1.) Deerminator - 05/20/2014

....

2.) Swamp Fox - 05/20/2014

A lot less sweaty...:wink

3.) Deerminator - 05/20/2014

American Motors

4.) DParker - 05/20/2014

5.) Swamp Fox - 05/20/2014

That's disturbing, DP, and I don't even really know why...

6.) Swamp Fox - 05/20/2014

....

7.) DParker - 05/20/2014

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20006]That's disturbing, DP, and I don't even really know why...[/QUOTE]

Not a fan of [I]The Tick[/I]?

[video=youtube;kdeci6W3HyU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdeci6W3HyU&feature=share&list=PLC709C6AA54CC01B7[/video]

8.) DParker - 05/20/2014

The still image is "American Maid", wielding her size 5 pumps [B][I]of justice[/I][/B]!!!

9.) Swamp Fox - 05/20/2014

Must have missed that, LOL...


Wasn't Puddy in The Tick? Or play The Tick?

10.) Deerminator - 05/20/2014

....

11.) Deerminator - 05/20/2014

.....

12.) Swamp Fox - 05/20/2014

Some day someone will combine the best elements of maps....


[ATTACH=CONFIG]423[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]424[/ATTACH]

13.) Swamp Fox - 05/20/2014

I like maps...Some day someone will combine the best elements of the better ones...

14.) DParker - 05/20/2014

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20011]Must have missed that, LOL...[/QUOTE]

It was actually a very entertaining cartoon. Advanced enough for grownups to enjoy, but safe to watch with your kids. Mine loved it. We still watch the occasional rerun.

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20011]Wasn't Puddy in The Tick? Or play The Tick?[/QUOTE]

He played The Tick in a (very short lived) live action series that was produced after the cartoon version ended. As good as Patrick Warburton is in pretty much everything he does, it paled in comparison with original the animated version.

15.) DParker - 05/20/2014

It looks like you and I are closing the bar again tonight.

16.) Swamp Fox - 05/20/2014

Hey! I just went to the john for a minute and...Ditched me again!


Speaking of maps, I didn't know there was such a place as North Virginia yet, but maybe someday. :pray: :nk: It's going in that direction at least. Northern Virginia IS a special place, though, and I do mean special. Toby Keith, one of Crookedeye's favorites and the Shania Twain of ostensibly male "singers" accidentally grouped into the country genre, has a restaurant there. And they don't allow firearms. Don't know if it's a franchise. Don't care. Just thought it was interesting and notable that a business with Toby Keith's name on it doesn't allow firearms. :poke:

[I]In mid-December, the 15th in country superstar Toby Keith’s growing restaurant chain opened its doors in the North Virginia town of Woodbridge, around 20 miles south of Washington, D.C.

It didn’t take long for diners to notice a sign some saw as incongruous on the door of the self-proclaimed cowboy’s I Love This Bar & Grill: “No Guns Permitted.” [/I]...

[url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2013/12/29/gun-ban-at-country-star-toby-keiths-newest-restaurant-causes-outcry/[/url]


More currently:


Jack in the Box

[url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/05/06/will-jack-in-the-box-ban-guns-after-open-carry-demo-sees-workers-hide-in-freezer/ox[/url]


Chipotle

[url]http://www.nationalreview.com/article/378411/chipotle-was-right-ban-firearms-j-delgado/page/0/1[/url]

Starbucks

[url]http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2013/09/18/starbucks-ceo-howard-schultz-tells-customers-to-leave-guns-at-home/[/url]


And a bonus for your consideration: Sally Kohn isn't as sharp as she thinks she is. In response to her feelings (as opposed to thoughts) regarding the Chipotle news going around right now, Charles C. W. Cooke takes her to school:

[I]As for the thrust of Kohn’s piece: Why are some people on the Right outraged at Chipotle? Well, the answer to this really matters. Are they outraged because they think that restaurant chains should be forced to allow guns into their stores or are they outraged because they dislike Chipotle’s decision? Kohn’s very next line gives us our answer:


"Here’s National Review contributor Greg Pollowitz endorsing a boycott."

Yes, a “boycott.” In other words, a voluntary withdrawal of his business. Not a law. As Kohn notes, Pollowitz tweeted: ”If I lived in Dallas I’d boycott Chipotle and Taco Bell.” He did not tweet: “If I lived in Dallas I’d lobby the government to force Chipotle and Taco Bell to comply with my wishes.”

Kohn finishes with some welcome truth. “I’m so confused I’m feeling dizzy. I need a burrito,” she explains. A quick lesson in civics, too, perhaps. [/I]


The rest of Cooke's piece is here: [I]Sally Kohn Doesn't Understand Civil Society[/I] ---http://www.nationalreview.com/corner

17.) DParker - 05/20/2014

There was much ado made on various websites about Toby Keith's place forbidding guns. Personally, I wouldn't be inclined to eat at any place whose claim to fame is being owned by a music industry performer anyway...so no harm, no foul for me. As for the rest, they do offer some we-are-often-our-own-worst-enemy lessons:

[B][U]The Jack-In-The-Box kerfuffle[/U][/B] is a textbook case of "When Our Morons Meet Their Liars and Pants-Wetters". First, we had a group of our own window-licking open carry advocates (now don't get me wrong...I favor legalized open carry...but these idiots' tactics are guaranteed to have the opposite effect) who decided it was a good idea to parade around a fast food joint with rifles, because they continue to believe that this will "educate" and "desensitize" the public about/to legal open carry of firearms. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth, as multiple such incidents have demonstrated. On the other hand, the claim that the JiB employees barricaded themselves in the store's freezer was a load of hooey claimed by an equally clueless Fort Worth cop, and regurgitated unquestioningly by the NYT, Forbes, Bloomberg's "Mothers Demand Action", et al. The NYT corrected their piece after JiB management told them that no such thing happened...though of course MDA refused to correct their repetition of the debunked claim, thus rendering them liars (once again). I don't know what Forbes' excuse is.

[B][U]Chipotle:[/U][/B] While their general sentiment is on the mark, [I]The National Review[/I] got one significant fact wrong:

[quote]Laws permitting the carrying of firearms are largely designed to enable the responsible gun owner to carry a handgun on his person wherever he goes. Terrific. But rather than using this right as intended, and employing common sense in what is and isn’t appropriate, some instead feel it is fine to walk around a shopping mall or a restaurant with an AR-15.[/quote]

But open carry of handguns is currently NOT permitted in TX, except for on one's own private property, business or other private property where the carrier has the owner's permission to so carry. That is Open Carry Texas' point, albeit a poorly made one. That said, I can't hold this one against Chipotle. Their previous position was essentially identical to the one staked out by Starbucks after gun-control groups launched an offensive to try to pressure them and several other major food/beverage chains to ban the carry of firearms in their stores. While most of the others caved Starbuck's responded in a way that was the absolute best that the pro-gun world could have realistically hoped for. They basically said, "We just want to sell coffee and danishes. Leave us out of your controversy, as we're happy to abide by whatever the local community has established via their elected representatives, including legal carry...even open carry. All we ask is that you don't be a jackass about it." But, being too smart to accept a clear moral victory, the poorly-dressed, basement-dwelling fringe attention-whore contingent of the open carry movement just HAD to do exactly what Starbuck's politely asked them not to do: They backed the company into a corner and forced the issue by dragging their long guns (from pump-action shotguns to Tapco-ed AK-47 variants) into their corner Starbucks and snapping photos of each other with their boom sticks in low-ready position...or worse.

