How I damaged gun rights today

[cce1302]

I never said I was doing anything of he kind sir.

of course you didn't say you were doing that. I simply gleaned it from your statements against LGOC. You yourself admitted that the NRA staffer that released a memo calling OCT "weird" was adding ammo to the MDA/Bloomberg types. While you didn't go quite as far as that memo, your sentiments seem to be the same. And, as such, are used by MDA/Bloomberg to say "even 'gun owners' don't like what OCT is doing.

I respectfully ask you to be more open-minded then to think that I've magically jumped ship and became an anti-gun liberal.

Maybe you were arguing in favor of long gun open carry and OCT this whole time?

Perhaps I just misunderstood these posts:

Allow me to reiterate my point. Since rifle carry in an urban setting is impractical in comparison with open carry of a handgun, it's of course going to be seen as less socially acceptable than carrying a handgun. I am seeing similarities but I don't think open rifle carry will ever benefit the guns rights community. I'm sorry, I just don't see it. Of course, I concede that I could be wrong but I don't think much will change unless open rifle carry becomes practical in the urban setting. All of you keep bringing up this whole thing about rights. Tell me what this would accomplish if legislation was passed banning open rifle carry. Give my he current political climate, I have my doubts such a law would get struck down in court.

For the last time I'll give you my answer about this "traditional handgun carry" you claim I know nothing about. It has practicality and was able to gain enough support from the masses to pass with the support of various groups including the NRA who were able to push shall issue carry laws, the first of which passed in Florida. However, the same said group, the NRA, doesn't even support this rifle carry thing because of the negative backlash that followed. I keep saying it has no practical use and you keep saying as much is irrelevant without any support to back such a claim while I have continued to support everything I have said. You, on the other hand, offer little to no support besides repeating your questions (like I didn't understand them the first time I read them and felt I had answered them, evidently you didn't get that) and then asserting I don't know what I'm talking about although I have conceded, more than once I might add, that I could be wrong in some of my points but they are my opinions backed by what seems to be reasonable evidence. You haven't offered any rebuttals besides the ones I've mentioned and haven't offered any further evidence for your points. Finally, I must apologize, but I have no idea where you're going with the MDA comparison you've made. I just hope you know we're playing right into their hands because they want us to be divided. It's easier to divide and conquer.

Well I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who sees the damaging effects of open carry of a rifle in a resturant, as much can be attested here. Unfortunatly, not everyone is as understanding as we are to this (I'm not totally against this form of carry). I for one am not personally all too bothered about it, however, the media has painted these scary "assault" rifles in such a negative picture that such unfavorable backlash is to be expected. I thought the NRA point was relatively clear but I'll endulge deeper. The NRA is the biggest 2nd amendment group in the country and to some, the most powerful lobbyist. Having their support is pretty much vital in getting most gun laws passed (at least, from my political studies, having the support of such interst groups is vital because the way out system works in modern times). That is the relevance I thought would be clear because it was a given.

MDA and groups like them are always trying to divide gun owners because they will do whatever it takes to push their agenda. I'm sorry but I can't help but to disagree with this form of protest, not because I feel it's outside of their rights, but because I don't think it has healthy long term effects for the future of gun owners. I also fail to see the positive results outweighing the negative ones.

1. No, I do not advocate voluntarily giving up an rights, how absurd.
2. Comparing the NRA to MDA is apple and oranges. I was speaking about how lobbyist get laws passed.
All I'm saying is that this protest may have negative implications on gun owners as a whole. Finally, the OC thing in California seems to have come about from both the politicians that noticed the loophole (and gladly take away their citizens rights) and the fact that attention was drawn towards the loophole. Really, it was the politicians who were more at fault.

I see no reason to change mine either. That group has every right to have whatever opinion they so choose. However, that doesn't mean I have to change mine because they released a statement declaring theirs.

I will also say that I have met gun owners and non-gun owners alike who share my sentiments concerning this.

Am I having trouble with comprehension, or is this guy sending mixed signals?

 

[cce1302]

This seems to present an effective means of open rifle carry, what does everyone else think?

P320 Entry: A Primer for Effective Open Carry | The Truth About Guns

That's nice, but it doesn't apply to OCT, because his purpose is not their purpose.

As long as we're back to posting articles, here's one for you to ruminate:
Gun Snobs: Anti-Gun Allies

 

[Redhorse]

of course you didn't say you were doing that. I simply gleaned it from your statements against LGOC. You yourself admitted that the NRA staffer that released a memo calling OCT "weird" was adding ammo to the MDA/Bloomberg types. While you didn't go quite as far as that memo, your sentiments seem to be the same. And, as such, are used by MDA/Bloomberg to say "even 'gun owners' don't like what OCT is doing.

