Open Carry at Presidential Town Hall

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by E.J. Dionne

The simple fact is that an armed citizenry is not the basis for our freedoms. Our freedoms rest on a moral consensus, enshrined in law, that in a democratic republic we work out our differences through reasoned, and sometimes raucous, argument. Free elections and open debate are not rooted in violence or the threat of violence.

I am afraid I agree with Mr. Dionne on this point and have argued so before. As long as we have free elections and trial by jury any attempt at "revolt" is treason. Our democratic institutions keep us free not guns.

[Wildalaska]

As long as we have free elections and trial by jury any attempt at "revolt" is treason. Our democratic institutions keep us free not guns

I would add Habeas Corpus

WildalwaysthereAlaska ™

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by Wildalaska

I would add Habeas Corpus

Yeah that thing too A lawyer I ain"t

[maestro pistolero]

Moved per request of staff:

MSNBC edits Arizona OC video to conceal the ethnicity of the AR-toting African American, in order to contrive a racist spin. Most impressive is the straight face with which they narrate this lie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI

[Wildalaska]

Moved per request of staff:

MSNBC edits Arizona OC video to conceal the ethnicity of the AR-toting African American, in order to contrive a racist spin. Most impressive is the straight face with which they narrate this lie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahachokesnorklespewchuckleogawdbwaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahah

*wipes tears from eyes*

Somebody PLEASE send it to O'reilly Ill be rolling on the floor *sniffsnagglesnork*

WildothatsgreatthankyoufoprbrighteningupmydayAlaska ™

[OuTcAsT]

Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahachokesnorklespewchuckleogawdbwaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahah

*wipes tears from eyes*

Somebody PLEASE send it to O'reilly Ill be rolling on the floor *sniffsnagglesnork*

I did. The funny thing is, they really can't make the activists look bad due to the firearms, they gotta throw the race card to even have anything to screech about.

Priceless.

and all the rest of the political clowns with a message that galvanizes loons and no one else....

So, your opinion clearly is that anyone who thinks these folks sent a clear message about exercising constitutional rights (whether you agree with their method or not) are clowns pandering to lunacy? please correct me if I have misread.

[OuTcAsT]

I would add Habeas Corpus

****alwaysthere******

True, but easily side-stepped at will.

[JohnKSa]

...rather to promote ourselves in such a way that the public can see someone open carrying and not be upset or feel "wrong."

I agree. The point is that open carry at high-profile events does not fit into that strategy because it does cause people to be upset and to feel that it's wroing. It's astounding to me that some in the gun community are so disconnected from the general public that they believe it can be a good strategy.

I think the problem with OC and the Panthers was not so much that weapons were being openly carried, but that the Black Panthers were doing it for the express purpose of intimidation.

Again, the disconnect is amazing to me. You and I know that the folks under discussion weren't doing it for intimidation, but that is NOT how the general public will see it and that is certainly not how it's going to be portrayed. Even some folks here have indicated that they thought intimidation might have been a goal--if we can't even convince ourselves it's a lost cause to try convince the general public. And THAT is what it's all about, isn't it? If we're not trying to convince/educate the general public what's the point?

The best possible realistic outcome is for them to view these folks as harmless nuts--but that's not how most will see it. They'll see it as an attempt to intimidate or as really poor judgement.

Really? while that may be your opinion, it has certainly not been born out as fact.

Please go back, look at all the footage, pictures, and accounts, and show me where anyone even remotely, appeared to be alarmed at any of these events.

There were direct quotes in the article indicating that some people present at the Phoenix rally were upset and felt intimidated and complained to the police as a result. Besides, whether they complained because they were irate and felt it was illegal or whether they complained because they were afraid and upset it's all the same. The bottom line is making people irate or making people afraid or upset is not positive publicity.

It's true that some folks will be irate or upset no matter what we do and that's just the way it is. The point isn't that we should NEVER do things to make people irate or upset, the point is that when we DO take a stand we do it in a way that provides a positive return.

Let's turn this around. Instead of looking for proof that people were alarmed how about we look for proof of a positive benefit? We have direct quotes from unhappy people, how about some direct quotes from people (outside the gun community) who have positive things to say about seeing an openly carried rifle at a high-profile event?

It's not enough to prove that no one was alarmed--the point is not to simply NOT ALARM. We can do that by leaving the guns at home. There has to be a validated and verifiable benefit to make it worthwhile.