Morons.

So Starbucks did what these knuckle-dragging dipsticks forced them to do. Namely, issue a public statement to the effect of, "Hey, we tried. But you couldn't leave well enough alone, so now we have to say that firearms are no longer welcome in our stores." Even then they were careful not to alienate those who were paying attention, because they explicitly stated even if someone does enter a store visibly carrying a firearm they will not be asked to leave nor will they even be refused service. But the sentiment was enough to rob us of the symbolically important non-opposition of a major international business.

Idiots.

So now you have Chipotle, who also had no problem with openly-packing grown ups as customers, provided they behaved like...you know...grown ups. But nope, some just couldn't do it. And now the same clowns who were incensed by Starbuck's doing what it was given no other alternative but to do are demonstrating just as much clueless indignation about Chipotle's reaction and calling for a boycott. Well, it's certainly their right to do so, but the rationale for the action is so clueless that it ought to embarrass the average 3rd grader. I don't go to Chipotle anyway. Not because I have anything against the company, but I just like Freebird's better. But if I was a customer of theirs I would continue being one, as the fault here is certainly not theirs.

I think this pretty much sums the problem up:



I carry concealed every day, and if these two 'tards (pardon my non-PCness) came walking in holding their rifles in that manner I might draw, duck for cover and prepare to return fire.

18.) Swamp Fox - 05/20/2014

LOL...

I find it interesting that some folks are okay with handguns, but put a shotgun or a rifle on your shoulder and it's a whole different thing. The NR writer fell into this trap, which is the thing I think he got wrong, not his generality about carrying handguns being the focus of open carry laws.

Not that I am disagreeing with your large point or putting you in that category.

And it's unfortunate that you can't go out in public in your X-box marathon clothes without people dismissing your political viewpoint, but it's true. :wink

19.) DParker - 05/21/2014

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20023]LOL...

I find it interesting that some folks are okay with handguns, but put a shotgun or a rifle on your shoulder and it's a whole different thing.[/quote]

But that's part of the problem. They didn't sling shotguns or rifles over their shoulders. That was my point about them holding their long guns "at low ready...or worse". Although some people will overreact no matter what, there's ahuge difference between a slung/holstered firearm and one being held at the ready, as well as the general appearance of the carrier. Imagine you're at a local business with friends/family in an open carry jurisdiction. A well-groomed adult male walks in wearing neat clothes and a holstered 1911 on his hip. OK, no big deal. You might keep an eye on him just as a matter of situational awareness, but you're not unduly alarmed. Now contrast that with some disheveled slob walking in carrying the same 1911 in a 2-handed grip at low ready position. Do you imagine that you're going to have a different reaction? I sure as hell would.

Now a rifle/shotgun raises the stakes even further. Not only are long guns NOT normally carried on one's person in public as a self-defense arm, carrying them in a ready position is just begging for negative attention.

In an ideal world you could toss a full-auto M16 over your shoulder and walk down the aisle at the Piggly Wiggly without anyone batting an eye. But here in the real world long guns carried into/around businesses is not the norm, and causes a lot of apprehension...even in people who have no problem at all with defensive handgun carry. And not unreasonably. It's not as if there haven't been a few "incidents" that might have contributed to that wariness.

[Quote]The NR writer fell into this trap, which is the thing I think he got wrong, not his generality about carrying handguns being the focus of open carry laws.[/QUOTE]

But he most definitely got that wrong, as he implied that openly carrying a "reasonably sized firearm" was an option, and it isn't...which is the whole point of the group (misguided though their tactics are).

The pro-2A movement has enjoyed great success over the past couple of decades, with steady expansion of ability to legally exercise the RKBA even in the bluest of states. But these clowns are managing to do more damage to the movement, and are a greater threat to the aforementioned gains than Bloomberg and his $50 million astroturf organization could ever dream of doing/being.

20.) Swamp Fox - 05/21/2014

Fair enough. I wasn't there. I presume the long guns were slung or otherwise not held at the ready initially, while entering the restaurant, while ordering delicious and nutritious food at value prices, while dragging out wallets to pay for it, before and after the picture-taking, etc. If someone has info to the contrary, I'd like to know. If I read it somewhere, it didn't make an impression, and I will take my beating like a man.

It is an important point to the discussion.

As far as the NR writer is concerned, I didn't take the idea that he was talking about Texas laws, specifically, that restrict open carry of handguns. I got that he was making a general point that "laws permitting the carrying of firearms" (Huh??--But that is a different discussion, LOL) are largely designed to enable the responsible gun owner to carry a handgun on his person wherever he goes. ("Laws permitting the carrying of firearms are largely designed to enable the responsible gun owner to carry a handgun on his person wherever he goes." :wink)

I don't see where he's implying that Texas allows a more liberal handgun carry policy than what you outlined. If he were, you would have him by the short hairs, but we'll have to agree to disagree on this point of implication if I'm unpersuasive. The much more important point is that laws permitting the carrying of firearms (that again!) are NOT ONLY OR EVEN LARGELY focused on handguns. At least not as far as I'm concerned. And "reasonable size"? WTH is that? LOL

This writer has a lot of 'splainin' to do!

21.) bluecat - 05/21/2014

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20015]I like maps...Some day someone will combine the best elements of the better ones...









[/QUOTE]

That is some funny chit right there.

22.) DParker - 05/21/2014

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20025]Fair enough. I wasn't there. I presume the long guns were slung or otherwise not held at the ready initially, while entering the restaurant, while ordering delicious and nutritious food at value prices, while dragging out wallets to pay for it, before and after the picture-taking, etc. If someone has info to the contrary, I'd like to know. If I read it somewhere, it didn't make an impression, and I will take my beating like a man.

It is an important point to the discussion.[/quote]

I agree. But note the single-point slings and the way they're wearing the attached rifles, slung in front in a more-or-less low ready position...which is the whole point of such a sling system. Even if you're not touching the rifle it's still ready at all times, as opposed to a more benign shoulder sling or a slung across the back position. And even if they had walked in with them in such a not-ready position they would have then had to unsling/reposition them for the photo-op, which I think you'll agree would likely be a bit unnerving even to those who might have not already been alarmed as it was.

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20025]As far as the NR writer is concerned, I didn't take the idea that he was talking about Texas laws, specifically, that restrict open carry of handguns. I got that he was making a general point that "laws permitting the carrying of firearms" (Huh??--But that is a different discussion, LOL) are largely designed to enable the responsible gun owner to carry a handgun on his person wherever he goes. ("Laws permitting the carrying of firearms are largely designed to enable the responsible gun owner to carry a handgun on his person wherever he goes." :wink)[/quote]

But the whole piece is about an incident that took place specifically in [B]Texas[/B], carried out by a [B]Texas[/B] activist group whose main purpose for existing is to see legislation enacted that would legalize the open carry of handguns in [B]Texas[/B]. So the laws of Texas are the only ones that matter. What the laws in Arizona, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, et al are designed to do are of precisely zero relevance. The group's stated claim is that their demonstrations are designed to...

A) "Educate" and "desensitize" people to seeing firearms legally carried in an open manner (though as I point out they appear to be achieving the opposite result), and...

