Open Carry at Presidential Town Hall

[BoringAccountant]

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.

Well, to be honest, I haven't either, but this (TFL) is the only place I would expect to hear about support of it. I can hardly see the MSM mentioning anyone supporting this, except Fox, which if I recall correctly, they did a piece on it, but that was it, it kind of dropped dead in the water after that with them.

As far as the black man toting the AR...I think its hard for us to assume one way or another. People have been arguing "Well, look at the people around him, they are not scared" etc. etc. and to that I would say, duh, he is protesting the healthcare bill, chances are there are a lot of supporters of the 2A there that also object to the healthcare bill and the sight of the gun is either common to them or not that big of a deal. Now if this man happened to be pro-choice and protested a pro-life rally, chances are the results would be different. Again, crowd with which he would be part of would sort of predict the results. Of course before I get slammed for this thought, this is assuming "all else being equal" meaning I know there are contradictions to both of those thoughts, but IMHO, the general idea still holds.

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.

Agree 100%, more images of guns as inanimate objects and completely non-violent actions of the carrier would be much better for gun supporters.

[Tom Servo]

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?

Nope. The people who called the cops were already hostile to the idea. Just because it's legal doesn't assuage their angst.

They'll still be just as hostile (or at best apathetic) to the whole issue. They're not going to go home and tell their friends, "I saw a guy openly carrying a rifle, and I've realized that I should support the 2nd Amendment!"

No, they're going to say, "you wouldn't believe this scary man who had the audacity to carry a gun there!"

[Hkmp5sd]

Nope. The people who called the cops were already hostile to the idea.

What is the basis for this knowledge? If they already know the law, what purpose is served asking/telling LEOs about it?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

the message should be somewhat directed at the choir, because the "choir" consists of several "sections"

Other than extremist I am not sure I go along with your "sections" but be that as it may from most of the posting on here anecdotely it seems Mr. Kostric is not reaching these other sections so his act only would be energizing to the extremist section of the choir. As everyone knows in politics just energizing the base does not win the day. You have to bring over many of the others as well. Reagan democrats comes to mind.

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

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,

You are right there, but some of us fear what the result may be is not good for our rights.

Originally Posted by azredhawk44

There IS equivalence.

And also with all due respect, Tom Servo is right there is absolutely no moral equivalence whatsoever. I think you are way off base with that.

Originally Posted by azredhawk44

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

Remember my post about communication?

That "lawful AR" says such only to you azredhawk44 and other gun absolutists, but to John Q it says: "I will take up arms and kill my fellow citizens and overturn laws passed by a democratically elected leadership supported by law and the courts if I don't like what the result is. If I can't win at the ballot box I will win with a gun."

That is the message they hear whenever we talk this insurrection/militia stuff and to believe otherwise is not looking at reality.

[JohnKSa]

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.

I chose to quote the specific example under discussion, but broadening the statement does not alter my meaning. The specific weapon carried and or the specific method of carry is pretty much a wash as far as I'm concerned.

You said:

I simply choose to join the actions to try and sway public opinion, may be right, may be wrong, but I will not sit on my hands and bemoan the success of others, particularly when we have not seen the totality of their impact just yet.

That is a false dichotomy. One need not choose between: 'OC at high-profile events' and 'sitting on one's hands'. The point is that there are other things that can be done to further the cause of gun rights and of educating the public besides "joining the movement".

...it is a bit disingenuous to try and make those of us who support the activists as extremists.

That might or might not be true but it's got nothing to do with me. I haven't called those folks or their supporters extremists, I have said I believe they're misguided.

I have also said that the general public sees them as extremists.

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...

This is a very poor analogy for the simple reason that the gay rights movement had strong support from within the mainstream media while the gun rights movement has strong opposition from the mainstream media. The approaches used by the two movements will, therefore, have to be very different to be effective.

It is very possible to use the media to our advantage.

