The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old August 19, 2009, 05:46 PM   #251
Hkmp5sd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
Quote:
No one was afraid at the rally. Why weren't they afraid? They understood that it was speech, not intimidation.

Hmm....


Quote:
Phoenix police said authorities monitored about a dozen people carrying weapons while peacefully demonstrating.

"It was a group interested in exercising the right to bear arms," police spokesman Sgt. Andy Hill said.

Arizona law has nothing in the books regulating assault rifles, and only requires permits for carrying concealed weapons. So despite the man's proximity to the president, there were no charges or arrests to be made. Hill said officers explained the law to some people who were upset about the presence of weapons at the protest.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/...fle/index.html
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer

NRA Life Member
Hkmp5sd is offline  
Old August 19, 2009, 05:58 PM   #252
Hkmp5sd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
Quote:
To state that the private person carrying a gun is not threatening to some and that the government employee carrying the gun is more threatening is not really useful. That is an interpretation of the poster.
In fact, I think it is the "government employee" that decreases the fear of the firearm in the general public. Seeing an LEO with a gun or a soldier with a gun doesn't really bother people because they grew up seeing them. It is a common, everyday event. Cops are everywhere. Soldiers are in most parades and sporting events. Both are all over television and the movies. Watch children around a uniformed LEO the next time you see one and their eyes will be glued to the gun. It is something they are unfamiliar with and are intrigued by, but there is no fear.

Seeing hundreds of re-enactors with black powder guns doesn't raise a hair because of their attire. The same with seeing a cowboy at a theme park. It is something we are very used to.

In most states, we never see a civilian walking around with a sidearm. As such, they are going to attract attention and intimidate those around them just by their presence.

I once had my vehicle break down and towed to a garage where I had to leave it for repairs. I had to walk about 40 yards across the parking lot to my buddies' vehicle for a ride home while carrying an Uzi in plain view. The reaction of those that saw me was very interesting.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer

NRA Life Member
Hkmp5sd is offline  
Old August 19, 2009, 06:16 PM   #253
zxcvbob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 20, 2007
Location: S.E. Minnesota
Posts: 4,198
Quote:
No one was afraid at the rally. Why weren't they afraid? They understood that it was speech, not intimidation.

I will point out again that NONE of the people in any of the footage, nor the local police, nor the SS, nor even the woman in the video debating with the AR-carrying gentlemen, appear the least bit intimidated. She was SAYING that it was intimidating, but she clearly wasn't intimidated. That, or she's the bravest person I have ever seen.

People who were there at the rally, knew that the gentlemen was exercising 2A and 1A at the same time. NO ONE took cover, ran for their lives, or any other response that one would expect to see from any normal human in fear of their life.
[snip]
However, the incidents of the past two weeks have clearly demonstrated on the international stage that the mere presence of a firearm, even in the hands of a civilian, EVEN if it's an AR15 with a full, 30 round magazine, does NOT automatically spell disaster and mayhem, and does NOT automatically warrant a violent crackdown from armed authorities. That's huge, and can be a pivotal moment in the return of civilian bearing of arms to it's rightful place in our society. Let's not screw it up.
[snip]
Once that [incorporation] happens, we can start knocking down some dominoes in NY, MA, CA, IL, HA, WI, and every other recalcitrant enclave of 2A tyranny.
This is two Open Carry Near Obama incidents now in as many weeks. And they were both uneventful. Pretty soon, it won't even be newsworthy. (think about that last part for a minute)