So, your opinion clearly is that anyone who thinks these folks sent a clear message about exercising constitutional rights (whether you agree with their method or not) are clowns pandering to lunacy?

My opinion is that anyone who thinks these folks sent a clear POSITIVE message about exercising constitutional rights is either deluding themselves or is not a good judge of how the general public views these incidents.

[Zilmo]

My opinion is that anyone who thinks these folks sent a clear POSITIVE message about exercising constitutional rights is either deluding themselves or is not a good judge of how the general public views these incidents.

Bingo.

[MLeake]

No, not really.

OTOH, it's hard to fault the gentleman in NH, given that his group actually did get effectively assaulted by a pair of goons (were they SEIU? I don't know, but they definitely had the look of union enforcers in the video).

What bothered me in that video wasn't the guy with the gun, it was the police officer who blatantly disregarded half a dozen witnesses yelling that the two guys right next to him had just assaulted one of them.

The cop wanting to see the video was fine by me, but he should have detained the two goons first, and then watched it with them if he wanted to. I cannot understand why he just let them walk off.

For me, that was the strongest argument of all in support of 2A that day.

[AZAK]

but that is NOT how the general public will see it and that is certainly not how it's going to be portrayed. Even some folks here have indicated that they thought intimidation might have been a goal--if we can't even convince ourselves it's a lost cause to try convince the general public. And THAT is what it's all about, isn't it? If we're not trying to convince/educate the general public what's the point?

Let me play the Devil's advocate for a moment.

If we are dictating our personal open carry policy dictated by whether or not we are "appearing" to be in a "winning situation" PRwise have not we already conceded, to a degree, and are not we standing on a slippery slope?

Are we advocating OC for "clean cut, professional, business suit wearing, politically correct, anchor types" (is not that ironic) while we ostracize those who weather a rather antagonistic interview session well but are wearing a t-shirt and happen to be blinking a bit?

Does it really matter at this point what anyone does regarding the media, giving the current mainstream media's apparent agenda concerning the 2nd Amendment?

And while I happen to agree with you concerning education, how can anyone compete with the fact that the average American spends more time in front of a screen each day than any other activity (most of that time the screen being a television), including sleeping and schooling or working, given the mainstream media's shading of firearms? And given that education can be effective, given enough time, are we willing to forego other "more direct" paths which may not take the decades or even generations to achieve what it may take "pc appearance based education" to make?

[Wildalaska]

True, but easily side-stepped at will.

I dare say that under modern law that is impossible

WildimsofattheyareapintinggoodyearacrossmybellyandhangingmeoverastadiumAlaska TM

[JohnKSa]

If we are dictating our personal open carry policy dictated by whether or not we are "appearing" to be in a "winning situation"...

This is not about "OC policy", it's about how we go about educating the general public.

Is anyone really claiming that this guy always carries his AR-15 over his shoulder when he goes out? NO. He chose the venue and took his AR in an attempt to educate the public about open carry. That is why I approached it from the standpoint that we need to carefully evaluate (hopefully in advance) the positive benefit from such activities.

Does it really matter at this point what anyone does regarding the media, giving the current mainstream media's apparent agenda concerning the 2nd Amendment?

You're kidding, right? This is what I'm talking about. We've got a massive disconnect.

The media isn't going to help us, that's a given. But it can certainly HURT us and does so at every opportunity. It will happily take the low-hanging fruit we provide it and publicly rub it on our face. Our job is to make that task more difficult.

YES, we MUST take the media's response into account BECAUSE they have an agenda. The idea that we can proceed as if they don't exist is just plain crazy.

...are we willing to forego other "more direct" paths which may not take the decades or even generations to achieve what it may take "pc appearance based education" to make?

You gotta be realistic. These "more direct paths" are not "more direct paths" to anywhere we want to be. They do not cause the general public to view us more favorably, at best they dismiss this as a few nuts acting out, at worst they become motivated to pass laws to prevent recurrences.

[OuTcAsT]

My opinion is that anyone who thinks these folks sent a clear POSITIVE message about exercising constitutional rights is either deluding themselves or is not a good judge of how the general public views these incidents.

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.

You may refer to me as "delusional" or idealistic if you wish
however, the public opinion aspect is not entirely lost on me. 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.