B) Point out the absurdity of the fact that they can legally carry all manner of long guns openly, but are prohibited from legally carrying a handgun openly for self-defense purposes.

"B" is why the author's comment misses the mark. The point of pushing for open carry is, in addition to the general libertarian principal of maximum individual freedom, the fact that concealed carry of a handgun is impractical for many people in warm weather areas, like the hell that is a TX summer. The type of clothing one must wear in such weather can make effective concealed carry extremely difficult for many, which why they want the option of open carry. I probably wouldn't do it myself (for multiple reasons), but I certainly would like to have the option, both for myself and others.

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20025]I don't see where he's implying that Texas allows a more liberal handgun carry policy than what you outlined. If he were, you would have him by the short hairs, but we'll have to agree to disagree on this point of implication if I'm unpersuasive.[/quote]

I didn't mean that he was implying that TX's laws allow what they obviously do not. I meant that his point is nonsensical given the fact that TX does NOT allow the only alternative to concealed carry of a defensive handgun. In other words, the statement that, "Laws permitting the carrying of firearms are largely designed to enable the responsible gun owner to carry a handgun on his person wherever he goes" followed by his lambasting the OCT members for opting to carry long guns instead of concealed handguns completely misses the point with regard to the current legal situation in TX.

- "The much more important point is that laws permitting the carrying of firearms (that again!) are NOT ONLY OR EVEN LARGELY focused on handguns."

They are in TX....which again, was where the incident took place, and the only jurisdiction that matters in this context.

- "And "reasonable size"? WTH is that? LOL"

That's what [I]SHE[/I] said! :wink

23.) bluecat - 05/21/2014

How bout a French maid?

24.) DParker - 05/21/2014

She presents a good compromise solution: Carrying semi-concealed.

25.) Swamp Fox - 05/21/2014

What day is not made a little brighter by a French maid? :-) :grin:

[QUOTE=DParker;20038]I agree. But note the single-point slings and the way they're wearing the attached rifles, slung in front in a more-or-less low ready position...which is the whole point of such a sling system. Even if you're not touching the rifle it's still ready at all times, as opposed to a more benign shoulder sling or a slung across the back position. And even if they had walked in with them in such a not-ready position they would have then had to unsling/reposition them for the photo-op, which I think you'll agree would likely be a bit unnerving even to those who might have not already been alarmed as it was.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough again. However, their legal right to carry, especially since a long gun is the ONLY weapon they can open carry, should not depend on what type of sling system nor on what other people think of it (the right), nor on what they think of the mere sight of a firearm, carried in a normal manner (again). Yelling fire in a crowded theater already considered, thank you very much. :wink

Obviously, this is a different question from whether they should demonstrate this way. They certainly have a right to, and people can debate whether it is effective. But forget demonstrating. They have a right to carry. A right unexercised is a right lost, as they say. Sorry for the cliché, but it is true. We all know the stories, and some of us are old enough to have been in them, of how we could display firearms here, there and everywhere back in the good old days, before we were shamed into hiding them. If you work to make it easier for me to unload guns out of my truck in a parking area or for a kid who wants to take his squirrel rifle down the end of the street to hunt after school, you're on my side. People who automatically get hysterical when they see a long gun in public are not. (And note that there seems to be a distinct lack of hysteria from customers and restaurant employees in these cases. The only hysteria is coming from anti-gunners, if you leave aside the debate about pro-gun tactics, LOL.)


[QUOTE=DParker;20038]But the whole piece is about an incident that took place specifically in [B]Texas[/B], carried out by a [B]Texas[/B] activist group whose main purpose for existing is to see legislation enacted that would legalize the open carry of handguns in [B]Texas[/B]. So the laws of Texas are the only ones that matter. What the laws in Arizona, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, et al are designed to do are of precisely zero relevance....

I didn't mean that he was implying that TX's laws allow what they obviously do not. I meant that his point is nonsensical given the fact that TX does NOT allow the only alternative to concealed carry of a defensive handgun. In other words, the statement that, "Laws permitting the carrying of firearms are largely designed to enable the responsible gun owner to carry a handgun on his person wherever he goes" followed by his lambasting the OCT members for opting to carry long guns instead of concealed handguns completely misses the point with regard to the current legal situation in TX...
[/QUOTE]

I see your point. However, the author is not a Texan, [I]she[/I]--I figured this out yesterday---is not writing from Texas, she is posting in a national publication, and she is educated at Harvard Law. By all accounts she is a smart cookie, presumably more precise than the average writer, and she calls herself a conservative. I would have felt better, if she were talking specifically about Texas, if she had mentioned Texas law. She certainly didn't in the line we are discussing, nor in the lead-up to it. I took it as a general rant about open carry of long guns, and many others did, too.

So we'll move on. :tu:


Hope you kids can get OC down there, and that people demonstrating their legal rights, such as they are and as of the moment, don't get kicked around for things they shouldn't.

26.) DParker - 05/21/2014

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20043]Fair enough again. However, their legal right to carry, especially since a long gun is the ONLY weapon they can open carry, should not depend on what type of sling system nor on what other people think of it (the right), nor on what they think of the mere sight of a firearm, carried in a normal manner (again). Yelling fire in a crowded theater already considered, thank you very much. :wink

[B]Obviously, this is a different question from whether they should demonstrate this way.[/B][/QUOTE]

Yes it is. That's why I'm not saying anything about whether or not they have the right to open carry long guns, nor did the author of that piece. The question is the wisdom of HOW they're choosing to exercise that right.

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20043]They certainly have a right to, and people can debate whether it is effective. But forget demonstrating. They have a right to carry. A right unexercised is a right lost, as they say. Sorry for the cliché, but it is true.[/quote]

Yes, but that's always been a rather shallow and simplistic expression. The idea that one need must exercise a right in a stupid fashion in order to prevent it from being loss is a lot of things, but "true" isn't one of them. My 1A rights are extremely important, and I exercise them on a regular basis. But I've never been able to convince myself that I'm in danger of losing my right to free speech if I don't walk into a biker bar and yell, "Harleys suck and Harley riders are all closet homos!!!!", just because it's my legal right to do so. Maybe that's one reason that I'm still on this side of the dirt.

OTC and other similar groups - and even unaffiliated individuals - have held many open carry demonstrations or simply done so incidentally, but they've generally done them in an far more intelligent manner. ie, planned demonstrations in which local law enforcement has been informed ahead of time, casually carrying slung (not at ready) on the side of the open road, etc. Rights exercised, and not lost.

I would offer this alternative expression: "A right stupidly exercised is a right needlessly put in danger of being lost." That's reality.