In my opinion, WI should be the next domino. Open Carry is already legal there and protected by the state constitution (and Gov Doyle even sarcastically indicated that he approves of OC). CC is not legal, and OC'ers are routinely harrassed by law enforcement.
__________________
"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun"
zxcvbob is online now  
Old August 19, 2009, 06:51 PM   #254
ruhip
Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2005
Location: MA./FLA.
Posts: 29
I don't think wearing a handgun or slinging an AR over you shoulder at a political gathering accomplishes anything remotely positive for gun owners.
ruhip is offline  
Old August 19, 2009, 07:06 PM   #255
divemedic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2006
Posts: 1,313
Quote:
I don't think wearing a shirt with a political slogan or slinging a picket sign over you shoulder at a political gathering accomplishes anything remotely positive for free speech.
See how silly it sounds when applied to the 1A?
__________________
Caveat Emperor
divemedic is offline  
Old August 19, 2009, 07:46 PM   #256
Homerboy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2004
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 1,028
Quote:
See how silly it sounds when applied to the 1A?
Sorry, but that is a horrible comparison. Since when is the guy wearing a t-shirt in the same league as a guy with a gun? Come on, man. So if you see a guy come into a restaurant with a "American's are Baby Killers" t-shirt, you're going to give him the same attention as the guy with an AR slung over his shoulder?
Homerboy is offline  
Old August 19, 2009, 08:23 PM   #257
Wildalaska
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,174
Quote:
See how silly it sounds when applied to the 1A?
Again, keeping in mind the psychological/biological aspects of weapon display and threat behavior, the more reasonable comparison would be someone wearing an offensive shirt. You are confusing the act with the content

I defend the right of the gun folks to make their statement, just as I defend the rights of nazis to march or the pro/con abortion crowd to wave pics of aborted foeti in front of pizza parlours or the Socialist Worker's party to wave pics of Che in Little Havana....

I find their messages equally trite and offensive. They aren't out to change minds, or engage in debate, or even foster debate....

WilditsalookatmethingAlaska ™
Wildalaska is offline  
Old August 19, 2009, 08:27 PM   #258
divemedic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2006
Posts: 1,313
Quote:
you're going to give him the same attention as the guy with an AR slung over his shoulder?
Actually, yes. (Assuming that having an AR open carry is legal wherever it is that I am)
__________________
Caveat Emperor
divemedic is offline  
Old August 19, 2009, 08:27 PM   #259
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,090
Quote:
I don't think wearing a handgun or slinging an AR over you shoulder at a political gathering accomplishes anything remotely positive for gun owners.
That certainly is the core of the debate here, but it does remain to be seen.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old August 19, 2009, 08:52 PM   #260
Webleymkv
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 9,922
Originally posted by Glenn E. Meyer
Quote:
About police again - we've found that if the gun is handled by someone who seems competent, less negative ideation is primed. However, a citizen carrying at a rally is an unknown and if seen as inappropriate - may not be trusted.
Precisely. The point I was trying to make is that if perhaps over time enough people openly carry without acts of violence occurring, then the private citizen may eventually lose the distrust of the public at large. I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that if the public becomes accustomed to law-abiding citizens with firearms, they'll likely lose a great deal of their fear. Familiarity breeds comfort.

Quote:
The issue needs to be brought to the public's attention - our discussion is what is persuasive.
Unfortunately, the mainstream media seems unwilling to allow us any positive coverage. Our discussion is not persuasive at all if no one outside the "choir" hears it. By displaying our firearms in a peaceful manner at high profile events, we bring our argument to the forefront of the public's awareness.

Quote:
For example, to return to education - in our department newsletter about our research and activities - we have the picture of me at the Polite Society, with a Glock, protecting a baby in a scenario. Thus, quite a few young people will see a responsible educator who is a gun user.
Exactly, we need to represent private use of firearms is a positive light. Perhaps through the public seeing responsible citizens openly carrying at high profile events such as Presidential Town Halls without the death and destruction that the anti's always predict, we can do this.

Originally posted by Wildalaska
Quote:
Our cultural norms reinforce that hardwiring of our brains. Time and place of weapon display is part of that hard wiring, since under certain circumstances, a display of weaponry is not seen as a threat. Witness the chimpanzee just holding the branch, or showing its fangs in a non threat environment.
You're missing my point. I think that if the public becomes accustomed to seeing private citizens with firearms, then their mere presence when not used in a threatening manner will eventually cease to be viewed as a threat.

Quote:
Quote:
And yet Ken there were times in our countries past that the sight of a firearm in public did not provoke said response since it was a big part of life at that time

Wrong again....time and place


Quote:
Ah, but merely having a weapon is not the same as threatening someone with it.

