Open Carry - Favor Please?

[dburkhead]

Since you were so worried about my spelling I would like to inform you that you just misquoted John Paul Jones

Actually cite comes in several versions and there is quite a bit of disagreement which is "correct".

And remember this quote?

Ok I'm just post whoring now.......I'm outta here

 

[r.o.b.o.]

I've made it back

 

[dburkhead]

I've made it back

So basically you lied and aren't even repentant about it.

 

[chezuki]

Ponderosa is not exactly a war zone.

You've apparently never been during "All You Can Eat Sirloin Tips"!


I have nothing else to add to this thread, so I'm out.

 

[dburkhead]

BTW, for context the JPJ quote comes from the following:

The rules of conduct, the maxims of action, and the tactical instincts that serve to gain small victories may always be expanded into the winning of great ones with suitable opportunity; because in human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law inflexible and inexorable that he who will not risk cannot win.
- John Paul Jones,
in a 1791 letter to Vice Admiral Kersaint

From this, the short form "he who will not risk, cannot win" is often extracted (with or without the comma which is a fine point of usage) as covering the essence.

A more colloquial quote I've encountered from time to time:
"Behold the tortoise. He maketh no progress unless he sticketh out his neck."

From the Japanese (I picked up a number of these thanks to my wife):
"If one wants to capture the tiger's cubs one must venture into the tiger's den." ("諺》虎穴に入らずんば虎児を得ず")

Playing things "safe"--especially when one is coming from behind (as we are with RKBA)--is, at best, a way of slowing down how quickly one loses. It's not a strategy for winning.

 

[figley]

The videos and this whole thread did cause me to think.

In response, when I went to a few stores in Southport with the family last night, I dressed a little nicer, and OC'd a nice 1911 in a classy leather rig. (Target, HomoDepot, B&BWorks, Hardees)

I fall into the camp that believes that we should all be good ambassadors for OC, and that, like it or not, we will all be judged based on the example that each of us sets. OC isn't something I do very often, if at all. For the record, there may have been some looks, but nothing was ever said to me.

 

[MACHINEGUN]

I'd say the AR-15 was a bit much and over the top.. they couldn't just walk in with pistols.. they had to take it another step.. obviously not smart. And the one holding the camera sounds like he needs immediate medical attention... maybe that's why they were really there.

 

[rlspach]

Although this thread has unfortunately deteriorated into dialogue that is less than constructive, I want to try one more time.

I'll summarize what I think I hear from our "carry in any manner without constraint by any means necessary" friends.

1) We have a natural and constitutional right to bear arms in any manner we choose
2) No one can take that right away and it is fundamental to our freedom
3) People who might be disturbed by guns, no matter how unusual the manner, can pound sand.
4) If we don't regularly exercise our rights, even or especially if it makes a scene, we will lose that right.

Forgetting about social courtesy and consideration of the feeling of others, there is a fundamental flaw in this logic that starts right at item#1.

Quoting directly from the majority option in the Heller Supreme Court Decision:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf Page 2

So, your assumption that this "right" you presume is guaranteed by the constitution IS NOT TRUE, based on clear interpretation by the Supreme Court.

What this means is that laws to restrict the "manner of carry" will likely be upheld by the Supreme Court.

This also means that if our means of "exercising our rights" creates enough angst in the general population, this will likely result in laws that restrict us, which may not exist today. It is quite likely that those laws may over-reach. For example if people are pissed off about someone carrying an AR-15, we may end up with laws restricting ALL OPEN CARRY.

Using smart, judicious and conservative means to get the general population comfortable with seeing and experiencing firearms in the hands of responsible people is one thing.

INTENTIONALLY FREAKING PEOPLE OUT is a stupid plan that will backfire and result in laws that restrict your cherished freedom.

I'm just suggesting that our activist friends use their heads.

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

1) We have a natural and constitutional right to bear arms in any manner we choose

Yes.

2) No one can take that right away and it is fundamental to our freedom

No, it can be taken away and/or limited with due process.

3) People who might be disturbed by guns, no matter how unusual the manner, can pound sand.

There is no Constitutional right to "not be disturbed" by the sight of a firearm. Pound sand, no. Realizing that possessing a firearm is a right and not a privilege, yes.

4) If we don't regularly exercise our rights, even or especially if it makes a scene, we will lose that right.