Maybe you were arguing in favor of long gun open carry and OCT this whole time?

Perhaps I just misunderstood these posts:











Am I having trouble with comprehension, or is this guy sending mixed signals?

Nope, I clearly stated that since open rifle carry doesn't have practical use in today's society that the other side would jump on this for their argument. I never said that I, myself, was against it, just that given this previous statement that the antis would use this to fuel their argument (the fact that they haven't is bewildering but not surprising given their lack of firearm knowledge). I said it wouldn't be beneficial to the guns rights community, but never said "I don't think we have the right to LGOC." I said the NRA was against their actions, not against LGOC. I am only concerned about the negative outcomes of this particular protest, not all LGOC (that'd be hypocritical). To be against LGOC is to be against long gun hunting in theory because how else are you going to carry your rifle? I have met gun owners and non gun owners alike who share my sentiments about the negative outcomes of the current OCT protest, where are you confused at here? Simply changing the tactics of a protest is not being completely against something.

 

[Redhorse]

That's nice, but it doesn't apply to OCT, because his purpose is not their purpose.

As long as we're back to posting articles, here's one for you to ruminate:
Gun Snobs: Anti-Gun Allies

Of course my computer wouldn't load the article. My article is to reiterate my position on LGOC, does this make it seem like I'm against it now? I assure I'm not, but I am against the negative results that came about from the current protest and advocate a change in tactics. That's not really that major of a position.

EDIT: I finally got it to load. An interesting read that supports both our arguments. Have I insulted them or their tactics? I don't believe so. Have I criticized them? Yes, I have my own ideas where improvement could be made which were discussed in the previous article I posted. Like I said, I applaud their efforts for making it apart of the Texas Republican's agenda.

 

[88GT]

I never said I was doing anything of he kind sir. I respectfully ask you to be more open-minded then to think that I've magically jumped ship and became an anti-gun liberal.

You have made it abundantly clear that you want other gun owners to stifle the free exercise of their rights, for your benefit. I share his characterization of your position.

Nope, I clearly stated that since open rifle carry doesn't have practical use in today's society that the other side would jump on this for their argument. I never said that I, myself, was against it, just that given this previous statement that the antis would use this to fuel their argument (the fact that they haven't is bewildering but not surprising given their lack of firearm knowledge). I said it wouldn't be beneficial to the guns rights community, but never said "I don't think we have the right to LGOC." I said the NRA was against their actions, not against LGOC. I am only concerned about the negative outcomes of this particular protest, not all LGOC (that'd be hypocritical). To be against LGOC is to be against long gun hunting in theory because how else are you going to carry your rifle? I have met gun owners and non gun owners alike who share my sentiments about the negative outcomes of the current OCT protest, where are you confused at here? Simply changing the tactics of a protest is not being completely against something.

 

[actaeon277]

You guys do know at this point, you're just going round and round.
Right?

 

[Redhorse]

You have made it abundantly clear that you want other gun owners to stifle the free exercise of their rights, for your benefit. I share his characterization of your position.

I was pointing out how the antis are going to use this to argue their point. For example, instead of passing OC, they'll just outlaw LGOC. Please read the rest of the sentence you have in bold and not put words in my mouth. I made it clear a change in tactics would aid them more as should have been noted from my previous article I posted. I never said I was against LGOC but am against results that aren't favorable. Look at it from an investment point of view; if you sink money into something that yields unfavorable results, are you going to continue to repeat the same process or make a change and invest elsewhere?

 

[cce1302]

You guys do know at this point, you're just going round and round.
Right?

Yes, this is the fun part.
"you said this"
"I didn't say that"
"Yes, and you said it in all these posts."
"Well I meant something different, and I'm very comfortable on this fence."

I don't think redhorse realizes that our goals are different. He seems to want gunowners and antigunners to be friends.

I just want the pants-wetters to look ridiculous wetting their pants constantly over non-issues. As the general population continues to see scary-looking guys with beards and AR-15s in public and nothing happening, they'll begin to understand how ridiculous it is to wet their pants every time they see a firearm.

That's pretty much the point of the "where did you OC?" and "Where did you see OC?" threads. We have a list of tens of thousands of occasions where we have exercised traditional carry and nobody wet their pants. There comes a point in the argument where the hand-wringing and sobbing about what other people think of "the gun community" ends and we just go about our business.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

That's nice, but it doesn't apply to OCT, because his purpose is not their purpose.

As long as we're back to posting articles, here's one for you to ruminate:
Gun Snobs: Anti-Gun Allies

Good read, Clay. Thanks for posting.

Tried but failed: You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to cce1302 again.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Very good read Clay. It hits the nail on the head. Hyopcrites I say.

 

[ChalupaCabras]

Look at every other sub-set of the general culture - they get MORE rights by being obnoxious, and throwing their agenda in the publics face - organizing rallys, buying TV add space, having demonstrations in public spaces...