They have started a "backlash" and whether that is good, or bad for the cause of 2A, or rights in general has yet to be determined, other than the speculations we both share on our respective views.

[JohnKSa]

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.

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.

[AZAK]

Quote:
Does it really matter at this point what anyone does regarding the media, giving the current mainstream media's apparent agenda concerning the 2nd Amendment?
You're kidding, right? This is what I'm talking about. We've got a massive disconnect.

The media isn't going to help us, that's a given. But it can certainly HURT us and does so at every opportunity. It will happily take the low-hanging fruit we provide it and publicly rub it on our face. Our job is to make that task more difficult.

YES, we MUST take the media's response into account BECAUSE they have an agenda. The idea that we can proceed as if they don't exist is just plain crazy

.

Again playing the Devil's advocate:

If the media is not going to help us and only going to hurt us, how ever can you personally influence it? If they can take a black man carrying a rifle and turn that event into a "non black man" via editing and editorial, how in the world can you possibly believe that what you say, anywhere or anyhow will be heard as you intended it to be when filtered through the mainstream media? The mainstream media has no need of any "nuts" they can fabricate "truth". (See previous example.)

"Massive disconnect"?

[JohnKSa]

If the media is not going to help us and only going to hurt us, how ever can you personally influence it?

This is only hard if you make it hard. You're answering your own questions in your post.

If the goal is providing pro-gun education to the public, trying to use the mainstream media is clearly not going to be a useful strategy. In fact, it's pretty obvious that it's almost invariably going to be harmful to the cause precisely because the media will do their best to spin it that way if it's not already to their advantage to report it.

If it's not negative or if they can't spin it then it won't get reported on any sort of useful scale.

Yes, it's a massive disconnect. I don't understand:

1. ...how we start with the premise that the mainstream media is actively anti-gun and then proceed to try to positively influence the general public via the mainstream media.

2. ...how we can be so out of touch with the general public as to think they are positively influenced by seeing people carrying "assault rifles" (that's what the GP sees, I'm not advocating that terminology) at high-profile events.

[bbqbob51]

JohnKSa, well put. That is situation with so many problems that people seem to think the solution is only one of 2 choices. Much too black and white in the real multi-colored world.

I like to use my wife as an example; until last year I would classify her as nearly anti-gun. I say nearly because she had no problem with others having guns and hunting and target practicing, etc. The problem she had was she was so petrified of firearms that she refused to even touch even my .22 Henry lever action rifle. She viewed all firearms as inherently dangerous. I finally got sick of it and with the help of her sister and brother in law we got her to enroll with us in a firearms safety course.
This course prepares you for your CCL and was excellent and she had a chance to meet and interact with other gun owners and she found out they were not so scary. After three evenings of classes we went to a local gun club and we shot a variety of handguns. My wife shot nearly everything they had out for us to try, from .22lr to .45acp! She then realized that guns aren't so bad afterall. This winter she even purchased her very own .38spl Taurus snubby.

My point is that some of the fine folks on this forum and others who are gun enthusiasts might not see the actions of these people carrying guns at a Presidential event all that shocking. They forget that there are those out there such as my wife who aren't so in love with guns and see these protesters as quite shocking. I am afraid that these people are viewed by many as dangerous loonies and what we need is not to shock but to educate and convince the non gun enthusiasts of the merits of gun ownership and the second amendment, and not be scaring them.

[AZAK]

2. ...how we can be so out of touch with the general public as to think they are positively influenced by seeing people carrying "assault rifles" (that's what the GP sees, I'm not advocating that terminology) at high-profile events.

Playing the Devil's Advocate yet again:

And in the same breathe "hanging out to dry" those who actually are open carrying. I believe that some are mixing their feelings about the 1st and 2nd Amendments. It is mainly "high profile" due to the 1st Amendment; the topic at hand at the time. Are we happy calling people "idiots" and "detriments" because they are not in accord with our PCness; even though they were clearly legally exercising their rights?

Are we changing our behaviors and beliefs (possibly our integrity) to suit what "the general public" thinks? In 99 out of 100 American homes, people watch commercial television, do we shun that 1% that chooses not to do so? Or perhaps that 1% needs to "get with the program". Just because you have a majority does not make it right.

Think about the 5th Amendment for a moment. What happens if you fail to invoke that right at a certain time, say under questioning? Slippery slope. Give an inch...