This presumes that I am required to exercise my rights on occasion. If that exercise of my rights, if I choose to exercise it, causes a portion of the population with a negative opinion of that right to take notice, it is still my right to exercise it no matter how much they dislike seeing/hearing me do it. They have recourse through the courts to try to change the law if they can show cause to change it.

Forgetting about social courtesy and consideration of the feeling of others, there is a fundamental flaw in this logic that starts right at item#1.

Quoting directly from the majority option in the Heller Supreme Court Decision:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf Page 2

So, your assumption that this "right" you presume is guaranteed by the constitution IS NOT TRUE, based on clear interpretation by the Supreme Court.

Not true. You left out the explanation for what you quoted. From the link you provided:

For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to castdoubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms byfelons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

It would have to be shown in court that the weapon was dangerous or unusual.

What this means is that laws to restrict the "manner of carry" will likely be upheld by the Supreme Court.

That was not what I read in Heller. I will read it again, just to clarify.

This also means that if our means of "exercising our rights" creates enough angst in the general population, this will likely result in laws that restrict us, which may not exist today. It is quite likely that those laws may over-reach. For example if people are pissed off about someone carrying an AR-15, we may end up with laws restricting ALL OPEN CARRY.

I think you are putting personal opinion here. Your fear of what could happen.

Using smart, judicious and conservative means to get the general population comfortable with seeing and experiencing firearms in the hands of responsible people is one thing.

INTENTIONALLY FREAKING PEOPLE OUT is a stupid plan that will backfire and result in laws that restrict your cherished freedom.

I'm just suggesting that our activist friends use their heads.

I want individuals around me to "use their heads", too. If what a person near me is doing is legal, I may disagree with it but it is still legal. Your words here could be applied to someone finding out that you CC a firearm and "gets freaked out." Your right to carry a firearm should end simply because a person found out about a firearm under your coat that they can't even see and didn't know about until someone told them?

 

[rlspach]

Blue - good counter points.

It would have to be shown in court that the weapon was dangerous or unusual.

I don't think you're interpreting the excerpt you quoted from Heller appropriately. The same paragraph you quoted also starts with "concealed weapons PROHIBITIONS have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. To me that means that there is still a ton of leeway for States to restrict our freedom so we need to be sensitive to that potential. Even still in DC they make it extremely difficult to even own a gun, although they are now required to make it possible.

You are correct I "fear what could happen" because I enjoy the freedom that we do have here in Indiana and I actively lobby for more.

I'm not so concerned about an individual freaking out, but rather behaviors that would generally cause most people to be concerned. We have to be careful.

 

[dburkhead]

Although this thread has unfortunately deteriorated into dialogue that is less than constructive, I want to try one more time.

I'll summarize what I think I hear from our "carry in any manner without constraint by any means necessary" friends.

1) We have a natural and constitutional right to bear arms in any manner we choose
2) No one can take that right away and it is fundamental to our freedom
3) People who might be disturbed by guns, no matter how unusual the manner, can pound sand.
4) If we don't regularly exercise our rights, even or especially if it makes a scene, we will lose that right.

Forgetting about social courtesy and consideration of the feeling of others, there is a fundamental flaw in this logic that starts right at item#1.

Quoting directly from the majority option in the Heller Supreme Court Decision:

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose"

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf Page 2

So, your assumption that this "right" you presume is guaranteed by the constitution IS NOT TRUE, based on clear interpretation by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court once said that "separate but equal" was Constitutional.

The Supreme Court once said that fugitive slave laws (and, therefore, slavery, even in "free" states) was Constitutional.

And so on.

The Supreme Court is not infallible and what the Supreme Court (a panel of 9 political appointees) says is not graven in stone forever and ever amen.

What this means is that laws to restrict the "manner of carry" will likely be upheld by the Supreme Court.

This also means that if our means of "exercising our rights" creates enough angst in the general population, this will likely result in laws that restrict us, which may not exist today. It is quite likely that those laws may over-reach. For example if people are pissed off about someone carrying an AR-15, we may end up with laws restricting ALL OPEN CARRY.

I simply point you at every. single. civil. rights. movement. in. history. Can you point to any case where the low-key "don't make waves" approach has ever worked at winning, or winning back, rights? It didn't work that way in India. It didn't work that way in the 60's with the Civil Rights movement. It didn't work that way in the 70's with the gay rights movement. It didn't work for women, blacks, gays, etc. etc. etc.

And it hasn't worked for gun owners either. I point out again that the low-key, don't make waves approach has been losing our rights for the last 75 or more years.

