How I damaged gun rights today

[cce1302]

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.

I heard the exact same remarks 6 years ago about open carrying handguns, yet here we are, more free to OC than we were then.

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.

Then why not stand back and let the guys that have the guts to take "these scary 'assault' rifles" out in public and prove the media wrong do their thing instead of adding to the unfavorable backlash.

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.

And we're back to the original "I'm siding with MDA because I don't remember that I'm arguing the same things that were ineffectively argued against traditional carry of handguns 5 years ago."

 

[OWGEM]

I heard the exact same remarks 6 years ago about open carrying handguns, yet here we are, more free to OC than we were then.

Not true. CA removed the lawful ability to OC handguns, mostly due to OC 'ers blatantly confronting LEO and video taping for YouTube. They said they were protesting the law there which allowed no OC loaded handguns, so they OC 'ed unloaded and looked for LEO encounters to video. Hum, that tactic backfired. What makes you think OC 'ing rifles into restaurants will not backfire as well? When your tactic is being used against you, fairly or not, seems wise to change it.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Not true. CA removed the lawful ability to OC handguns, mostly due to OC 'ers blatantly confronting LEO and video taping for YouTube. They said they were protesting the law there which allowed no OC loaded handguns, so they OC 'ed unloaded and looked for LEO encounters to video. Hum, that tactic backfired. What makes you think OC 'ing rifles into restaurants will not backfire as well? When your tactic is being used against you, fairly or not, seems wise to change it.

The law wasn't changed in California because of open carriers. The law was changed because they like to control peoples' lives and are anti-freedom. The law changed because of the voters and politicians in California. Let's place blame where it belongs.

 

[OWGEM]

The law wasn't changed in California because of open carriers. The law was changed because they like to control peoples' lives and are anti-freedom. The law changed because of the voters and politicians in California. Let's place blame where it belongs.

Yes the voters and politicians of CA changed the law. And were influenced by the OC 'ers. If you wish to have blinders to that fact, then we have nothing more to discuss.

 

[SteveM4A1]

Yes the voters and politicians of CA changed the law. And were influenced by the OC 'ers. If you wish to have blinders to that fact, then we have nothing more to discuss.

If exercising a right leads to termination of that right, did you ever have that right to begin with?

 

[OWGEM]

Evidently exercising a right foolishly leads to losing that right. At least in CA.

 

[SteveM4A1]

My argument is extremely simple towards this line of thought. Politicians and voters in CA were not influenced by the OCers. They were influenced by their own misplaced, misguided fears of an object that is radicalized by the media. The OCers gave them no reason to legislate a right away. Their own foolish, emotional responses did that.

 

[rhino]

It's ridiculous to claim that open carry of unloaded guns in California was the real reason that practice being banned. At best, all those people did was call it to the attention of the lawmakers that a loophole still existed. You could argue that their actions brought it to the attention of some very bad people in their legislature sooner rather than later, but so what? Where would they all be if they had not done it? In the same damn place not being able to exercise their fundamental rights without fear of legal penalties. There is nothing anyone can do or not do within the California system that will affect a positive change in the gun laws in California. They're going to have to be compelled to move closer to upholding Constitutionally-protected rights the same way Illinois was.

To the people who look at this as some example of what happens when you exercise socially unacceptable rights, look at Ohio. If you followed the history of their gun permit law as it was happening, you would know that open carry of handguns (which is still legal there) played a pivotal role in getting enough attention and votes to finally pass a concealed carry permit law. If those activists had not pushed social limits, they would still be waiting.

 

[ATM]

Yes the voters and politicians of CA changed the law. And were influenced by the OC 'ers. If you wish to have blinders to that fact, then we have nothing more to discuss.

Since you seem to have no clue what actually transpired, you don't really have the ability to discuss it.

Evidently exercising a right foolishly leads to losing that right. At least in CA.

Exercising a right foolishly? Let's see, unloaded open carry was the only method by which most residents (aside from the elite few granted permits) could legally carry a firearm - every other method had been outlawed. Your claim is that doing so was foolish? Really?

Then, when the legislature became aware that a legal means to carry still existed despite their attempts, they closed this final remaining "loophole" (as I'm sure they considered it), effectively banning carry once and for all. Interestingly, this final act banning any means of carry for most residents is turning out to be their undoing via the courts.

Yet you would blame the victims of that final prohibition for having had the audacity to lawfully carry according to the last remaining ridiculous option available rather than simply admitting defeat and leaving their guns at home? That's pretty bold.


ETA: Dang, I should have refreshed the screen before I posted. Rhino beat me to some good points.

 

[rhino]

ETA: Dang, I should have refreshed the screen before I posted. Rhino beat me to some good points.

It happens.

 

[Redhorse]

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.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

Wisconsin Carry weighs in on the OC Texas matter. They know a thing or two about the issue.

Wisconsin Carry Issues Statement In Support Of 'Open Carry Texas'

 

[SteveM4A1]

Wisconsin Carry weighs in on the OC Texas matter. They know a thing or two about the issue.

Wisconsin Carry Issues Statement In Support Of 'Open Carry Texas'

Couldn't agree more with the statement. Thank you for the read.

 

[rhino]

Wisconsin Carry weighs in on the OC Texas matter. They know a thing or two about the issue.

Wisconsin Carry Issues Statement In Support Of 'Open Carry Texas'

Indeed!

Much like Ohio did earlier, Wisconsin residents also pushed social comfort with open carry and eventually got their permit system.

 

[ATM]

That was a well-crafted proclamation of support. I wonder if the naysayers in this thread will ignore it, address it

...or just call them names.

 

[jcwit]

I see no reason to change my position.

Just because a fool drives 45 in a zone posted at 70 during icy conditions does not make it OK.

But being as you know all about how the American people feel about folks carrying long guns in public places I suppose it's OK. Till the laws get hammered out anyway.

 

[ATM]

I see no reason to change my position.

Of course not, your position is largely pinned to social popularity rather than reason.

Just because a fool drives 45 in a zone posted at 70 during icy conditions does not make it OK.

I have no idea what point you were trying to make here. If you're attempting to compare safe rifle carry with unsafe driving practices, you failed.

But being as you know all about how the American people feel about folks carrying long guns in public places I suppose it's OK. Till the laws get hammered out anyway.

Yes, we know , it's not popular. Your constant appeals to popularity and pandering to the emotions of the public have become quite tedious.

Thankfully, there remain a few who still prefer a basis of principle.

 

[deltaecho]

That bunny better have been on safe, one went off around me on time and it was bad....that's all I can say

Bunnies goin' off, eh?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmqLs8-s0f8https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmqLs8-s0f8

 

[Redhorse]

I see no reason to change my position.

Just because a fool drives 45 in a zone posted at 70 during icy conditions does not make it OK.

But being as you know all about how the American people feel about folks carrying long guns in public places I suppose it's OK. Till the laws get hammered out anyway.

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.

 

[SteveM4A1]

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

Argumentum ad populum, appeal to the masses, etc.