[Poseidon28]

I have to say the black guy with the AR-15 made me a life long friend.

Everyone thinks:

"AR, black rifle!. Bad! Yes it is our government battle rifle..."

The pictures of the black guy with the AR over his shoulders TOTALLY disarmed any fears or apprehensions created initially.

"OH, it's ok. He's part of Obama's gang, possee', etc."

"He's there to protect Obama. That's why he's got the AR."

"He's retired military, protecting the president."

The body language of the people around the guy with the AR over his shoulder is they are totally relaxed, having fun.

I thank God for people with the wisdom and guts to do something like that, and, for giving that person faith to do it.

I can't think of any other situation that would have possibly disarmed the issue, and really focused it on the issues, and made any physical threat absurd, even in concept. The guy is brilliant.!

Rosa Parks has nothing on him...

[JohnKSa]

Playing the Devil's Advocate yet again:

Ok, and back atcha playing the voice of common sense yet again.

Are we happy calling people "idiots" and "detriments" because they are not in accord with our PCness; even though they were clearly legally exercising their rights?

A person doesn't win points simply for exercising his rights. In fact it's easily possible to exercise one's rights in a reprehensible fashion, certainly possible to do so in an unwise manner. What a person wins points for is exercising his rights prudently.

This has got nothing to do with "our PCness", it has to do with public perception. More specifically it has to do with people who are trying to positively affect public perception but are doing so in a manner which is far more likely to have exactly the opposite effect. Is that a detriment? How could it be anything else? Are they idiots? I haven't used that term--I would say misguided is more accurate.

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

This was meant to be a statement, meant to be educational to the general public.

You can't have it both ways. If you're trying to make statements to the general public and trying to educate them then YES, you have to care what the general public thinks. It's absolutely pointless to try to educate the general public about guns starting with the attitude that you don't care what the general public thinks about guns. In fact when it's stated plainly in that manner it's clearly nonsensical.

The very reason we strive to change public opinion is the reason we must respect it when it goes against us. NOT because the majority is right but because in our society/political environment majorities ARE strong. That is precisely why we all want to educate the general public and also precisely why we need to be careful about the way we go about doing so.

[AZAK]

Yes, it's a massive disconnect. I don't understand:

1. ...how we start with the premise that the mainstream media is actively anti-gun and then proceed to try to positively influence the general public via the mainstream media.

The Devil's advocate once again:

How do you propose to begin to reach the "general public" being a small minority of the total populace with out making use of a media that 99% of American households watches an average of 5+hours daily per person? A news media that fabricates what is "truth"?

Talking heads in a box that helps dictate what we wear, eat, drive, smell like, what ailments we might have and which drugs to take because of this, and where we might want to go on vacation. (There is a reason that television advertising can charge the rates that they do.) A box that tells us what our world is like. From the weather, and we chuckle that they can be so wrong so often but then fail to carry this thought much beyond the weather, to the news of political and financial situations.

Suzie Soccermom can verify whether or not the weather is accurate, but really has no time to verity much of anything else; i.e. the countries current financial status, or exactly how many Senators did show up for that vote, and exactly what was in that bill and how did my representative vote? John Q really does not have the time, or generally the drive, to attempt to understand current pending legislation that may or may not influence his life right now or in the near future. Heck, tax forms once a year is bad enough!

Good luck reaching 99% of the country (the general public) without using the one media that they make use of almost exclusively greater than any other activity.

[jimpeel]

From THIS POST I responded to the author with the following:

Dear Sir,

I read your piece "Leave the Guns At Home" (Thursday, August 20, 2009) with some interest.

In the piece, you posed several good questions and observations on which I think I can enlighten you.

1. What would conservatives have said if a group of loud, scruffy leftists had brought guns to the public events of Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush?

Those loud scruffy leftists were known as the Black Panther Party which showed up with regularity at political events of all kinds armed with firearms. That was their right to do as long as they carried those firearms in a peaceful manner.

2. How would our friends on the right have reacted to someone at a Reagan or a Bush speech carrying a sign that read: "It is time to water the tree of liberty"?

Free speech is not always warm and fuzzy. Political free speech as defined in the Bill of Rights is specifically designed to protect speech which is not comfortable to everyone. See Cohen v. California 403 U.S. 15 (1971) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...l=403&invol=15

3. Pardon me, but I don't think conservatives would have spoken out in defense of the right of every American Marxist to bear arms or to shed the blood of tyrants.