Wrong again...time and place....
WA, again I think you're missing the point. Because there was indeed a time and place where the mere sight of a weapon, so long as it was not used in a threatening manner, did not provoke fear, we must conclude that weapon=fear isn't hardwired into the human brain. While the presence of weapons does intimidate the public here and now, the fact that this is a conditioned response rather than an instict shows that it can be reversed. If the public becomes accustomed to private citizens bearing arms without the "wild west shootouts" and "blood running in the streets" that the anti's have predicted for years, eventually the mere presence of a weapon will cease to represent a threat.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wildalaska
Wrong again....time and place

To be sure however does "who" enter into your equation?
That brings up another key point. Intimidation is not necessarily a bad thing so long as the right people are intimidated. For example, the Secret Service openly carrying submachineguns and assault rifles at Presidential events is partly meant to intimidate certain people. The key here lies in who they're trying to intimidate. As a law abiding citizen, I am not intimidated by the police or USSS openly carrying weapons because I know that they won't be used on me. However, those who would consider trying to harm the President most likely are intimidated by display of these weapons as they know that they'll likely be on the wrong end of them should they attempt to carry out their violent intentions. This intimidation, I think, is intentional on the part of the police and USSS.

As private citizens, what we ultimately want is for only those who wish us harm to be intimidated by our weapons. This concept obviously worked for Mr. Kostric as the thug in the youtube video, upon seeing Mr. Kostric's gun, decided to take his assaults elsewhere. Kostric's gun being present and visible acted as a deterrent and helped to prevent a situation in which it's use might have become neccessary.

Originally posted by Glenn E. Meyer
Quote:
This is a variant of the popular mantra that a gun is a tool and the choir chortles. However, those outside the choir see them as instruments of lethal force.

Incestous choir chatter is not helpful in convincing the general public. Research on decision making clearly shows that group think and failure to take the perspective of others leads to poor analysis.
While singing to the choir does little real good other than make some of us feel better, If we can persuade those outside the choir that a gun is just a tool, then we have something powerful.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Quote:
So, how then do you gun toters engender the same attitude within our civilian non-gun toting brethern? I suspect it will be a long process but is it plausible to have civilians wearing firearms openly where others will not be afraid (other than crooks)? Or will we need to keep them concealed for the near term?
In short, we need to do both. We need the open carriers so that the public will become familiar with them and ultimately lose their fear, but we also need the concealed carriers so that the crooks will never know for sure who has a gun and who doesn't (thusly being intimidated by everyone).

Originally posted by Hkmp5sd
Quote:
Quote:
To state that the private person carrying a gun is not threatening to some and that the government employee carrying the gun is more threatening is not really useful. That is an interpretation of the poster.

In fact, I think it is the "government employee" that decreases the fear of the firearm in the general public. Seeing an LEO with a gun or a soldier with a gun doesn't really bother people because they grew up seeing them. It is a common, everyday event. Cops are everywhere. Soldiers are in most parades and sporting events. Both are all over television and the movies. Watch children around a uniformed LEO the next time you see one and their eyes will be glued to the gun. It is something they are unfamiliar with and are intrigued by, but there is no fear.

Seeing hundreds of re-enactors with black powder guns doesn't raise a hair because of their attire. The same with seeing a cowboy at a theme park. It is something we are very used to.