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20043]"We all know the stories, and some of us are old enough to have been in them, of how we could display firearms here, there and everywhere back in the good old days, before we were shamed into hiding them. If you work to make it easier for me to unload guns out of my truck in a parking area or for a kid who wants to take his squirrel rifle down the end of the street to hunt after school, you're on my side. People who automatically get hysterical when they see a long gun in public are not. (And note that there seems to be a distinct lack of hysteria from customers and restaurant employees in these cases. The only hysteria is coming from anti-gunners, if you leave aside the debate about pro-gun tactics, LOL.)[/quote]

I agree. But again, the sorts of open carry activities you're talking about are not at all the issue here. Those things were done as a matter of course, and incidental to the pursuit of some other activity (going hunting, to the shooting range, whatever). What we're talking about here are stunts that are carried out for not reason other than to attract attention, and in a manner that is guaranteed to cause alarm and backlash from the general public. The setbacks resulting from these displays are pretty difficult to deny. We had two moral victories that were flushed down the toilet by people who just couldn't take "yes" for an answer, and with no offsetting gains. Now, you and I can sit here all day and say, "But that's the general public's problem. They should put on their big girl panties and just get over their hoplophobia and respect our rights." And I would agree with you...in theory. But then I put on my "Reality" hat and realize that in the real world that theory and $4.25 will buy you a 20 oz. mocha at Starbucks (where they now would prefer that you not bring your gun, whereas before they didn't care one way or the other). In the real world soccer moms and fence-sitters of all stripes vote and answer the polls that sway elected officials. You need to win hearts and minds, and you don't do that with obnoxious in-your-face tactics.

Contrary to what VPC, MDA, Bloomberg, et al claim, the reason the pro-2A movement has enjoyed so much success is NOT because the NRA has some strangle hold on legislatures. It's because there is no majority of public support for stricter gun laws. The polls matter.

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20043]I see your point. However, the author is not a Texan, [I]she[/I]--I figured this out yesterday---is not writing from Texas, she is posting in a national publication, and she is educated at Harvard Law. By all accounts she is a smart cookie, presumably more precise than the average writer, and she calls herself a conservative. I would have felt better, if she were talking specifically about Texas, if she had mentioned Texas law. She certainly didn't in the line we are discussing, nor in the lead-up to it. I took it as a general rant about open carry of long guns, and many others did, too.[/quote]

Perhaps. And like I said, she might not have intended to say anything about TX law. But in human communication context is everything. It makes little sense to rant about open carry of long guns in the context of an event and a result that were both 100% about TX and TX law makes no sense, unless it is one's intention to completely ignore the whole point of the exercise.

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20043]Hope you kids can get OC down there, and that people demonstrating their legal rights, such as they are and as of the moment, don't get kicked around for things they shouldn't.[/QUOTE]

I think it will happen eventually, if we can reign in the ass-hats and avoid the negative backlash they create. Like I said, there have been many demonstrations I'd call successful...because they were carried out intelligently and did not result in generally alarming people....which is [I]supposed[/I] to be the whole point. To make people comfortable with the idea, not convince them that open carriers are irresponsible nut jobs.

27.) bluecat - 05/21/2014

:wave:

28.) Swamp Fox - 05/21/2014

[QUOTE=DParker;20045]Yes it is. That's why I'm not saying anything about whether or not they have the right to open carry long guns, nor did the author of that piece. The question is the wisdom of HOW they're choosing to exercise that right. [/QUOTE]

On that we agree, although I hope you will also agree that the author did not sound like she would support your right to exercise your right to carry a long gun openly.

[QUOTE=DParker;20045]Yes, but that's always been a rather shallow and simplistic expression. The idea that one need must exercise a right in a stupid fashion in order to prevent it from being loss is a lot of things, but "true" isn't one of them. My 1A rights are extremely important, and I exercise them on a regular basis. But I've never been able to convince myself that I'm in danger of losing my right to free speech if I don't walk into a biker bar and yell, "Harleys suck and Harley riders are all closet homos!!!!", just because it's my legal right to do so. Maybe that's one reason that I'm still on this side of the dirt.

OTC and other similar groups - and even unaffiliated individuals - have held many open carry demonstrations or simply done so incidentally, but they've generally done them in an far more intelligent manner. ie, planned demonstrations in which local law enforcement has been informed ahead of time, casually carrying slung (not at ready) on the side of the open road, etc. Rights exercised, and not lost.

I would offer this alternative expression: "A right stupidly exercised is a right needlessly put in danger of being lost." That's reality. [/QUOTE]


Stupid is a judgment call. I'm guessing somebody in Rosa Parks' circle thought it was stupid and dangerous to get on the bus that day. And she didn't even have "the legal right" to do what she did. I see no evidence that these demonstrations caused panic or even large amounts of discomfort. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would certainly consider it. Until then, I don't accept that the demonstrators acted "stupidly."

If you don't exercise a right, eventually people think it is unimportant and it will vanish. Some rights that have already faded need to be exercised with greater flair, to get people to wake up and think.


[QUOTE=DParker;20045]I agree. But again, the sorts of open carry activities you're talking about are not at all the issue here. Those things were done as a matter of course, and incidental to the pursuit of some other activity (going hunting, to the shooting range, whatever). What we're talking about here are stunts that are carried out for not reason other than to attract attention, and in a manner that is guaranteed to cause alarm and backlash from the general public. The setbacks resulting from these displays are pretty difficult to deny. We had two moral victories that were flushed down the toilet by people who just couldn't take "yes" for an answer, and with no offsetting gains. Now, you and I can sit here all day and say, "But that's the general public's problem. They should put on their big girl panties and just get over their hoplophobia and respect our rights." And I would agree with you...in theory. But then I put on my "Reality" hat and realize that in the real world that theory and $4.25 will buy you a 20 oz. mocha at Starbucks (where they now would prefer that you not bring your gun, whereas before they didn't care one way or the other). In the real world soccer moms and fence-sitters of all stripes vote and answer the polls that sway elected officials. You need to win hearts and minds, and you don't do that with obnoxious in-your-face tactics. [/QUOTE]

What you deride as a stunt, I say is a wake-up call.

Again, I see no evidence that these demonstrations caused panic or even large amounts of discomfort. What I do see is anti-gunners taking advantage of the situation, doing their usual cha-cha of hype, lies and distortion, and I see much of the pro-gun crowd in tears. As far as I know, none of these restaurants have said what they will do if customers do not abide by their [B]requests[/B] not to bring long guns inside. Perhaps we should avoid moving to DEFCON 3 until that situation becomes clearer.


[QUOTE=DParker;20045]I think it will happen eventually, if we can reign in the ass-hats and avoid the negative backlash they create. Like I said, there have been many demonstrations I'd call successful...because they were carried out intelligently and did not result in generally alarming people....which is [I]supposed[/I] to be the whole point. To make people comfortable with the idea, not convince them that open carriers are irresponsible nut jobs. [/QUOTE]

I certainly agree that tactics and reality matter. Perceptions matter. But so do facts. If anyone who was there at one of these demonstrations can point out ANY evidence of behavior that justifies labeling demonstrators "irresponsible nut jobs" that's one thing. But so far, all I see is evidence that people are just going to think what they want.

Now there's some reality for you.

29.) DParker - 05/21/2014

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20047]On that we agree, although I hope you will also agree that the author did not sound like she would support your right to exercise your right to carry a long gun openly.[/quote]

Oh, I'm fairly certain that she wouldn't.

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20047]Stupid is a judgment call. I'm guessing somebody in Rosa Parks' circle thought it was stupid and dangerous to get on the bus that day. And she didn't even have "the legal right" to do what she did.[/quote]

But her actions did not make her look like an idiot (or even a dangerous one) to the general public, and in fact she tapped into something that had huge amounts of public support nationally, if not among the white folk in her immediate vicinity. The fact that so many rallied to her cause, which was ultimately successful was evidence of that.

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20047]I see no evidence that these demonstrations caused panic[/quote]

Neither do I, which is why I didn't claim anything that hyperbolic. Though in the case of the Jack-In-The-Box incident there was enough fear instilled to cause the po-po to be called out.