It is very difficult to use the mainstream media, that is why the NRA has had to virtually create its own media in order to get the word out.

Yes, there are a few examples where the media has been useful in spite of itself, but those examples are rare and happened mostly by chance. It's very difficult to engineer something like the Selleck interview because the media will do its best to resist being useful to our cause. They don't like being made to sound dumb, they don't like having to refute strong logical arguments in front of "their" audience.

[OuTcAsT]

You are right there, but some of us fear what the result may be is not good for our rights.

Then welcome to "The sky might fall" section.

If you live in constant fear that any action you may take "may disquiet the flock" and somehow prove to bring down the wrath of the gun control legislation crowd, then you are already defeated. You might just as well turn in your guns now, you have already taken a stance that anything you might do to change the status-quo might bring further restrictions on those rights. Have you considered what you will do if, in fact, your rights (not just 2A) are restricted further? Will you just accept this as a natural progression of the "law of the land"? Or do you have the courage to defend the "actual" law of the land, the Constitution ? What will you do when later down the road, legislation from .gov ( who continues to thumb it's nose at "We the People) decide you can no longer enjoy your 1A, 2A, or any other rights? Will you simply accept this as a part of the process?

If I am to be labeled an "extremist" then so be it, I will wear the moniker proudly, and if it upsets what passes for gun rights now, then you may either blame the fallout on me, and those of like mind, or join the fray. Either way, I have made my position clear for any to see.

That "lawful AR" says such only to you azredhawk44 and other gun absolutists,

I stand corrected, I am now an "absolutist".

[JohnKSa]

If you live in constant fear that any action you may take "may disquiet the flock" and somehow prove to bring down the wrath of the gun control legislation crowd, then you are already defeated.

No one is saying not to take "any action", only that the actions taken should be chosen and executed prudently.

You might just as well turn in your guns now, you have already taken a stance that anything you might do to change the status-quo might bring further restrictions on those rights.

No one is saying that "anything one might do...might bring further restrictions" only that SOME things are pretty likely to cause further restrictions and are therefore unwise courses of action.

Will you just accept this as a natural progression of the "law of the land"?

Nope. I've already posted things that anyone can do to work to change the situation. Just because SOME actions are imprudent doesn't mean all of them are.

Your entire post is a false dichotomy. You're trying desperately to make it appear that one has only two choices: To (1) do nothing or (2) join/support this one particular movement.

Nothing could be farther from the truth. There are very constructive and productive things that everyone on this board could do (some even starting tonight) that would help change people's minds and that don't require them to OC at high-profile events. Writing to congressmen and politicians, contributing to gun advocacy groups (there are several choices), volunteering time and effort to support gun advocacy group activities and events, holding events to safely introduce people to firearms, etc.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

Then welcome to "The sky might fall" section.

Since I don't believe that we are free in the USA just because some citizens own guns then I could hardly be in such a section. There is no sky for me to have fall.

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

If you live in constant fear that any action you may take "may disquiet the flock" and somehow prove to bring down the wrath of the gun control legislation crowd, then you are already defeated.

No, I live in a world of reality and know that rational participation in our political system is how we defend our rights as opposed to wearing guns in public. If you believe that you can protect your rights as an American in our system only by the threat of violence then you are not only defeated but will never get out the gate to start.

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

do you have the courage to defend the "actual" law of the land

Defend it how? By forming some crackpot militia and getting into a shootout with the "Man" like David Koresh, Randy Weaver or Tim McVeigh? Only extremists view them as anything other than sad pathetic kooks who got a lot of people killed needlessly and did absolutely nothing to further our gun rights.

Originally Posted by OuTcAsT

then you may either blame the fallout on me, and those of like mind,

I would rather avoid the fallout and keep my rights. By the time I need to blame you we will already be fighting a rear guard action. It would be too late. Fortunately there are very few sympathetic with that view other than those few on TFL et al.

[Tom Servo]

And also with all due respect, Tom Servo is right there is absolutely no moral equivalence whatsoever. I think you are way off base with that.