Conservatives, unlike Liberals, believe in the entire Constitution, not just the parts they like. Conservatives speak out for all persons to have the same rights as long as they remain peaceful and operate within the laws of the state, territory, or nation in which we live. Have you ever heard of the Pink Pistols? http://www.pinkpistols.org/ They have chapters in nearly every state and are widely supported by the shooting community.

4. Recall the 2004 incident in which a distraught mother whose son was killed in Iraq was arrested for protesting at a rally in New Jersey for first lady Laura Bush.

Sue Niederer was not operating in a peaceful manner nor was she operating within the laws of the state, territory, or nation in which we live. Luke Montgomery aka Luke Sissyfag, was arrested for shouting down President Clinton at a speech in 1993. We could exchange these stories all day; but who would want to?

5. Gibbs made you think of the old line about the liberal who is so open-minded he can't even take his own side in an argument.

He simply knows the laws as written and respects them. We live in a nation of laws, not men. The law is either manifest or it is unenforceable.

6. It's not about an opposition that has every right to free expression. It's about an angry minority engaging in intimidation backed by the threat of violence.

There was no intimidation nor was there a threat of violence. If the mere presence of a firearm caused violence every police officer would be an offensive rather than defensive person. This from CNN http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/...protest.rifle/ Even the Secret Service disagrees with you.

7. The simple fact is that an armed citizenry is not the basis for our freedoms.

True. However, it is the ability of the citizenry to be armed that keeps us free.

8. Guns were used on election days in the Deep South during and after Reconstruction to intimidate black voters and take control of state governments.

You have to reach back over one hundred years to make your point. How about we look at a more recent case in which firearms were used right here in America, August 1-2, 1946, to overthrow tyranny. Have you ever heard of the Battle of Athens Tennessee? http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/athens.htm It makes an interesting read.

Also, it was members of the New Black Panther Party which stood outside polling places in Philadelphia wielding billy clubs on election day 2008. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU

9. ... it is profoundly troubling that firearms should begin to appear with some frequency at a president's public events only now, when the president is black.

Not all of the protesters were Caucasian. The Arizona man heralded in the press as carrying a semi automatic military pattern rifle was of African American heritage.

It might disturb you to know that MSNBC edited their footage of the Black man with the military pattern rifle so his race was not revealed. The panel, led by Contessa Brewer, then went on to discuss how "A man at a pro-health care reform rally ... wore a semiautomatic assault rifle on his shoulder and a pistol on his hip ... there are questions about whether this has racial overtones .... white people showing up with guns." The video is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYKQJ4-N7LI and the picture of the man of whom they are speaking of is here http://www.abc15.com/media/lib/88/0/...3/Original.jpg . They edited the film to make this about race and they did so deliberately. Of this there can be no doubt. The sad part is that these are your colleagues.

I hope that I have answered your questions and observations you to your satisfaction. I am open to a dialogue as you may desire.

Sincerely,

Jim Peel
Longmont, CO

[JohnKSa]

AZAK,

Yeah, that's exactly what I mean by a massive disconnect.

A hates my cause.
A makes things up.
A will not report things that benefit my cause.
A will report things that harm my cause.
A will spin things that benefit my cause to make them seem like they harm my cause.
*****************
MASSIVE DISCONNECT
*****************
A is how I will promote my cause.

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

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...

[jimpeel]

And here is the canned auto-response:

Thank you for your response to my column. I'm grateful when people are
kind enough to take time out to offer generous thoughts. I am also
grateful for the passion and concern of those who disagree with me.
Opinion pages are supposed to spur debate, and my readers keep me on
my toes. That's why I read e-mail and have on occasion written columns
replying to readers.

I hope you will understand that it is difficult to reply to every note
and letter I get. Our country's passion for politics at this moment
and the ease with which technology allows readers to respond have
increased the number of communications I receive to a level well
beyond my capacity to answer them all. That is why I have had to
resort to an automatic thank you note, after resisting doing so for
years. But please know that I am paying attention.

As you may already be aware, you can also respond (in a way that other
readers will see) by posting a comment to my column online at
www.washingtonpost.com. I would also invite you to join other readers
at my online discussion group, E.J.'s Precinct.

Again, thank you for writing.

Best wishes,
E.J. Dionne