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20047]or even large amounts of discomfort. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would certainly consider it. Until then, I don't accept that the demonstrators acted "stupidly."[/quote]

Honestly, I thought evidence for that was already pretty clearly presented a couple of times now. In addition to all of the negative media press it has generated (yes, I know...the left-leaning press lives to cover this stuff negatively...but this just gives them an extra excuse) they've managed get two very large, popular businesses that were at least passively amenable to the idea of folks legally carrying in their stores, and who had resisted pressure from gun-control groups to "just say no" to legal carry to change their positions and publicly side, at least to a degree, with the antis. As I said, they took political/moral victories and tossed them out the window. And all for what? I'm curious to hear what positive things you think they've accomplished with these stunts. Needlessly throwing away advantages for no gain might not be the very definition of "stupid", but it's close enough for government work.

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20047]If you don't exercise a right, eventually people think it is unimportant and it will vanish. Some rights that have already faded need to be exercised with greater flair, to get people to wake up and think.[/quote]

That makes for a nice saying, but I don't see any truth in it. For decades TX has been in NO danger at all of having open carry of long guns restricted, as it wasn't on anyone's radar and there would have simply been no public support for it. But enough of these sorts of incidents and the accompanying publicity and you WILL give ammunition (pardon the pun) to those who very much would like to restrict those rights. So what is it that this dramatic attention-seeking is allegedly preventing? I fail to see how it serves to further cement any of my rights.

"Hey, Joe Bob...we have this right that we've had forever, and no one is threatening to take it away. Quick! Do something dramatic!!!"

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20047]What you deride as a stunt, I say is a wake-up call.[/quote]

A wake-up call to what? To a non-existent threat to the right to open carry of long guns?

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20047]Again, I see no evidence that these demonstrations caused panic or even large amounts of discomfort. What I do see is anti-gunners taking advantage of the situation, doing their usual cha-cha of hype, lies and distortion[/quote]

Yes, because someone insists on giving them material to work with. Remember that the battle here is not for pro-2A or anti-2A hearts and minds, but for the fence-sitters that either aren't decided on the issue, or simply not paying any real attention to it. This sort of thing puts arrows in the anti-2A quiver that they can use to sway those fence-sitters to their way of thinking. That's why it's important. In politics (and that's what this is about), perception is everything.

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20047]and I see much of the pro-gun crowd in tears.[/quote]

In tears? No. Pissed off at alleged members of its own family who insist on doing PR damage for no good reason? Yes.

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20047]As far as I know, none of these restaurants have said what they will do if customers do not abide by their [B]requests[/B] not to bring long guns inside. Perhaps we should avoid moving to DEFCON 3 until that situation becomes clearer.[/quote]

I already covered that too, at least in the case of Starbucks. And what they will/might do in such a situation is utterly beside the point (that is, unless something dramatic happens), which I've already explained multiple times now.

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20047]I certainly agree that tactics and reality matter. Perceptions matter. But so do facts. If anyone who was there at one of these demonstrations can point out ANY evidence of behavior that justifies labeling demonstrators "irresponsible nut jobs" that's one thing. But so far, all I see is evidence that people are just going to think what they want.[/quote]

If you honestly believe that "facts" matter to any significant degree vs skillfully spun propaganda you haven't been paying attention to American politics. Evidence matters in a court of law. But in the court of public perception it's all but irrelevant. The average voter is a low-information creature that bases his/her decisions not so much on facts and rational analysis thereof, but on emotion and perceptions that have been manipulated by whatever talking heads he/she listens to most often. Listen to public policy debates between average Joes regarding any issue of any real significance and you'll find that for the most part neither side has any idea what the "facts" really are.

30.) DParker - 05/21/2014

By the way...for something a little closer to home. Here's another reason that we need to keep our less-than-helpful dramatic displays out of the news, so that this sort of thing can be covered instead...

[URL="http://www.ncgunblog.com/2014/05/19/guns-allowed-means-easy-targets/"]Restaurant posts ‘No Guns Allowed’ sign, gets robbed at gunpoint[/URL]

You want to make a point about the exercise of rights? Boycott places like this that make it clear that you're not welcome, and let them know why you choose to not spend your money with them.

31.) Swamp Fox - 05/22/2014

[QUOTE=DParker;20057]But her actions did not make her look like an idiot (or even a dangerous one) to the general public, and in fact she tapped into something that had huge amounts of public support nationally, if not among the white folk in her immediate vicinity. The fact that so many rallied to her cause, which was ultimately successful was evidence of that. [/QUOTE]


We're just gonna have to agree to disagree on what things "look(ed) like" in this case, I think. Parks had plenty of opposition. Uppity folks were dangerous and the country was going to collapse if they had their way, said many, who thought they had the numbers and the power on their side, and I can show you where some of them live(d).

So you have to start somewhere.

There are several pictures floating around of the open carry demonstrators about town, other than the ones that have been posted here. As long as one isn't an anti-gun Mom, one wouldn't call the images intimidating, and most people wouldn't call the people in them every nasty name from A-Z just from looking at them. I'm blanking on what nasty name starts with "Z", but I'm sure someone has used it in this case.

Besides, President Obama looks like a pretty cool, efficient leader in most of his photos-- right?-- and we all know he's a boob. Increasingly, so do ordinary Americans and others around the world. Over sixty percent of Americans think he lies to them on a regular basis, and I believe the number who think he mismanages important issues is in that neighborhood as well. The administration has expended huge and unprecedented amounts of effort to craft the President's image in its favor. I'd say epic fail...

So much for judging a book by its cover.


[QUOTE=DParker;20057]Honestly, I thought evidence was already pretty clearly presented. In addition to all of the negative media press it has generated (yes, I know...the left-leaning press lives to cover this stuff negatively...but this just gives them an extra excuse) they've managed get two very large, popular businesses that were at least passively amenable to the idea of folks legally carrying in their stores, and who had resisted pressure from gun-control groups to "just say no" to legal carry to change their positions and publicly side, at least to a degree, with the antis. As I said, they took political/moral victories and tossed them out the window. And all for what? I'm curious to hear what positive things you think they've accomplished with these stunts. Needlessly throwing away advantages for no gain might not be the very definition of "stupid", but it's close enough for government work. [/QUOTE]


I was asking for evidence of panic or discomfort from people on the scene, rather than political discomfort by the easily offended and the other usual suspects, but okay.

I mentioned considering a delay in the move to DEFCON 3 until some things were more clear. Here's at least a little bit of clarity: Arlington's Jack in the Box and Arlington's Chipotle are apparently not freaked out by people carrying legally (scroll to the middle of the story):

[url]http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/21/texas-gun-groups-circular-firing-squad.html[/url]

So, just like a lot of Second Amendment issues, it comes down to location, location, location. Arlington sounds like a happy place. :wink

You point out that it would be rare to carry a long gun into a restaurant in the normal course of things. So these guys (and many others) are trying to get to a point where it is even more rare and even possibly completely unnecessary (with a few exceptions of convenience or disaster that I can imagine). You have to wake people up for this. OCT has stated the goals of awareness, normalization and desensitization or whatever people want to call it. I see no reason why a healthy discussion of long guns vs. handguns in public is something people shouldn't be pushed toward getting out in the open, so to speak.