In most states, we never see a civilian walking around with a sidearm. As such, they are going to attract attention and intimidate those around them just by their presence.
While it will be a long process, if we can make OC common enough eventually the public will become accustomed to it in the say way they are to Military and LE. Remember, openly armed police weren't always accepted by the public (the NYPD did not openly carry handguns until just a little over 100 years ago) but unless someone starts a trend, it will never be accepted.
__________________
Smith, and Wesson, and Me. -H. Callahan
Well waddaya know, one buwwet weft! -E. Fudd
All bad precedents begin as justifiable measures. -J. Caesar
Webleymkv is offline  
Old August 19, 2009, 09:12 PM   #261
gc70
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,490
Quote:
The issue needs to be brought to the public's attention - our discussion is what is persuasive.
Significantly reducing fearful reactions to the sight of guns is our goal. A rare media flap or a lonely positive photo in a departmental newsletter will not achieve that goal. The question is how to achieve the number and frequency of positive exposures to the general public necessary to offset the negatives portrayals in the media.
gc70 is offline  
Old August 19, 2009, 09:13 PM   #262
rickyjames
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 5, 2009
Posts: 558
i carry a gun all the time but i am just as worried about camoflaged extremists walking around with ar-15's at public political events as i would be seeing armed govt storm troopers marching down my street. i train in martial arts to protect my family and myself but i don't walk into a bar wearing a gi and black belt because it would be just asking for trouble. this isn't a bagdad market place, i don't want to see people at local flea markets carrying ar's or ak's and fireing them in the air because we have a 2nd amendment.
rickyjames is offline  
Old August 19, 2009, 10:10 PM   #263
BoringAccountant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 27, 2007
Location: Maryland
Posts: 426
Quote:
I don't think wearing a handgun or slinging an AR over you shoulder at a political gathering accomplishes anything remotely positive for gun owners.
Could you expound upon that further as to why you think that. I really can't respond to just a single statement without knowing the real reasons why you feel that way.
BoringAccountant is offline  
Old August 19, 2009, 11:25 PM   #264
OuTcAsT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 8, 2006
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 1,197
Quote:
However, the incidents of the past two weeks have clearly demonstrated on the international stage that the mere presence of a firearm, even in the hands of a civilian, EVEN if it's an AR15 with a full, 30 round magazine, does NOT automatically spell disaster and mayhem, and does NOT automatically warrant a violent crackdown from armed authorities.

That's huge, and can be a pivotal moment in the return of civilian bearing of arms to it's rightful place in our society. Let's not screw it up.

Excellent point, and I agree, the goal is becoming more reachable, it just needs to be done on a measured basis.

Quote:
The only people here being intimidated are gun owners who are so afraid that someone won't like them that they are willing to be cowed into giving up a right, so someone will like them.
That's the perception I have as well, however, those of us who are "awake" must take care, lest we alienate the "choir", to wit;

Quote:
Precisely. The point I was trying to make is that if perhaps over time enough people openly carry without acts of violence occurring, then the private citizen may eventually lose the distrust of the public at large. I guess the point that I'm trying to make is that if the public becomes accustomed to law-abiding citizens with firearms, they'll likely lose a great deal of their fear. Familiarity breeds comfort.
__________________
WITHOUT Freedom of Thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such Thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech. Silence Dogood

Does not morality imply the last clear chance? - WildAlaska -
OuTcAsT is offline  
Old August 19, 2009, 11:37 PM   #265
Tennessee Gentleman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by OuTcAsT
those of us who are "awake" must take care, lest we alienate the "choir" .
I think you are in the choir. Where divemedic (and others) and I disagree is that I know that public opinion is important to our maintaining and restoring our gun rights. It has something to do with voting and that majorities are good to have on your side.

I don't care what they "think" of me but I do care how they vote and I know if they consistently vote against us it is not a good thing.

I also know most of them do not own guns and so rather than give them a in-your-face attitude I want to either win them over to our side or at least have them be neutral on gun control and not help those who wish to take those rights away.

I guess I am looking for results and I believe we will get them through our system. It is not a matter of me giving up any rights, I just don't want them taken away by a lack of votes while the choir is yelling "What part of shall not be infringed don't you understand!".
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted."
Anonymous Soldier.
Tennessee Gentleman is offline  
Old August 20, 2009, 12:13 AM   #266
kozak6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 16, 2005
Location: AZ
Posts: 2,322
The impression that I get is that it's not really about exercising rights as much as it is about protesting health care reform through intimidation.

If the political events were in any way, shape, or form related to gun control of any kind, perhaps open carry at such an event would make a more meaningful and relevant statement about our constitutional rights.

To bear arms over health care reform is a different matter entirely, especially considering how volatile and poorly debated/reported it is.