You might also want to ask yourself why people are freaked out by seeing someone with a rifle when that used to not be the case. It's not because the nature of rifles has changed. Frankly, it's because of a concerted effort over the course of decades of the antis to paint weapons as "evil" and to make carrying of same questionable at best. It's been a very successful campaign. Even you have apparently bought into it to at least some extent or you'd be questioning the silly people worried simply because someone was carrying a rifle rather than the person exercising his right to carry by carrying a rifle rather than a "socially approved" (today, at least) handgun.

Using smart, judicious and conservative means to get the general population comfortable with seeing and experiencing firearms in the hands of responsible people is one thing.

Like what? Be specific. Do you actually have anything other than tactics that have been failing for the last 75 or more years.

INTENTIONALLY FREAKING PEOPLE OUT is a stupid plan that will backfire and result in laws that restrict your cherished freedom.

Like it backfired after Stonewall? Like the "bra burnings" backfired? Like Gandhi's "salt march" backfired? Like Rosa Parks and Ruby Bridges backfired?

I'm just suggesting that our activist friends use their heads.

And I'm suggesting you read a little history and see what approaches have actually worked when it comes to winning right.

However you may have a point. It's possible that a more active approach to "activism" might backfire. But it won't be because of the antis and the sheeple getting "freaked out." It will be because of other ostensibly pro-gun folk selling them out.

Stonewall could have led to a different result. Had the rest of the "gay community", instead of in large part rising in support of the gays and lesbians at Stonewall instead whined about how the protest turned riot was "excessive" and figuratively thrown them to the wolves it would not have kicked off the activism that led to the repeal of many discriminatory laws and policies.

Gun owners outnumber gays and lesbians among the voting population by a vast number. In Indiana people with LTCH are just about as numerous as adult gays/lesbians. We could have as much, more, political power as they do if we will only use it.

If there is a successful backlash because a few people decide to carry rifles. It will be because by and large the "gun owners" choose to sell them down the river.

And if that happens, well, then we have already lost. RKBA is dead and all that's left is to complete the dying.

 

[rlspach]

DB - great points

I have actually thought quite a bit about the gay rights example and I think there are good similarities given the emotional and irrational responses that some people have to both of these issues.

In both examples however there are things that can progress the freedoms and things that can backfire. Gays might conduct an organized demonstration, or hold hands in a restaurant to progress their cause and move the line.

A couple of men french kissing and fondling each other in church in a conservative community would have probably set back their cause.

I would be less concerned with a guy carrying an AR-15 into that restaurant if, for example, he were wearing a shirt that said "I'm carrying this gun to protect your freedom to bear arms". This could at least serve to provide people with a rationale for his extremely unusual behavior other than perhaps the guy is a lunatic with intention to harm.

It's the line we have to be careful of, and how we approach and handle that line. The line isn't defined by us, it is defined by the feelings of the majority of people in the room.

I am most certainly not in support of gun owners promoting legal restrictions on that line. That is not my point. Reckless handling of the line that promotes an undoing of what we're trying to accomplish is my point.

 

[dburkhead]

DB - great points

I have actually thought quite a bit about the gay rights example and I think there are good similarities given the emotional and irrational responses that some people have to both of these issues.

In both examples however there are things that can progress the freedoms and things that can backfire. Gays might conduct an organized demonstration, or hold hands in a restaurant to progress their cause and move the line.

A couple of men french kissing and fondling each other in church in a conservative community would have probably set back their cause.

You think a couple of men french kissing and fondling each other is less inflammatory than an open riot (Stonewall)?

I happen to disagree.

I would be less concerned with a guy carrying an AR-15 into that restaurant if, for example, he were wearing a shirt that said "I'm carrying this gun to protect your freedom to bear arms". This could at least serve to provide people with a rationale for his extremely unusual behavior other than perhaps the guy is a lunatic with intention to harm.

I would be less concerned if so many ostensibly "pro-gun" people weren't so quick to sell the man with the AR15 down the river.

It's the line we have to be careful of, and how we approach and handle that line. The line isn't defined by us, it is defined by the feelings of the majority of people in the room.

Exactly backward. You're letting the anti's define the line because the anti's see no need to play by the rules you are advocating for gun owners. They are willing to use any trick, push hard at any line, and don't let the idea that folk who disagree with them might be "offended" get in their way.

You're in a knife fight in an alley and insisting on following the Marquis of Queensbury rules.