And throwing away advantages? If this (gun bans or requests to disarm) is the way restaurants react to a citizen exercising his only legal open carry option, then you didn't really have an OC option in restaurants to begin with. If I walk into Bojangles with a rifle on my shoulder and the manager says I have to leave, fine. Maybe he would do that if I CC'd or OC'd a handgun, too. Any way you slice it, I didn't need to put on a demonstration or appear to be a "nut job" to find out that I don't have a carry right to lose there in the first place. .

Would it be better if these guys came in with blackpowder/muzzleloading pistols instead of ARs? (That is an option for handgun open carry in some places that would not allow any other type of pistol.) I'm gonna say the antis would say No. They're gonna say HELL NO regardless what we do.

This whole thing reminds me a little of the idea that if we would just be nice to Islamists, we wouldn't provoke terrorists. If we're talking about fence-sitters and not confirmed antis, it's like saying if we just don't act like gun owners, they'll deign to tolerate us. That's a hell of a way to live.

The advantages gained by these demonstrations include increased public debate, which is always a good thing when you have right on your side. Also, increased "I saw a guy with an AR today and he seemed quite normal"-awareness. Those are the easy ones. I could probably think of some others, but let's leave it there for now. For what I'm getting paid to write for HuntingCountry, I'm already well past the point of diminishing returns, LOL.



[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20047]
If you don't exercise a right, eventually people think it is unimportant and it will vanish. Some rights that have already faded need to be exercised with greater flair, to get people to wake up and think. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=DParker;20057]That makes for a nice saying, but I don't see any truth in it. For decades TX has been in NO danger at all of having open carry of long guns restricted, as it wasn't on anyone's radar and there would have simply been no public support for it. But enough of these sorts of incidents and the accompanying publicity and you WILL give ammunition (pardon the pun) to those who very much would like to restrict those rights. So what is it that this dramatic attention-seeking is allegedly preventing? I fail to see how it serves to further cement any of my rights.

"Hey, Joe Bob...we have this right that we've had forever, and no one is threatening to take it away. Quick! Do something dramatic!!!" [/QUOTE]


Again, I object to the idea that the way to support open carry is to not open carry. You don't promote the Second Amendment by tucking it in your jacket and shutting up about it so no one has to think about what it means.

Another thing this reminds me of: deer doggers who oppose expanding Sunday hunting because--they say---if people see more hunting going on, they will want to suppress it. It's a completely insane argument, but made all the time up here. If you have nothing to apologize for as a dog driver, as a hunter, as a gun owner...don't apologize!

Let's say the issue of open carry never came up in public conversation . In Texas with long guns, say, or in NC with handguns. No one ever saw anyone open carry, because gun owners didn't do it or even shied away from it.. The average guy on the street didn't even know there was such a thing. Would it be easier-- or harder-- to get rid of open carry if no one knew about it, had ever seen it exercised, or thought about whether it was important? I contend it also would be harder to expand open carry if people don't know anything about it at Square One.

These demonstrations get people off Square One, and I just don't see the public uproar being any more loud or threatening to us than any other public uproar gun control activists generate with any other of their lobbying and campaigning efforts. We just have to deal with it.


[QUOTE=DParker;20057]Yes, because someone insists on giving them material to work with. Remember that the battle here is not for pro-2A or anti-2A hearts and minds, but for the fence-sitters that either aren't decided on the issue, or simply not paying any real attention to it. This sort of thing puts arrows in the anti-2A quiver that they can use to sway those fence-sitters to their way of thinking. That's why it's important. In politics (and that's what this is about), perception is everything. [/QUOTE]


As I said above, I think it is a mistake and illogical to try to promote the Second Amendment without being up-front about what it is. Sure, the traditional media are against us and we have to roll the stone uphill. That is always going to be the case for the foreseeable future. It doesn't matter if we bide our time on this and promote that, or bide our time on that and promote this. The opposition to nearly everything we do will always be there. Right now the issue in Texas is handgun OC. If not now, when?

Maybe you think Texas is close to the goal and you don't need the extra publicity, good or bad. If so, we could have saved ourselves a lot of back and forth, LOL. I could accept that. But I would still object to the vilification of people who are demonstrating a legal right to open carry, and who are posing no threat to anyone.

Their way of demonstrating might not be everyone's cup of tea. One can promote Open Carry in other ways. But the history book has not been written yet which says whether theirs was The Worst Way Ever.


[QUOTE=DParker;20057]If you honestly believe that "facts" matter to any significant degree vs skillfully spun propaganda you haven't been paying attention to American politics. Evidence matters in a court of law. But in the court of public perception it's all but irrelevant. The average voter is a low-information creature that bases his/her decisions not so much on facts and rational analysis thereof, but on emotion and perceptions that have been manipulated by whatever talking heads he/she listens to most often. Listen to public policy debates between average Joes regarding any issue of any real significance and you'll find that for the most part neither side has any idea what the "facts" really are. [/QUOTE]


I take your point and wholeheartedly agree with the premise, but not the conclusion. At least not if the conclusion is that it is best to discourage a lawful demonstration in support of what's right just because the public is too dumb or unsophisticated or distracted to handle the truth in the face of anti-gun propagandists. And certainly not if the conclusion is that it's best to discourage these demonstrations because a weakness of the public is partially due to the media's laziness, incompetence, incuriousness or hidden agenda. IT IS THE CHALLENGE BEFORE US TO OVERCOME THOSE OBSTACLES.

Yes, maybe I'm twisted. I would rather challenge the public's shortcomings and the media's flaws than accept them, because I view neither as uncorrectable. And I am not fatally pessimistic about the public's ability to evolve in our favor on this issue.

Will something like this go to court? Yeah, likely, somewhere. Escalated by whom? Who knows.

What troubles me is that, on the part of people who want to deride the demonstrators, I see no curiosity to find out whether there was, in fact, any irresponsible behavior at the events getting most of the attention. If it turns out there was none, my money is on radio silence from that group to supplement their narrative to date, correct the record, or retract the epithets.

Maybe that's the nature of the beast. Okay.

But it's facts such as whether there was bad behavior and real harm which will matter when and if this comes down to judges, not speculation about fear and discomfort and obnoxiousness that may or may not have been part of the mix.

That's how it's supposed to work, anyway.

32.) Deerminator - 05/22/2014

[QUOTE=bluecat;20041]

How bout a French maid?[/QUOTE]

Wii, Wii

33.) Swamp Fox - 05/22/2014

If you're American in the living room, what are you in the bathroom? :wink

34.) Deerminator - 05/22/2014

euro-pee'n

35.) Swamp Fox - 05/22/2014

:shh:


LOL

36.) DParker - 05/22/2014

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20067]We're just gonna have to agree to disagree on what things "look(ed) like" in this case, I think. Parks had plenty of opposition. Uppity folks were dangerous and the country was going to collapse if they had their way, said many, who thought they had the numbers and the power on their side, and I can show you where some of them live(d).[/quote]

Yes, but she had the majority on her side...which is what ultimately counted.