There is a particular focus in the media on irrational and belligerent opponents of health care reform. This, combined with other armed protesters who go as far as making implicit threats (tree of liberty posters) doesn't reflect well on on those who carried in Phoenix, and those who will in similar future protests.

There may be some valid points about increasing the visibility and normality of open carry. However, I don't think this is the way to do it.
kozak6 is offline  
Old August 20, 2009, 12:23 AM   #267
ADB
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 28, 2009
Posts: 399
I don't think anybody denies that what these guys were doing was legal, but that's a far cry from it being smart, or anything that should be approved of. It's a form of attention mongering, trying to create a public spectacle. Nothing more, nothing less--and it fosters a public impression of gun owners as being dangerous and obsessed with guns under all circumstances.
ADB is offline  
Old August 20, 2009, 12:37 AM   #268
jimpeel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,480
The Libs don't get the fact that there are openly armed men attending a town hall where the President is slated to speak and there is absolutely no violence.

Conversely, there have been numerous cases documented in which unarmed (thank God) union activists from the SEIU have been assaulting people at town hall meetings.

Arrests of citizens carrying lawfully owned firearms = 0

Arrests of unarmed SEIU members = 7
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm.

"Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare

"Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed"
-- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey
jimpeel is offline  
Old August 20, 2009, 12:50 AM   #269
jimpeel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,480
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/...protest.rifle/

Quote:
U.S. Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan acknowledged the incidents in New Hampshire and Arizona, but said he was not aware of any other recent events where protesters attended with open weapons. He said there was no indication that anyone had organized the incidents.

Asked whether the individuals carrying weapons jeopardized the safety of the president, Donovan said, "Of course not."

The individuals would never have gotten in close proximity to the president, regardless of any state laws on openly carrying weapons, he said. A venue is considered a federal site when the Secret Service is protecting the president and weapons are not allowed on a federal site, he added.

In both instances, the men carrying weapons were outside the venues where Obama was speaking.

"We pay attention to this obviously ... to someone with a firearm when they open carry even when they are within state law," Donovan said. "We work with our law enforcement counterparts to make sure laws and regulations in their states are enforced."
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm.

"Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare

"Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed"
-- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey
jimpeel is offline  
Old August 20, 2009, 01:34 AM   #270
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 18,406
Quote:
Exactly, we need to represent private use of firearms is a positive light. Perhaps through the public seeing responsible citizens openly carrying at high profile events such as Presidential Town Halls without the death and destruction that the anti's always predict, we can do this.
I'm astounded at the disconnect.

The overwhelming majority of the population of the U.S. (including gun owners) does not believe openly carrying firearms at high profile events such as Presidential Town Halls represents the private use of firearms in a positive light. Not even if no one is killed or hurt.

It's upsetting and feels "wrong" to them. What's more, if they get upset enough and stay upset long enough they will push for laws to help them feel comfortable again and that will NOT be a positive thing for gun rights.
Quote:
The impression that I get is that ... it is about protesting health care reform through intimidation.
I honestly don't believe that's what it is, but I can tell you for certain that is:

1. How it will be portrayed.
2. How many others feel.

And that is not good for gun rights OR for the health care reform situation.

How is it that everyone is forgetting the fact that carrying openly to high-profile events is NOT a new thing in the U.S.? The Black Panthers have been doing it for decades. The fact that the goals may be loftier does NOT change the fact that the general public is going to lump the two movements together because of the similar modus operandus.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old August 20, 2009, 02:00 AM   #271
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,090
Quote:
The impression that I get is that ... it is about protesting health care reform through intimidation.
If that's really what it was, it failed totally, because no one there was intimidated. The mere presence of the weapon itself cannot be considered intimidation, absent any threatening behavior. Intimidation is a verb indicative of threatening behavior, not a scary feeling someone gets because of ingrained fear of an inanimate object. Intimidation requires action on the part of the intimidator. If any armed intimidation had actually occurred, there would have been arrests.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old August 20, 2009, 03:38 AM   #272
AZAK
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 15, 2008
Location: the object towards which the action of the sea is directed
Posts: 2,103
Quote:
I honestly don't believe that's what it is, but I can tell you for certain that is:

1. How it will be portrayed.
2. How many others feel.
posted by JohnKSa

It seem to me that the mainstream media has not been a friend of the 2nd Amendment in recent times.

