Open Carry at Presidential Town Hall

[Homerboy]

It is very possible to use the media to our advantage. First thing you do is get a well liked media personality to eloquently speak for you. Remember how dumb Tom Selleck made Rosie O'Donnell when she hassled him about his NRA affiliation after Columbine? Have them bring up the hypocricy of the media. A kid finds his dad's gun andd shoots himself makes national news, yet how many kids drown every summer in backyard swimming pools? How many are hit running into the street after the ice cream truck? How many drink cleaning products because they look like Kool Aid? All of these incidents have to do with an adult being negligent, yet only the gun owner is villified.

Secondly, hold events that the media CAN'T ignore. Million Gun March on Washington, peaceful protests outside prisons or courthouses, where recidivist felons are either released or shown leniency time and again. THESE are the gun users who give us a bad name.

Comparing ANY of these guys to Rosa Parks is crazy. None of them risk anything by doing what they did. As a matter of fact, they gleefully answer questions. "Look at me! I'm on TV!". Let him sling his AR over his shoulder and walk down Pennsylvania Ave if he wants to be a "crusader".

Sorry, I see NO GOOD in what these guys are doing.

[zukiphile]

Comparing ANY of these guys to Rosa Parks is crazy. None of them risk anything by doing what they did.

It isn't obvious that comparisons are crazy. Parks isn't noteworthy for the risk she took so much as she is for her action that forced an issue legally and socially. In that sense, Heller is likely the better analog.

Yet those who employed confrontational tactics in civil rights struggles were also criticised within their own communites for making things harder on their own people and encouraging conflict. It is hard to say that one approach or another is always correct or productive.

Ok, if you're serious here's something that you can do. Hold Women on Target (or similar) events in your area regularly. My club has done several of these and the response has always been great. They have the potential not only to reach the participants but also their families and friends. Very productive in terms of introducing non-shooters to firearms, but more work and not nearly as high-profile as slinging an AR over your shoulder and going to see the president...

I think there is a wide spectrum of activity that can de-stigmatise shooting and guns. Going to a healthcare debate with a carbine isn't my preference, but I at least give the fellow credit for showing up dressed in a normal manner rather than as a mental patient.

I prefer to let others at normal social gatherings identify me as a shooter and let the most appalled people, nearly always women, express themselves. You? Why on earth would you do that?

Few things are as compelling as a fellow describing something he likes. The experience of concentration that pushes all your worries and anxieties outside the tunnel of your focus for an hour or two, is very much like what golfers purport to experience. With a bit of calm, non-confrontational explanation (getting an unloaded gun out to explain function is fascinating to many who've never even held a gun), many peoples' horror can be reduced, and it isn't unusual to have people ask if they can come along sometime.

I've never had a bad reaction to that approach.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by AZAK

How do you propose to begin to reach the "general public"

Kudos to JohnKSa for the right answer. It's called Grass Roots and it is slower than mainstream media but it works much better and they have more problems spinning that.

Originally Posted by AZAK

Are we changing our behaviors and beliefs (possibly our integrity) to suit what "the general public" thinks?

Beliefs? Never. Behavior? For sure. If we don't mind our public behavior and public turns on us then we risk restrictions on our rights that we don't want.

Remember, when you try to communicate to another, it matters not what you intend for them to believe but what they actually believe that your message will be.

[Homerboy]

It isn't obvious that comparisons are crazy. Parks isn't noteworthy for the risk she took so much as she is for her action that forced an issue legally and socially.

Parks is noteworthy for the risk she took AND the actions that forced an issue. She might never have gotten out of that jail.

Again, let Mr Blinky saunter up Pennsylvania Ave with his Rambo rig, knowing he's going to be arrested, looking at jail time, the loss of his job, and the massive debt he will incur on legal fees.

THEN he will be in the same category as Rosa Parks.

[OuTcAsT]

False dichotomy.

One is not limited to choosing between sitting on one's hands and carrying an AR-15 to a high profile event.

There are other options; proven, effective options for educating people about firearms.

No John, I am afraid you are the one who created the false dichotomy.

Please look at my post(s) and point out any where I said there were only 2 extremist choices, that bolded section above are your words, not mine.

What I said was that I intend to join the movement, I might show up at the next rally or meeting in my area dressed in khaki slacks, a tucked in polo, and OC my 1911, as I do most days, I might carry a sign, I might not carry a sign, but I will always carry, and remain within the law to do so. I could carry an AR, but just this moment may not be the time for that yet.

You make some interesting points, but it is a bit disingenuous to try and make those of us who support the activists as extremists.

[zukiphile]

Parks is noteworthy for the risk she took AND the actions that forced an issue. She might never have gotten out of that jail.