It's not the first time I've heard these comparisons. I know Jews, who are very supportive of the 2A, who take great umbrage to the comparison.

I have a friend who has scars on her face, inflicted when she was pushed into broken glass on the street by an officer during the civil rights movement. She doesn't see the equivalence.

The right to keep and bear arms IS a civil right, and it IS being unacceptably infringed. However, it's not the same as attempted genocide or the infringement of ALL the civil rights of a certain race.

It rankles me to hear these comparisons from 22-year-old white suburban kids who've never even seen the circumstances they imagine they understand (I am not calling anyone on this forum out; I raised the point in the first place because I've heard these arguments plenty of times before).

This isn't Warsaw or Selma. We can win, but we have to choose our rhetoric and our methods with care.

[OuTcAsT]

Your entire post is a false dichotomy. You're trying desperately to make it appear that one has only two choices: To (1) do nothing or (2) join/support this one particular movement.

If that is your opinion, then I do not agree with it, but I would defend to the death your right to state it.

Writing to congressmen and politicians,

Pardon me for pointing out the elephant in the room, but, have you actually seen what is taking place in our republic of late?

While the majority of Americans oppose the intrusion of .gov into a whole litany of issues, they continue to carry on as if we do not exist. I, and I am sure countless others have written to our "representatives" until we have had to replace our keyboards due to wear and tear, the result? they do not appear to be listening. joining encounter groups is a lovely idea, but, I think time is beginning to run out for "passive activism", the time for an "intervention" seems on the (somewhat distant) horizon.

[Poseidon28]

This is a very poor analogy for the simple reason that the gay rights movement had strong support from within the mainstream media while the gun rights movement has strong opposition from the mainstream media. The approaches used by the two movements will, therefore, have to be very different to be effective.

Not accurate. When the gay folks started coming out the cops beat the tar out of them, they got abused, etc. The media has one goal: self-perpetuate, and sell products. At the start, they sold it by selling gays as outrageous threats to our society, and the cops as the white knights, for beating them up. As the media continued to do this, folks like my aunt and uncle, raising kids, 2 male children, decided being within spitting distance of the Castro was not healthy for their children, so they moved to Palo Alto, etc. As the makeup of the city changed, and became more gay, a funny thing happened. Gays have WAY more disposable income then straights: no kids.

As the media realized this, they changed tunes, and supported the gay movement.

The same is going to happen with the Second Amendment. Violence is already a big seller for the media. Firearms in particular. Some day, someone is going to wake up and realize the media has made billions of dollars off violence, and the use of firearms in movies. Now, think what might happen if we got together, identified the money guys who finance movies, and the media, that attacks gun rights, publish their record, and boycott their productions?

There are companies that put up 100's of millions of dollars for movie production. Just for example, let's say that we find out Brocoli whatever, the company that produces James Bond movies, backs MSNBC, and a bunch of other liberal anti-gun papers, and networks.

What if they open, and, they are picketed, and, the movie looses 100 million dollars? Daniel Craig comes out, and says the reason he said he was anti-gun was, and is, that if he comes out pro gun, he'll loose his job as James Bond.

Mel Gibson has already paved the way for this, since it happened to him.

The media doesn't know it, but, they WILL become our friends...

Also, keep in mind that I suspect the average gun owner to be on the well to do side as well, and, quite capable of affecting the media, and hitting them in the pocket book.

[JohnKSa]

The media doesn't know it, but, they WILL become our friends...

It's possible that over many decades the makeup and goals of the media will change. I'm not arguing against that.

What I am saying is that CURRENTLY the media is violently opposed to our cause and that is not going to change anytime in our lifetimes.

The move of the media to support the gay rights movement is far more complicated than you make it appear. It was NOT simply about money, there was a predisposition in the media to support the movement due to their societal and political views just as there is a predisposition in the media to oppose our movement due to their societal and political views.

