessarily know how others see you. You can not control the beliefs or perceptions of others. All you can control is how you present yourself to the world.

Originally Posted by jimbob86

Methinks you have bought into the "stereotypes" of your locality..... or accepted that the MSM's "norm" is in fact the "norm".

AFAIK, California is NOT the "norm"!

I may be guilty of the same locality bias (in the other direction!), seeing that you live in the Bay Area (which, while not actually Mordor, seems to me to be of a similar real estate market) ....

The stereotype is not a community, but an individual matter. It is not a question of what the "norm" is. It's a question of individual perception.

I suspect that even where you live, even in "gun friendly" communities there are people, voters, who have negative feelings towards guns and/or gun owners, and who would happily vote for anti-gun politicians. And things, and the character of communities, change.

Even recently, post Sandy Hook some States with generally decent gun laws passed, with significant public support, some very draconian anti-gun laws.

New York, Massachusetts, Illinois, etc., even though strongly anti-gun politically are thus in large part because the bulk of the political power in those States is in a few major cities. The rural parts of those States are much more pro-gun or neutral. And in States like Washington and Oregon which generally have decent gun laws, the urban centers area still hot beds of anti-gun sentiment.

On the other hand, I live in a more rural community which, although considered part of the San Francisco Bay Area, is general fairly pro-gun.

Originally Posted by jimbob86

...your claim of hundreds of new shooters/annually is certainly impressive ...

Actually what I wrote was:

Originally Posted by Frank Ettin

...We introduce about a hundred people a year to guns.

I don't want to exaggerate.

Our monthly classes have an enrollment of 8 to 12 (our maximum) students. However, since I've been doing this sort of thing for quite a number of years, the numbers add up.

[danez71]

I don't think so. I am shattering the MSM's stereotype by being a living, breathing, rational, gun owning, gun bearing, example of "normal".

Don't be so sure about that. For ex., I dont think its normal not to recognized the negative repercussions that have resulted from OC'ing and taunting govt people and not be willing to learn and change the tactic that has repeatedly failed.


You, as an individual, have stereotyped 'MSM's stereotype' as a whole just as an individual may stereotype 'gun people' as a whole.

What have you posted in this thread that you believe will cause a change of heart from a MSM person regarding how they see gun people as a whole?

[Uncle Buck]

Exercising your RKBA and exercising your body are a lot alike when it comes to how to do it. I strongly believe there is a right way and a wrong way to do both.

If I want to strengthen my back, I am not going to do arm curls while sitting in a chair.

If I wish to support the RKBA, I am not going to be confrontational to others. If I turn off people, or scare them, they start yelling for the law makers and police to do something.

If I let them approach me and I engage them in conversation, not argument, then I feel I have won the day.

Bizarre Foods
I have lived overseas almost as long as I have lived in the USA. I have eaten a lot of the "Nasty Stuff" that is shown on this program when they are filming in the orient. To me, it seems normal. To others, it is gross.

Fast forward to the Minnesota State Fair: The shows host had people try different things from around the world that had appeared on the show. Even if they did not like the taste of the food, they left the tent with a positive experience.

This is what we need to give people, a positive experience. I honestly believe that in most cases it works in our favor. Rosa Parks was mentioned. The reason she is remembered is because she was a person people could empathize with. The previous two cases of people not giving up their seats involved people who would not have made good press.