I am confident that even in deepest, darkest Alabama in the 1950s, what amounts to a disorderly conduct charge did not carry a life sentence. So it was never a real possibility that she would be given a life sentence.

Hers was not the first such case, but it was the famous one, the one that changed public perception. This didn't hinge on any risk she took.

Again, let Mr Blinky saunter up Pennsylvania Ave with his Rambo rig, knowing he's going to be arrested, looking at jail time, the loss of his job, and the massive debt he will incur on legal fees.

Isn't this precisely the sort of agressive activism you believe injures the cause of liberal gun laws?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

OuTcAsT,

I have been reading your threads and this quote:

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

And I never stated that it was a positive as far as the public perception angle, however, I do see it as a positive toward encouraging activism for all our rights ( not just 2A ) and I believe that if it emboldens more to join the protests, in whatever peaceful fashion they choose, including OC of a firearm, that is a positive.

Tells me that you think that the OC message at these Town Hall meetings should be aimed at those of us as Glenn would say are "in the choir" but then here you say:

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

I simply choose to join the actions to try and sway public opinion,

my bolds

Which public are you talking about?

The minority of gun owners or the majority of non-gun owners?

If Mr. Kostric's actions cause the majority of the public (non-gun owning) to feel threatened and want to restrict our rights are you saying that more Mr. Kostrics will help us out? Wouldn't that make it worse?

Wouldn't it show that there are simply more gun nuts than originally thought (by the majority non-gun owners) and Mr. Kostric is not a one-percenter therefore the problem is worse requiring quicker action (read gun control)?

As John pointed out before you can't have it both ways, if you want to educate the public you MUST care about what they think. If not then you are just putting gun ownership in their face so how will that sway them?

Urging other gun owners to join in a tactic that doesn't work doesn't make a lot of sense. If 1000 people show up at the next town hall event OCing and the media reports it then it will be spun negatively and make us look better?

I think you need to choose who you are trying to communicate with and tailor the message to that audience.

[zxcvbob]

If 1000 people show up at the next town hall event OCing and the media reports it then it will be spun negatively and make us look better?

A better analogy is if one or two OC'er show up at the next 1000 town hall meetings.

There is absolutely nothing we can do (or not do) that the media *won't* spin negatively. One reporter on MSNBC was even ranting about white racists carrying guns to political rallies and showed footage of this latest incident, carefully edited so you couldn't see that the guy carrying the rifle was black.

Keep feeding the media boring news stories where nothing happens, and maybe they will quit reporting them, ("Dog bites man" does not make good television. "Man bites dog" does because it's unusual) meanwhile the public gets desensitized to seeing gun.

[Homerboy]

Parks is noteworthy for the risk she took AND the actions that forced an issue. She might never have gotten out of that jail.

I am confident that even in deepest, darkest Alabama in the 1950s, what amounts to a disorderly conduct charge did not carry a life sentence. So it was never a real possibility that she would be given a life sentence.

Hers was not the first such case, but it was the famous one, the one that changed public perception. This didn't hinge on any risk she took.


Quote:
Again, let Mr Blinky saunter up Pennsylvania Ave with his Rambo rig, knowing he's going to be arrested, looking at jail time, the loss of his job, and the massive debt he will incur on legal fees.

Isn't this precisely the sort of agressive activism you believe injures the cause of liberal gun laws?

I'm not talking life imprisonment. I'm talking about being killed in jail, or being tortured. Think black people had it easy in Southern jails in the 60's, particularly the ones fighting for equal rights?

And yes, I Do think a guy walking up Pennsylvanis Ave with a gun would not benefit us. I'm saying that these guys doing it in areas here they KNOW they will not be arrested aren't taking any risks at all.

They're not heroes. They're not activists. They're just fools.

[Poseidon28]

Bad facts make bad law. The only bad facts in any of these cases is the SEIU spitting on protestors.

Perhaps the black guy WAS making a statement about race, his right to carry, and, the fact that blacks are more likely to be discriminated against in this regard. However, with a black president, and, in light of dear Harvard Professor Gates, His timing was PERFECT.

Next we need soccer moms with Glocks. How about Cornered Cat organizing a group? Raise the entire issue of violence against women, and how the 14th amendment Equal Protection Clause has been viewed as far as gender discrimination. How about as an issue for the right to be safe in your person and home?
I think we are trying to guess the perfect way to raise these issues, with the media against us. Therefore, there is highly likely to be a few bumps in the road. These two people had perfect timing, and actions, and handled themselves well.

Perhaps we need someone like Glenn Meyer, or Al Norris to attend one of these meetings, and, go head to head with some idiot like Rosie or
Chris Matthews.