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20067]There are several pictures floating around of the open carry demonstrators about town, other than the ones that have been posted here. As long as one isn't an anti-gun Mom, one wouldn't call the images intimidating, and most people wouldn't call the people in them every nasty name from A-Z just from looking at them. I'm blanking on what nasty name starts with "Z", but I'm sure someone has used it in this case.[/quote]

You're moving the goalposts here. The issue under discussion is specifically the tactic of carrying rifles/shotguns (often in a ready position) into private businesses, striking silly poses for the camera, etc...not "demonstrators about town" carrying on public property, with the result that those businesses are issuing public statements that even the more benign forms of carry that were once welcomed (a good thing) no longer are (not a good thing). Remember that I already differentiated that from what I called the more intelligent forms of open carry demonstration, which are what you're referring to here. But you're conflating them now.

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20067]Besides, President Obama looks like a pretty cool, efficient leader in most of his photos-- right?-- and we all know he's a boob. Increasingly, so do ordinary Americans and others around the world. Over sixty percent of Americans think he lies to them on a regular basis, and I believe the number who think he mismanages important issues is in that neighborhood as well. The administration has expended huge and unprecedented amounts of effort to craft the President's image in its favor. I'd say epic fail...[/quote]

And yet he still won two consecutive elections, with results that will continue to impact our country for the foreseeable future. Since he's on his last allowable term, some of the country now having buyers remorse is effectively meaningless. He'll be out of office after 2016 either way.

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20067]So much for judging a book by its cover.[/quote]

You say that like I was advocating it as a good idea. I was simply recognizing the reality that it's human nature to do so. Is that in dispute?

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20067]I was asking for evidence of panic[/quote]

But why? I never claimed that any "panic" occurred, nor that "panic" is necessary for the actions in question to yield a net negative PR value.

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20067]or discomfort from people on the scene, rather than political discomfort by the easily offended and the other usual suspects, but okay.[/quote]

It's a political issue, so political discomfort matters.

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20067]I mentioned considering a delay in the move to DEFCON 3 until some things were more clear.[/quote]

Why so much reliance on hyperbole?

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20067]Here's at least a little bit of clarity: Arlington's Jack in the Box and Arlington's Chipotle are apparently not freaked out by people carrying legally (scroll to the middle of the story):

[url]http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/05/21/texas-gun-groups-circular-firing-squad.html[/url][/quote]

What in there contradicts anything I've said? In my very first post I pointed out that...

[I][INDENT]"On the other hand, the claim that the JiB employees barricaded themselves in the store's freezer was a load of hooey claimed by an equally clueless Fort Worth cop"[/INDENT][/I]

...and later said even though that's true, the police were still called out. The remainder of that Daily Beast piece says nothing at all about how customers reacted. And as for management, all that's cited is the claim by the head of the Tarrant County chapter of OCT that...

[I][INDENT]"The manager at the Chipotle in Arlington, she told us last night, ‘Come back any time,’ so it’s no problem,” he added. “We have a Jack in the Box in Arlington. The managers there love us, and after the whole Jack in the Box thing, they’ve let us back in a couple of times. So it’s not a ban. It’s just a way to shut up the people who were bullying them into submission."[/INDENT][/I]

Note that he doesn't claim that he was told to, "Come back any time WITH YOUR RIFLES", nor would I believe it if he did claim that (I'd bet that restaurant managers aren't that eager to lose their jobs by contravening publicly-announced corporate policy). Also note that Jack-In-The-Box has also issued a similar "don't bring your guns" public statement. Whether or not they opt to enforce it in anyway (and they easily can by simply posting a 30.06 sign) is another matter. The point is that they've publicly come out against carry in their stores, which is bad PR for our side no matter how you look at it. So...where's the up-side to that?

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20067]So, just like a lot of Second Amendment issues, it comes down to location, location, location. Arlington sounds like a happy place. :wink[/quote]

Sure, if you confine your knowledge to a single claim made by a single member of the group that caused the whole thing. But...not really. [URL="http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/tarrant/Open-Carry-supporters-again-259141581.html"]http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/tarrant/Open-Carry-supporters-again-259141581.html[/URL]

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20067]You point out that it would be rare to carry a long gun into a restaurant in the normal course of things. So these guys (and many others) are trying to get to a point where it is even more rare and even possibly completely unnecessary (with a few exceptions of convenience or disaster that I can imagine). You have to wake people up for this. OCT has stated the goals of awareness, normalization and desensitization or whatever people want to call it. I see no reason why a healthy discussion of long guns vs. handguns in public is something people shouldn't be pushed toward getting out in the open, so to speak.[/quote]

Well, since I already pointed out that as their goal I'm not sure why you're repeating it here. But I also pointed out that incidents like the one under discussion (as opposed to what I also already cited as the smarter demonstrations) are having the opposite effect.

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20067]And throwing away advantages? If this (gun bans or requests to disarm) is the way restaurants react to a citizen exercising his only legal open carry option, then you didn't really have an OC option in restaurants to begin with.[/quote]

You're confusing "advantages" with "options" here. The "advantage" I cited was that, nationwide, these companies had no problem at all with people legally carrying...either concealed or openly...self-defense handguns in their stores. That was a good thing in terms of public perception. And now those businesses have publicly stated that they are no longer OK with the practice. Is that an improvement in the situation, or the opposite of an improvement? How exactly is it that you think this is helping the cause of OC? Which was of more value: The happy acceptance of legal handgun carry by these businesses, or the public reversal of that position with absolutely no gains for OC in return? What is the value of throwing that away just for the sake of achieving what should have been that blindingly obvious and quite predictable result?

You're also confusing what you have a legal right to without government interference vs. what you have a right to do on someone else's private property. So you're correct that you never really had the "right" - in the legal sense of that term - to waltz into Chipotle with a rifle. But you also never had the right to do so with a handgun, unless the management was OK with it. You know, property rights and all that. But they [I]were[/I] OK with it. Now they're not. Even worse, they might (or they might not) avail themselves of the ability to legally restrict you from doing so as opposed to simply asking you not to. But guess what? Even if they don't use the their legal restriction option, you've been politely asked not to. And if you choose to do so anyway, guess how that plays out in terms of public perception? "Open carry advocates are rude assholes who have no respect for others' wishes." Justified or not, that will be the perception among many, and certainly how it will be played.

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20067]If I walk into Bojangles with a rifle on my shoulder and the manager says I have to leave, fine. Maybe he would do that if I CC'd or OC'd a handgun, too. Any way you slice it, I didn't need to put on a demonstration or appear to be a "nut job" to find out that I don't have a carry right to lose there in the first place.[/quote]

But why muddy the issue with pointless speculation? Here we have three cases in which we already know that they were in fact perfectly fine with legal CC/OC of handguns, and we also know exactly what happened when someone felt the need to push the issue and drag these businesses - against their publicly stated wishes - into a controversy that they didn't want to have anything to do with, and that it was not in our interests to drag them into. There are plenty of public space opportunities to exercise open carry of long guns and - possibly - desensitize the public (though I have my doubts about that happening, for multiple reasons). Why alienate those who are not currently your enemy?

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20067]Would it be better if these guys came in with blackpowder/muzzleloading pistols instead of ARs? (That is an option for handgun open carry in some places that would not allow any other type of pistol.) I'm gonna say the antis would say No. They're gonna say HELL NO regardless what we do.[/quote]

It might have been, though I don't know for sure. What I do know is that the reaction of the antis is irrelevant, as I've already stated. What matters is the reactions of those "undecideds" who are not already in their camp for whatever reason. And whether you want to acknowledge it or not, those undecideds who are prone to be swayed on the issue by shabbily-dressed tacticool wannabes toting ready-slung rifles into a restaurant are overwhelmingly going to be swayed in the direction of the anti cause, not ours.