It would be more accurate to say that initially the media appeared anti-gay because they were afraid of the opinions of the general public but later realized that they had tremendous power to manipulate the public and took advantage of that power.

We can argue about the details but the bottom line is that the gay rights movement effectively made zero progress until the media openly got on their side.

I agree that if we could get the media to openly take our side we could change our tactics considerably, but that's not the way things are and your examples of how to get them to take our side are wildly optimistic.

[OuTcAsT]

Since I don't believe that we are free in the USA just because some citizens own guns then I could hardly be in such a section

Seriously? You are going to state, here, on a public forum, that you do not believe that firearms in the hands of patriots have not only won our freedoms, but, secured the 2A which secures it? And you have the balls to do so under the Constitution (won by those patriots) that protects your right to do so?

[JohnKSa]

The statement you quoted does NOT say anything like your characterization of it in your rant.

You'd better read what you quoted a lot more carefully if you're going to respond that emphatically.

The quote does NOT say that our freedoms weren't won by firearms in the hands of patriots. It does not speak against the value of the 2A in securing our freedoms.

It merely states, very clearly, I might add, that our current freedom (note the present tense in the quote) is not due solely to ("just because") the fact that some citizens own (again note the present tense) guns.

It is a true statement. While firearms helped to win our freedom, the private ownership of firearms today is not the only reason we still have freedom.

[OuTcAsT]

While firearms helped to win our freedom, the private ownership of firearms today is not the only reason we still have freedom.

In the "present tense" you may be partially correct, however, within the "realm of possibility" ( that same realm which supports the fear that activism might result in further gun restrictions) It may yet prove to be the reason we retain our rights.

ETA: I will withdraw from this discussion as I can see the scythe descending, but I leave with my position clearly stated, and live (hopefully) to fight another time.

[Slamfire]

Considering the number of Presidents that have been killed, or assassination attempts on Presidents (Reagan, Ford), I do not consider it appropriate to openly carry firearms around them.

It may be your right, but that does not mean it is smart.

[Poseidon28]

Slamfire1: How dare you bring the elephant out of the closet???

Perhaps instead of that belief, perhaps you should look at the concept that an armed populace would likely stop that attempt?

What I am saying is that CURRENTLY the media is violently opposed to our cause and that is not going to change anytime in our lifetimes.

The ONLY cause they really have is self-perpetuation. The media's affect is slowly but surely loosing out to the internet. I don't have TV. I can watch most of the shows I want to without adds, why would I pay 80 bucks a month for cable? My high school students are savvy enough to know they are being fed a bunch of bull by the media.

Yes, Hollyweird money has long been controlled by a communist/socialist/gay element. Remember, they were accused of being communist in the 50's, and I know some of them to be exactly that. Despite that prejudice, the media threw the gay cause under the bus at the start of the movement, to make as much money as possible. That is their God, and, we can both affect, and control them through that God, once we wake up and realize we are both wealthy and strong.

That said, we do have the power to dilute, and destroy their control over the media. We just need to target them, protest, and address their agenda. The irony is they don't really have any agenda that is more important then keeping control, power, and making money. Threaten that, and they cave in, or have to go find new financing.

Believe me: Sony is now a major player, and, the Japanese are not inclined to support anything that costs them money. It may take them a bit, but, all the liberal-gay-political agendas mean nothing to them. The Japanese are one thing: long term, well thought out CAPITALISTS.

[rwilson452]

There could be some positives out of exercising your rights. More people are becoming aware. Here in PA we have been pushing open carry for some time now. We have forced the police to get trained better on the law. One thing I have not seen come out of this open carry at hese events, which is primarily a political thing, All these people packing heat and OH MY, but nothing bad happened. Strange, isn't it. The pro gun talking heads need to push that side of the story. The law abiding people carry all the time, and you just now notice? Where is the "blood in the streets"? Why isn't it "Dodge City"? People carry and it's not a bad thing.