School teachers against Free Fire Zones. There are many angles, and, if all are done with the wisdom, and professionalism of the people that have started it, we have baby steps to a successful movement.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

I'll pass on Rosie.

[BoringAccountant]

Wouldn't it show that there are simply more gun nuts than originally thought (by the majority non-gun owners) and Mr. Kostric is not a one-percenter therefore the problem is worse requiring quicker action (read gun control)?

Yes, but that assumes a pretty biased view of how all non-gun owners feel.

The opposite of that, it could show that there are a lot of gun enthusiasts, 2A supporters out there that are law-abiding citizens who want nothing more than to be seen for what they are. Matter of what each of us "assumes" the public would perceive by more of these stories.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by BoringAccountant

Yes, but that assumes a pretty biased view of how all non-gun owners feel.

I guess I am not seeing the groundswell of grassroots public support for Mr. Kostric (other than places like TFL) but I think a lot of non-gun owners range from fairly neutral to supportive depending on what and how the question is asked.

What do they think about the dude toting the AR-15? Don't know for sure but I am beginning to think not so positive. Therefore, having a 100 more show up might not make it better.

[zukiphile]

I think that is a valid point, BA.

People are hard to judge on the internet, but in real life, I find most discomfort with and opposition to gun ownership to be entirely genuine.

When people use formulations that we find wildly inaccurate, the sort that suggest some guns "spray" bullets, or that some common characteristics make them wildly and randomly more dangerous, they usually do so honestly.

But Zuk, how can people say these things honestly?

Easily. For many people in the city, a firearm is a thing they only see on the television, portrayed right alongside violence and evil. So how else should they think of these foreign objects?

Seeing people not wearing camo, but appearing like normal people, with guns gives them an experience, and one so many lack, of a gun as a mere thing, benign in itself.

[maestro pistolero]

I am confident that even in deepest, darkest Alabama in the 1950s, what amounts to a disorderly conduct charge did not carry a life sentence. So it was never a real possibility that she would be given a life sentence.

Legally, no, but a defacto death sentence for negro insolence was hardly unheard of. Rampant lynching and prison beatings during the period effectively mute your point.

[Poseidon28]

///

[Tom Servo]

I've been hearing a great number of comparisons to Rosa Parks, Anne Frank, the Holocaust and so forth lately.

Not only are they in bad taste, they're not germane. Nobody's infringing on our rights based on how we were born or who we are. Nobody's rounding us up and killing us. Nobody's beating us up or hanging us in the woods. Nobody's going to come pull me out of my house in the middle of the night.

There is no equivalence. I know people who were affected by those practices, and trust me, they do not appreciate the comparison.

If someone wants to be an activist, great. Do something real. Keep in touch with elected officials. Write articles. Teach. I know none of that stuff is glamorous, but it's not meant to be.

Simply toting a rifle around at a political gathering isn't activism--it's a certain lazy kind of exhibitionism. I'm sure he was the envy of all his friends back home, but stuff like this could cause problems for all of us down the road.

I challenge anyone supporting this man's actions to find one person ever whose mind was changed on the issue of gun control just because they saw someone toting a gun around.

[zukiphile]

Rampant lynching and prison beatings during the period effectively mute your point.

There were fewer than 50 of all races in the whole country during the entire 1950s. They were nearly all men. Too many, but exaggeration serves no good purpose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lynchings-graph.png


I sense a contradiction in the reasoning of some of those who most harshly criticise the man with a carbine.

On the one hand, he is no Rosa Parks because he isn't likely to face a lynch mob (which Rosa Parks didn't do for her act), but on the other hand he should be criticised for taking a high profile action that might prompt people to act against him and those like him.

You can reasonably question the efficacy of his act, but to simultaneously hold him in contempt for failing to run substantial personal risk, and also for acting in a way that might provoke a reaction doesn't on its face make sense.

[zxcvbob]

The bigotry and zumboism I see in this thread (and others like it) saddens me.

[Poseidon28]

I think we might look at the gay rights movement, and, look how they have progressed in the last 30-40 years. By fighting, often unpopular to the mainstream, they have rights no one would have imagined in the 60's.

I also see that during that time, the gay movement has, as the gun movement, a variety of different approaches to achieve the end, and, that many did not
agree with the 'radical' approach.

I find it strange that gun owners are 'in the closet' so to speak, and those trying to come out are thrown under the bus...

[maestro pistolero]

On the one hand, he is no Rosa Parks because he isn't likely to face a lynch mob

No, and the sniper who had him in his crosshairs wouldn't have pulled the trigger without cause, but his actions were hardly without risk to life and limb.

