Open Carry AR Lafayette

[ATM]

First off, nice ad hominem (bolded above). That's a sure fire way to sway someone to your side of an argument.

Perhaps you are using too generic a definition of that term. You quoted a phrase you often hear and I commented on it as well as the typical failure and lack of skillful support in defending its misapplication as an argument. To deconstruct it further:

"Just because you can, doesn't mean you should" is almost always injected to imply that there are no valid reasons for whatever action is being discussed and further attempting to substitute the legality of the action as the only possible "reason" (which is an irrational notion and easily debunked). Anyone who uses it as an argument, rather than a quaint maxim, shows their lack of skill in fundamental reasoning. To point this out is not a fallacy, merely an observation.

Besides, you claimed that your stance would not change, so swaying you is clearly not my motive in refuting what you say.

Anyway, I'll put it in simpler terms, I guess. Openly carrying a long gun, specifically a "scary black" one, in public, in today's climate is a dumb idea. Do I look forward to the day when maybe it can be accepted by all? Sure thing. I hope I can see the day when I can drive from one end of the country to the other with a pistol taped to my forehead and no one gives a second thought. I don't presume to know why the person did it, and in front of God and everyone assembled, I'll admit that I pre-judged the gentleman based on what I've seen from some of the crazier OCT folks. Yes, I was wrong in that point. However, that does not preclude me from calling out the other yahoos that do this.

Your personal opinions of dumb are not instructive here. Nobody will stop you from calling out yahoos, just consider that you may be wrong about many of them as well. Actual facts tend to trickle in much slower than the shocking headlines crafted from early reports.

I never said he should be charged with anything, did I? I simply stated that what he did wasn't smart. Those are two wildly different outcomes.

I asked what sort of consequence you think he should face for his "stupid game"? Not necessarily charges, but some sort of consequence, right?
If stupid games don't really deserve stupid prizes, I have no idea why you quoted it or what point you were trying to make with it.

I look at the protection of our 2nd amendment rights as a group cause, in all of it's facets. The fight for the right to have a concealed weapon in Illinois, the right to carry openly in Texas, the right to defend ourselves and our homes, that is a fight that we all share as Americans. It's not simply a state by state issue.

See, our causes aren't even the same. I'm not fighting for protection of our 2nd amendment rights (whatever that means), I'm fighting against infringements. That difference in perception may be the root of disagreement regarding methods, tactics and outcomes.

I do understand the fight that the Texans are going through, and I would help them with their cause if I had the chance. That doesn't mean I can't call them out on it if I think their methods of fighting for their rights are either a) dumb in general or b) damaging to the cause as a whole.

They are fighting against a local infringement. You feel free to call out their methods in their local arena as a relatively unaffected and uninvolved observer, because you think they're hurting your cause, right? How are they hurting the protection of 2A rights you claim as your cause?

MLK and Malcolm X both understood the plight of folks in the Civil Rights movement. Both went about seeking change in very different ways. You don't think that either called the other out on their efficacy of their methods? Should I stand by and not point out that they are simply feeding ammo to the anti's to use against the rest of us? Why let one group sabotage what we've already been able to accomplish?

What have you accomplished? What have you earned of the rights which remain uninfringed? How many infringements do you still rally against?
What ammo are the antis going to use against us to tear down the protection of these 2A rights you hold so dear?

What is there for me not to understand? The Open Carry Texas folks have a noble goal. Their methods are dumb. I think I have a perfect understanding of what's going on there. Furthermore, great job ascribing your assumptions upon my understanding of the situation. When looking at things from different angles, it can be possible to see two different views of the same thing.

Obviously we have differing views. I see folks highlighting and seeking the redress of an infringement, you see "the Westboro Baptist Church of the gun rights movement."

...We are fighting a fight of the public's perception of guns and gun owners.

Maybe you are, I'm fighting against infringements of the right to keep and bear arms. Perhaps you could sway me to your cause if you explained why I should care about the public's perception on this matter (and didn't spend so much time calling folks of other causes dumb yahoos).

We can rally all we want, but if we don't change the general perception, we're still doomed. That's the sad part sometimes about dealing with the American public - facts don't matter at all, only people's perception of them.

Fact is, there's work to be done. I've no time for doom and gloom. Enjoy your cause.

 

[cbhausen]

Nice to see you back on INGO, ATM... Your viewpoint is always thought-provoking and well-reasoned.

 

[Ruger-9mm]

{snipping all for brevity, and top ensure that the thread knows who I am responding to}

From reading your response again, this argument is falling into the category of a hill on which I don't wish to die. You seem to keep trying to convince me that while I can call out whomever I want, but that I need to consider the face that I might be wrong about them. Which I did admit to, and then was shown that I was possibly right by the media report. And was further confirmed from another member with information that the person in general is known for things like this as part of the Sovereign Citizen movement. You keep wishing to attack my style of debate more so than the actual substance it seems. And further, if you read the thread, you'll notice that there are others who happen to think the same as me. Why not pick on them and their arguments? Or is it just easy enough to pick on the new guy with low time?

Look, I am open minded on this, but you have yet to give me reason one to change my views. It's not that I can't be swayed, you just haven't given me anything of substance on which to be swayed. This is the style of debate that screams "No matter what you say or reference, you are still wrong. There is only one view but mine." If you're just going to pick at my style of debate and not address the theme I've laid out, several times in the thread, then I don't think that there is anything left for us to debate.

 

[ATM]

...

Not picking on you, you were simply the first response in this thread so I questioned your response and you engaged in a discussion.

(I also questioned ModernGunner's post at that time, though he rarely returns to support his points when questioned or refuted.)

Nothing personal, the points I've made in response to you also apply to other posters of similar opinion in this thread. There is little need to address each one individually, they can read and respond if they care to defend their rationale or original reason for calling this guy out for carrying a rifle (or OCT, etc.)
If you don't want to further discuss the difference in our "causes" or perspectives, maybe another time.

 

[Erich]

-deleted - I see it's being discussed elsewhere

 

[ATM]

-deleted - I see it's being discussed elsewhere

-deleted - I was going to respond to your post, but you deleted it.

 

[Erich]

Aww . . .

 

[X piller X]

Maybe it's just me, but who cares what people think of me carrying? Am I carrying to please others? Heck no! He is open carrying his rifle to make a statement and draw attention. He may have other valid reasons to carry it, but clearly he is doing a good job of one of his intentions.

Back to the whole "scary dangerous blah blah blah" He isn't holding, pointing, threatening anyone's safety. The reason they are scared is because guns are bad, people who have guns are bad. It is his choice how he carries his rifle, regardless of who he scares. And right now, he doesn't have many options or methods of carrying it. Would you want to tote around a large enough bag to store your rifle for 15 miles? probably not, its easier and more beneficial for protection to carry it close to your body

 

[SteveM4A1]

Maybe it's just me, but who cares what people think of me carrying? Am I carrying to please others? Heck no! He is open carrying his rifle to make a statement and draw attention. He may have other valid reasons to carry it, but clearly he is doing a good job of one of his intentions.

Back to the whole "scary dangerous blah blah blah" He isn't holding, pointing, threatening anyone's safety. The reason they are scared is because guns are bad, people who have guns are bad. It is his choice how he carries his rifle, regardless of who he scares. And right now, he doesn't have many options or methods of carrying it. Would you want to tote around a large enough bag to store your rifle for 15 miles? probably not, its easier and more beneficial for protection to carry it close to your body

But open carry of rifles is bad, mmkay?

 

[X piller X]

But open carry of rifles is bad, mmkay?

people who have rifles are bad, and people who carry rifles is especially bad, because they can never ever be used for hunting