Sorry if this ground has been covered before I must have missed it.

[JohnKSa]

The ONLY cause they really have is self-perpetuation.

Given that starting premise I can see why you believe what you do.

Despite that prejudice, the media threw the gay cause under the bus at the start of the movement, to make as much money as possible.

You're ignoring the fact that the media underwent fundamental changes in terms of both composition and philosophy during the timeframe you're talking about. It's inaccurate to attribute those changes purely to financial motivation or self-preservation.

I'm not at all interested in getting into how and why the media (and the country) changed dramatically between the fifties and the seventies but it is a topic of some interest to many and as such it has been written about extensively. Assuming that you're willing to approach it with an open mind I believe that a little research will provide you with some valuable insights.

That said, we do have the power to dilute, and destroy their control over the media.

Why don't you get right on that then. It would solve a lot of problems.

It's really all moot anyway. Before we can use the media as a tool its agenda must be redefined. We differ on how that would be effected but agree that it must be done. We can theorize about what could happen if we could change the media's collective mind but until it happens it's all just pie-in-the-sky. They're against us now and since 'now' is where we are that's what we have to deal with.

Which gets us back to the topic. Openly carrying at high-profile events will be spun against us by the current mainstream media.

There could be some positives out of exercising your rights.

Sure there could. There could also be negatives or the effect could even be totally neutral.

I'm all for people exercising their rights prudently such that it results in a positive outcome for the cause of gun rights.

[jimpeel]

SlamFire1,

Considering the number of Presidents that have been killed, or assassination attempts on Presidents (Reagan, Ford), I do not consider it appropriate to openly carry firearms around them.

In neither case you cite -- or for any of the other assassinations or attempted assassinations throughout American history -- were the firearms used in the attacks carried openly.

[JohnKSa]

That's an interesting bit of trivia. What's the relevance?

Specifically, unless you can defend the assertion that openly carried guns could not be used in an assassination or that anyone who carries a gun openly would never assassinate someone I don't understand the point of your objection.

A semi-auto pistol has never been used to assassinate a president, but that wouldn't make it any more appropriate to try to smuggle a semi-auto pistol past the Secret Service than say a .22LR revolver or a Carcano rifle.

[jimpeel]

The relevance: The contention of open carry around a president was specious.

An assassin would not telegraph his intentions by exposing his weapon prior to his intended use. I never stated that a firearm, regardless of the method carried, could not be used to assassinate someone; nor did I assert that the method of carry precludes the intention of the perpetrator.

McKinley was shot by a man who wrapped up the firearm in his hand with a bandage to mimic an injury.

Click HERE to view image.

[JohnKSa]

nor did I assert that the method of carry precludes the intention of the perpetrator.

Now you have.

An assassin would not telegraph his intentions by exposing his weapon prior to his intended use. ...

This is explicit, but in the post I responded to it was implicit which was why I responded as I did.

[Homerboy]

Some of the people rsponding to this post remind me of the ones who start the "Zombie" threads. You know: What would you carry if the zombies came? They go on and on about the choice of weapon "I need two AR's, a shotgun for close-up work and a Glock 9mm with a 30 round magazine, and about 5000 rounds of ammo. Oh, and some food and water". Something tells me these two guys have imagined themselves in that scenario, especially Mr. Blinkey.

Some people go WAY overboard. I have AR's, semi auto shotguns, you name it. NEVER would I think to strap one on and go to a town hall meeting.

[Hkmp5sd]

And you have the balls to do so under the Constitution (won by those patriots) that protects your right to do so?

Simple questions:

Does anyone really believe that the 2nd Amendment currently protects us from an overbearing government?

The government does what it wants right now. How far do you let them go?

Even if the government banned guns tomorrow, does anyone really plan on walking away from everything they own and their family to take up arms to defend themselves against the government?

If the answer is yes, do you have the skills required to survive in such an environment?

Who do you attack?

Go you think the average US citizens would support you in such actions?