[OuTcAsT]

OuTcAsT,

I have been reading your threads and this quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

Tells me that you think that the OC message at these Town Hall meetings should be aimed at those of us as Glenn would say are "in the choir"

Yes, I do believe the message should be somewhat directed at the choir, because the "choir" consists of several "sections" First and foremost is the section that own firearms, shoot them, enjoy them, and then feel that by simply being an NRA member, they have contributed greatly to the protections of our rights, and that any other type of activism is somehow a negative. These are the folks I say "buy a ticket, sit on the sidelines, and yell at the action on the field"



Then there is the section that promotes "responsible" gun ownership, actively get involved in pro 2A programs to a degree, yet they fear "shaking up the status quo" in any manner will somehow result in a firestorm of political and legal action, aimed at restricting gun rights.
I call this section the "sky might fall" crowd. Their fear has already diminished the effectiveness of their limited activism.

The section of the choir that needs the least amount of "testimony" is the "Extremist" section that I seem to be a member of.

If Mr. Kostric's actions cause the majority of the public (non-gun owning) to feel threatened and want to restrict our rights are you saying that more Mr. Kostrics will help us out? Wouldn't that make it worse?

How about this, I feel that Kostric's actions may have shocked a few folks, and others it opened their eyes to the fact that; OC exists in some areas, it is legal, it can be done near a presidential meeting, and the gun will not suddenly jump out of the holster and start randomly killing.

And I believe that now would be the perfect time to see more Kostrics. You see, I do not have nearly as much fear that more of this type of activism will result it stronger gun control laws as I have fear for what will happen to freedom in general if Mr.Kostric, and those of like mind do not continue to stand up and show that we have rights, and intend to keep them, and use them.

I fear our Republic being legislated away much more than I fear our gun rights being restricted.

[publius42]

I challenge anyone supporting this man's actions to find one person ever whose mind was changed on the issue of gun control just because they saw someone toting a gun around.

OK, as I mentioned a couple of pages ago, some people were upset by the AR in AZ, and questioned the cops, who told them that it's actually OK to open carry. If they were asking cops to do something about it, they probably thought carrying a gun around openly was illegal. They were educated by the cops. Does that count as changing their minds?

[azredhawk44]

Not only are they in bad taste, they're not germane. Nobody's infringing on our rights based on how we were born or who we are. Nobody's rounding us up and killing us. Nobody's beating us up or hanging us in the woods. Nobody's going to come pull me out of my house in the middle of the night.

There is no equivalence. I know people who were affected by those practices, and trust me, they do not appreciate the comparison.

With all due respect to holocaust survivors, I feel I have to interject here.

There IS equivalence.

Maybe no one is doing it based upon ethnicity or religion. But it's getting done based on ideological stance of the target.

Institutionalized arrogance and petty despotism peaked in the 1990's in the form of the ATF and FBI. Gun owners, in particular passionate gun owners, were fair game.

Aside from Waco and Ruby Ridge, the ATF conducted countless false gun show stings, harassment of owners via 4473 traces, elimination of small "kitchen table" FFL's entirely, no-knock raids on gun collectors and other harassment.

First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.

Don't start coming for the gun owners who carry guns on them. Don't start coming for the gun owners who leave their range-only guns in the safe unloaded. Don't start coming for the gun owners who have a single deer rifle and 1/2 a box of cartridges. Don't start coming for the gun owners who sold all their guns.

Actions such as the NH and AZ men performed tell those in power: We're here. We know our rights. A half-assed plea of "propriety" is not enough to keep us back. You cannot intimidate us by thuggish force. We will participate in the democratic process, like it or not. If you shut us out then we have other options. And we are here today to let the rest of America know... it's okay to be powerful.

That lawful AR says: I have the power to pre-empt a nondemocratic power grab. And I have the will to do so.

It's that whispered, forbidden discussion of "other options" that is really getting the news headlines right now.

Of course it's not time (yet, if ever) for other options.

But the reminder of the real meaning of the 2A was well delivered. I still applaud it.

[Poseidon28]

As far as gun laws, who do you think suffers the most? Our congress, sitting in their mansions in D.C. or the 60% black population in D.C. that is totally at the mercy of the gang thugs that all have illegal guns, and don't care about our capital's handgun band? To be real, if the Federal government, with the SS, FBI, BATF, PLUS local cops can't do a better job of protecting people, in D.C. and stopping murder, WHY would we delude ourselves that they have our interests in mind, and will do better, in places that don't control their very existence through funding?

Make no mistake: Equal protection is a major issue with firearm restrictions. Feel free to go back the 1868, and trace the steps of the different laws that allowed our state, federal, and local governments designed blacks from being armed.

That's why the black guy carrying the AR-15 was just such a perfect message.