You have to make people realize that there are more than just a couple of people who want their gun rights back. You don't do that by appologising for yourself, or keeping you beliefs hidden.

You cant refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple now - That wasn't true 10 years ago. That public awareness was generated by years of sabre rattling, and generally obnoxious behavior. The public perception will eventually cave if you keep arguing for long enough.

 

[Redhorse]

Well maybe this guy out of Indiana can make you see my point. There's dos and don'ts even when expressing your rights.

Real Open Carry do?s and don?ts | The Bang Switch

 

[cce1302]

Well maybe this guy out of Indiana can make you see my point. There's dos and don'ts even when expressing your rights.

Real Open Carry do?s and don?ts | The Bang Switch

I see your point. I've been disagreeing with it all along. And to back up a few posts, no, the Gun Snobs article didn't make your point. It described your attitude (and that of your "guy out of Indiana" who calls someone a "douchebag" for posing for a picture with his hand on his rifle):

Here is my problem with gun snobs: They all seem to think they know what's best. In many cases they may be right. Many of them have had advanced weapons training and are well versed in the "proper" way to do this or that. However, rather than speak out in favor of education and training, they belittle and disparage normal citizens who's right to keep AND BEAR arms they claim to support.

Many have jumped on the Texas movement based on a couple of pictures of people OBVIOUSLY posing (like the one on the left here) with their rifles at the "low ready" position. Then they extrapolate from those pictures that these people walk around like that all the time. It takes just a moment on Google to see that is NOT how they normally carry during these events. This snobbery just feeds into the fear-mongering of the anti-gun movement, giving them "pro-gun" support for their allegations that these people are "gun bullies". I am a firm believer in constructive criticism and even honest and robust disagreements, but it is the viciousness of the attacks that elevate it to gun snobbery. The air of elitism in the tone and dehumanizing insults are the typical traits of the anti-gun activists NOT the American Gun Culture.
- See more at: Gun Snobs: Anti-Gun Allies

 

[SteveM4A1]

I see your point. I've been disagreeing with it all along. And to back up a few posts, no, the Gun Snobs article didn't make your point. It described your attitude (and that of your "guy out of Indiana" who calls someone a "douchebag" for posing for a picture with his hand on his rifle):

Exactly. We see the point you're trying to make. The fallacies in your argument hold no weight, however. Posting another article of someone stating the same opinion as you isn't proving anything except that there are others who share your view. In all fairness though, at least you keep coming back to defend your statements and try to debate. The cognitive dissonance in others seems to be strong. So I at least give you an internet handshake, Redhorse.

 

[rhino]

Bonus points for using "cognitive dissonance" in a sentence on INGO!

 

[Streck-Fu]

This is not a matter of disagreeing about what kind of cheese to put on a hamburger.

The default position should always be to enhance liberty not restrict it. If you do not want to exercise a right in a certain manner, don't. But do not tell others that they must restrict the way they exercise their right.

 

[Redhorse]

I see your point. I've been disagreeing with it all along. And to back up a few posts, no, the Gun Snobs article didn't make your point. It described your attitude (and that of your "guy out of Indiana" who calls someone a "douchebag" for posing for a picture with his hand on his rifle):

I will say his demeanor and diction was rather disrespectful. I'm not sure how changing one's tactics is exactly damaging one's liberties. Unfortunately, PR has more effects on our rights then we'd like to admit.

Your previous article backed up my point about being civil in our discourse. As far as I know, I have been civil. Like I said, the authors demeanor in my previous article was disrespectful and I should have said so but I didn't. For that, I apologize.

 

[88GT]

This is not a matter of disagreeing about what kind of cheese to put on a hamburger.

The default position should always be to enhance liberty not restrict it. If you do not want to exercise a right in a certain manner, don't. But do not tell others that they must restrict the way they exercise their right.

Cheddar or a nice pepper jack if you're going for the kick. Can't let the cheese outshine the burger itself.

 

[Redhorse]

Cheddar or a nice pepper jack if you're going for the kick. Can't let the cheese outshine the burger itself.

I usually go for swiss and American. Shows my well-rounded appreciation for other cultures.

 

[cce1302]

I will say his demeanor and diction was rather disrespectful. I'm not sure how changing one's tactics is exactly damaging one's liberties. Unfortunately, PR has more effects on our rights then we'd like to admit.

Your previous article backed up my point about being civil in our discourse. As far as I know, I have been civil. Like I said, the authors demeanor in my previous article was disrespectful and I should have said so but I didn't. For that, I apologize.

This is why we go round and round.

Did you say it or did you didn't say it?

Or did you didn't say it before you did say it?

Did you support OC before you opposed it?