I am most certainly not in support of gun owners promoting legal restrictions on that line. That is not my point. Reckless handling of the line that promotes an undoing of what we're trying to accomplish is my point.

If you don't want further legal restrictions then stop selling folk who are fighting for our rights--even if you do not personally agree with them--down the river.

As things stand now you and folk who argue as you have have done as much ir not more potential damage as the guy carrying the AR15. The antis can now point not just to the sheeple who were scared but at nominally "pro gun" folk and say "even 'gun nuts' think it's a bad idea so...."

Even if the thing is over the top, having a certain fraction of supporters being "over the top" is a good thing: "The reason they're willing to talk to Martin is because otherwise they'd have to talk to me." I don't know if Martin Luther King Junior acknowledged, or even recognized, the debt he owed to Malcolm X but it was real nonetheless.

 

[rlspach]

I appreciate your point of view DB. I'll admit I'm not a scholar of social struggles. I do however have considerable experience leading people.

I don't think a debate on the efficacy of various methods equates to selling people down the river. Frankly I respect the courage of those individuals despite my reservations about their methods.

Some of the struggles you mention involved various groups trying various methods. Were the methods of ML King more or less effective than that of the Black Panthers or were they complimentary or contradictory? An interesting question that I'm not sure has a clear answer.

I would offer you another thought however.

There were a lot of people in that restaurant. I would guess most of them disapproved of that guy carrying the AR because it was unusual and for that reason concerning. I wouldn't paint them as "anti's" however because they disapproved.

Anti's to me are folks that have taken the position that gun rights must be further limited and are motivated to act on that. Most people frankly don't give two seconds of thought about it.

If the majority really are "anti", I would agree with you that the methods of influence would necessarily have to be provocative.

I'm not convinced our primary goal should be focused primarily on the anti's (as I defined them) because they aren't the majority.

Our goal is to win the trust of the folks who don't otherwise think about it, because they are the majority. We need to prevent them from becoming anti's and ideally convince them to support our and their freedoms.

I think provocative behavior is less effective in a scenario where the majority doesn't have a strong position. In my opinion it is more likely to move them towards taking action as an anti.

I believe we have a different situation, at least in Indiana and Michigan, than the one where the majority share a strong common bias, as was the case in the civil rights situations you cite. Different situations require different methods.

 

[dburkhead]

I appreciate your point of view DB. I'll admit I'm not a scholar of social struggles. I do however have considerable experience leading people.

I don't think a debate on the efficacy of various methods equates to selling people down the river. Frankly I respect the courage of those individuals despite my reservations about their methods.

Go back and look at the tone of many of the posts critical of the very idea of carrying a long gun, an AR in particular. Entirely too many ostensibly pro-gun folk could not wait to "disown" someone simply because they exercised their legal rights in a way of which they disapproved.

Some of the struggles you mention involved various groups trying various methods. Were the methods of ML King more or less effective than that of the Black Panthers or were they complimentary or contradictory? An interesting question that I'm not sure has a clear answer.

The point is that MLK wasn't alone. It wasn't MLK that won "civil rights" in the 60's. It was MLK plus Malcolm X plus other groups. It wasn't Ghandi that won independence from Great Britain for India. It was Ghandi plus other groups that were quite willing to be violent.

You'll look in vain for examples of people making any significant change to society only through "sweet reason" or non-violent protest.

Different groups tried different approaches in those various movements, but it was the combination that led to the change.

I would offer you another thought however.

There were a lot of people in that restaurant. I would guess most of them disapproved of that guy carrying the AR because it was unusual and for that reason concerning. I wouldn't paint them as "anti's" however because they disapproved.

Anti's to me are folks that have taken the position that gun rights must be further limited and are motivated to act on that. Most people frankly don't give two seconds of thought about it.

How many people do you think were in Greenwich Village at the time of the Stonewall riots? How many people saw them on the news? How many were bona-fide "antis" as opposed to the same kind of "most people" you are describing here.

If something as mildly provocative as legally carrying a rifle is going to cause the kind of backlash that you and others appear to fear, then why didn't out and out riots cause even worse?

If the majority really are "anti", I would agree with you that the methods of influence would necessarily have to be provocative.

I simply remind you that the non-provocative approach is the one that has been losing for the past 75 years.

I'm not convinced our primary goal should be focused primarily on the anti's (as I defined them) because they aren't the majority.

Our goal is to win the trust of the folks who don't otherwise think about it, because they are the majority. We need to prevent them from becoming anti's and ideally convince them to support our and their freedoms.