Until someone formulates a reason for the media to change this stance, they do after all seem to always have the last word and can edit a nun's shopping list to sound like Hitler's daily to do list, I would suggest that the mainstream media is not the appropriate avenue to pursue change concerning the RKBA in the public mindset at this time. The mainstream media sells "Dirty Laundry", kudos to Don Henley singing this back in the day - 1982.

If you want to change your world, maybe start out with your own little corner. Yeah, grass roots education. Get enough of your locals, especially the younger generation, to be aware of the 2nd Amendment (And the rest of our founding father's documents), and see and "feel" that it really is O.K. to see someone OCing in your "neighborhood", guns can put food on the dinner table, and also are a great form of discipline and recreation punching paper, and we are rolling down the right road.

Give (Hypothetically of course) a baby, toddler, or pre-schooler, that have not been exposed to many opinions concerning guns, a firearm to look at and they have no fear. Children are educated as to "their" opinions on guns.

To quote the musical South Pacific regarding "feelings and perceptions":
You've got to be taught
To hate and fear,
You've got to be taught
From year to year,
It's got to be drummed
In your dear little ear
You've got to be carefully taught.

Perhaps (adjusting my grass skirt and coconuts), we need to be active in educating those around us to what we believe are good values, starting in our own living rooms and working outward; including our beliefs concerning the 2nd Amendment.
__________________
The lowest paid college major/degree in this country after graduation...
Elementary Education.

Now, go figure...
AZAK is offline  
Old August 20, 2009, 05:30 AM   #273
divemedic
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 12, 2006
Posts: 1,313
The problem here is that the negative portrayal of firearms is getting out, regardless of whether or not a law abiding citizen carries a gun. Every night on the evening news, we are assaulted by images and stories of criminals misusing guns. This is the image and the opinion that gets seared into Susie Soccermom's head.

Even when a television show portrays a citizen with a gun, it is never a good portrayal. The citizen invariably either kills an innocent by mistake, is quickly gunned down by the bad guy, or some other negative outcome. The media constantly portrays us as fools or incompetent.

A law abiding, armed citizen, standing on the sidewalk not harming anyone, counteracts that negative image. If we never do so, allowing people to see that firearms are not always used for evil, our message and position are effectively silenced, and we concede the field to the opponents. The only message that gets out is this one: only cops and criminals have guns.
__________________
Caveat Emperor
divemedic is offline  
Old August 20, 2009, 08:07 AM   #274
Al Norris
Staff
 
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,318
So? Quit relying upon the MSM to tell your story!
Quote:
Originally Posted by divemedic
A law abiding, armed citizen, standing on the sidewalk not harming anyone, counteracts that negative image.
That's a far cry from doing the same at a Town Hall meeting. Especially with signs inciting the overthrow of the Government. And yes! that is exactly how Susie Soccermom views it.

By all means, openly carry in your local environments. Get like minded folks to do the same. Have "Open Carry" picnics at your local parks. Conduct open air firearms safety clinics.

It doesn't start at the National level. It starts right here, right now, in your own home towns.
__________________
National listings of the Current 2A Cases.
Al Norris is offline  
Old August 20, 2009, 09:04 AM   #275
publius42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,888
Quote:
Phoenix police said authorities monitored about a dozen people carrying weapons while peacefully demonstrating.

"It was a group interested in exercising the right to bear arms," police spokesman Sgt. Andy Hill said.

Arizona law has nothing in the books regulating assault rifles, and only requires permits for carrying concealed weapons. So despite the man's proximity to the president, there were no charges or arrests to be made. Hill said officers explained the law to some people who were upset about the presence of weapons at the protest.
Outstanding! Ignorant people were informed about gun rights by a trusted source. Good for the cops for curing a little ignorance, good for the person for getting educated, good for the open carrier for sparking it all.
publius42 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.16920 seconds with 7 queries