And, other than approaches that have been failing for the past 75 or more years do you suggest?

I think provocative behavior is less effective in a scenario where the majority doesn't have a strong position. In my opinion it is more likely to move them towards taking action as an anti.

Continuing the same kind of behavior that has been steadily losing us our rights over the last 75 years is only likely to continue to erode those rights. It is simply not rational to expect the same kind of "hide them away lest we scare the sheeple" approach will suddenly start working to win back our rights when it has been failing since before '34 NFA.

I believe we have a different situation, at least in Indiana and Michigan, than the one where the majority share a strong common bias, as was the case in the civil rights situations you cite. Different situations require different methods.

If people are going to be upset simply because someone was carrying a rifle, then there already is more "common bias" than you may be prepared to admit. It's infected even ostensibly pro-gun folk. Look at the posts here where we have folk decrying the idea of carrying a rifle, or specifically and AR, in public not just because the uninformed may be unjustly worried but, well, the reason is not very clear but it's bad (so they say).

That the uninformed may be unjustly alarmed is a legitimate cause for concern (not, IMO, outweighing that the approaches that "address" that alarm have been losing us our rights gradually over the decades behind us), but the emphasis has to be on "uninformed" and "unjustly". When you start giving credence to the alarm, when you start treating it as if its justified, then you've conceded the field to the real antis.

The only ones that should ever be claiming that carrying a handgun, rifle, shotgun, or LAW for that matter, anywhere one wants, openly or otherwise--so long as one never actually uses it either deliberately or negligently to harm anyone--is "bad" should be the antis and the uninformed.

The antis are a lost cause. It doesn't matter what we do. They will, with very few exceptions, remain antis. The uninformed, however, can be reached. They can be given further information and things to think about and become less uninformed. And incidents like this one are a great opportunity to discuss the matter and get people thinking about "they say it's bad but, well, why? In the end, nobody was hurt and it was only people's own fear that disturbed anyone."

In any case, there are very few guarantees in life. I don't offer any guarantee that any approach will win back our rights. Anything we do has a risk. Anything we do could end up, in some future hindsight, being the "wrong" choice (and that future hindsight will not be able to guarantee that any different action would have been better). Life isn't about guarantees. But this comes close (IMO): continue to do what we have done and continue to see the same results; the slow, ongoing erosion of our rights in general and our RKBA in particular. Slow that erosion might be but "the mills of the gods grind slowly but exceedingly fine."

 

[jbombelli]

Personally, I think.. go ahead. Carry what you want. But if you walk into the same restaurant as me, carrying an AR, I'm going to be watching you hard 100% of the time you're there. I'm going to constantly be planning ways to put a bullet in your head if I need to. Literally. 100% of the time you're there, that's what I'll be thinking.

The problem is... over the last few decades, the ONLY time people have been seen in public with a rifle, it's resulted in the shooting of innocent people. And it's happened many times. I'm not saying it's not your right to do so. I'm not saying you can't do it. I'm saying I'm not going to trust people I see with rifles. It's simply because of how things have gone the last 50 years.

So do what you want, if you don't mind every single armed person out there planning ways to kill you. And don't let that barrel accidentally sweep anybody. They might freak out and shoot you.

 

[IndyMonkey]

The problem is... over the last few decades, the ONLY time people have been seen in public with a rifle, it's resulted in the shooting of innocent people. And it's happened many times.

dont be such a drama queen. I know a few of the guys here OC'd some AR's in Indy last year and no one died.

 

[ATM]

I'm going to constantly be planning ways to put a bullet in your head.

This goes for every new person I meet - rifle or not.



...and for many people that I already know.



Doesn't everyone?

 

[rlspach]

INGO shootout at the Ponderosa.

Yeah, that'll look good in the Indy Star.

 

[paddling_man]

Ponderosa has tasty garlic mashed potatoes.

Sometimes outrageous behaviors - to make a social statement - are necessary. Rosa Parks, anyone?

At the same time, just because a man can do a thing, doesn't mean he should do a thing. Common sense should prevail.

The rub is finding the distinction between the two.

Seeing the AR-toter walking in with many other folks OC'ing AND myself being familiar with the concept of an "oc event," I might have been able to grasp what was happening.

If I only saw the AR-toter, say between myself and my 9-year old daughter in the Ponderosa, unslinging the AR (as he was innocently sitting down)... Adrenaline dump with HIGH readiness at a minimum.

This one could have been done better; it could have been worse.