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20067]This whole thing reminds me a little of the idea that if we would just be nice to Islamists, we wouldn't provoke terrorists.[/quote]

I don't know why it would remind you of that, since the two are nothing alike. No one is talking about appeasing anti-2A activists.

{continued in part II}

37.) DParker - 05/22/2014

{Part II}

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20067]If we're talking about fence-sitters and not confirmed antis, it's like saying if we just don't act like gun owners, they'll deign to tolerate us. That's a hell of a way to live.[/quote]

I'm a gun owner, and I act like a gun owner. I shoot on a regular basis, talk about my interest in public all the time and carry every day. Everyone I know is aware that I carry every day, including in my place of work, and they're (including my coworkers) fine with that. I also hunt and reload. What I do NOT do is carry my AR-15 to the office every day (or to Starbucks, or when I feel the need for an Ultimate Cheeseburger, et al). Does that mean that I'm not acting "like a gun owner"? In fact, not being a member of one of these groups in question, I don't know ANY gun owners who carry long guns into private businesses (save for ranges and gun shops, of course)...and I know a lot of gun owners.

Think of it this way: I have the Constitutionally protected right to engage in all manner of rude/annoying/offensive speech in public. I could walk down the street telling every stranger I encounter that they're ugly and that their mothers dress them funny...or far worse. But for some odd reason I've never felt the need to do so. I also don't do that in anyone's private business or home. Am I at risk of losing my 1A rights because I don't exercise them in that way?

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20067]The advantages gained by these demonstrations include increased public debate, which is always a good thing when you have right on your side.[/quote]

And what "right" do you think is on our side here? You don't have any legal/moral/ethical right to force private businesses to accept your behavior on their private property. And let me repeat....THAT is the issue here.

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20067]Also, increased "I saw a guy with an AR today and he seemed quite normal"-awareness. Those are the easy ones.[/quote]

But as I've already said (more times than I'm able to keep track of now) your ability to accomplish that is via the other demonstration methods that DON'T get your ass kicked out of businesses. People will readily accept all sorts of things as parts of demonstrations out in the open, public spaces that they'd be more likely to recoil from when it's shoved in their faces (figuratively speaking) in a more confined private property space. A group of OC demonstrators with signs and rifles slung over their shoulders out on the sidewalk...or even in a parking lot...is perceived far more benignly than two goofy-looking guys walking into an enclosed burrito eatery where everyone is sitting at tables trying to eat. Add in the lasting psychological impact of things like psychopaths shooting up a theaters and what-not and the ensuing uneasiness isn't really all that unreasonable/irrational.

The public space demonstrations achieve all of the goals/benefits you've cited, with none of the downside of dragging private businesses into it against their will. So why insist that the latter must be a part of the strategy as well? THAT is irrational.

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20067]Again, I object to the idea that the way to support open carry is to not open carry. You don't promote the Second Amendment by tucking it in your jacket and shutting up about it so no one has to think about what it means.[/quote]

And again, I object to that straw man argument mischaracterization of what I've been saying. I've not said a single thing about not open carrying. I'm saying that there are smart ways to open carry (with "smart" being defined as being more likely to achieve your stated goals) and not so smart ways to open carry. I'm not sure why that's unclear.

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20067]Another thing this reminds me of: deer doggers who oppose expanding Sunday hunting because--they say---if people see more hunting going on, they will want to suppress it. It's a completely insane argument, but made all the time up here. If you have nothing to apologize for as a dog driver, as a hunter, as a gun owner...don't apologize![/quote]

That's not an applicable analogy. We're not talking about objections to people seeing more open carry. We're talking about exercising good judgement with regard to time/place/manner of carrying. A better analogy would be saying, "Hey, if you're trying make people comfortable with legal hunting it's probably best to not driver around with a dead deer on your hood with blood dripping from from the tongue hanging from its mouth". Sure, you might say it's your right to do so, and that you shouldn't be ashamed of your kill. But the reality is that you're not going to be doing your cause any good.

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20067]Let's say the issue of open carry never came up in public conversation . In Texas with long guns, say, or in NC with handguns. No one ever saw anyone open carry, because gun owners didn't do it or even shied away from it.. The average guy on the street didn't even know there was such a thing. Would it be easier-- or harder-- to get rid of open carry if no one knew about it, had ever seen it exercised, or thought about whether it was important? I contend it also would be harder to expand open carry if people don't know anything about it at Square One.[/QUOTE]

But here's the thing (and I once again must play reality as a trump card over theory/hypotheticals): People Do see open carry all the time, even in jurisdictions where the average Joe is not permitted to do so. Why? Because even those places have law enforcement officers walking around with service pistols clearly visible on their hips. They see this in restaurants when the cops are on a lunch break, or on the sidewalk when one or more are walking a beat or working some event, or at a traffic stop, etc. Sure, people tend to regard law enforcement differently than you and me. But still, they see the handguns and are in relatively proximity to them. They're used to being around them. So when one of those jurisdictions enacts open carry of handguns it's not as much of a stretch from the existing situation to average private citizens having those same weapons on their hips as well. Yes, it's still different...but it's not terribly different. At least the hardware is the same, and those handguns spend almost all of their visible-to-the-public time sitting safely and relatively non-threateningly in a secure holster.

But you know what those same people DON'T encounter on a regular basis? Those same law enforcement agencies walking around with service rifles/shotguns, especially in hand. The only time they see that is when something bad is happening, and the cops (be it regular patrol units or even SWAT teams) are preparing for a possibly shootout. So desensitizing people to private citizens carrying long guns is a trickier matter. It can be done, but it has to be done a bit more gradually and with an understanding of the fact that most people are not "gun people", and do not know squat about the real similarities/differences between handguns and long guns.

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20067]These demonstrations get people off Square One, and I just don't see the public uproar being any more loud or threatening to us than any other public uproar gun control activists generate with any other of their lobbying and campaigning efforts. We just have to deal with it.[/quote]

It's most definitely different, because for all of the gun control activists' lobbying and campaigning they were unable to get companies like Starbucks, Chipotle and Jack-In-The-Box to oppose the legal open carry of self-defense firearms in their stores. That was a moral victory, and the absolute best you could have realistically hoped for from those companies. It was we (more correctly, a small subset of "we") who stepped in and did for the antis what they were unable to do themselves. Congratulations?

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20067]As I said above, I think it is a mistake and illogical to try to promote the Second Amendment without being up-front about what it is.[/quote]

I agree. Where we disagree is on the idea the Second Amendment is about getting in people's faces and trying to force private businesses to be used - again, against their wishes -as a venue for pursuit of the governmental non-infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20067]Sure, the traditional media are against us and we have to roll the stone uphill. That is always going to be the case for the foreseeable future. It doesn't matter if we bide our time on this and promote that, or bide our time on that and promote this. The opposition to nearly everything we do will always be there. Right now the issue in Texas is handgun OC. If not now, when?[/quote]

Who is saying "Not now"? Certainly not me.

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20067]Maybe you think Texas is close to the goal and you don't need the extra publicity, good or bad.[/quote]

Well, I don't know about you...but I think it's very important to differentiate between good publicity and bad publicity. That's all I'm doing.

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20067]If so, we could have saved ourselves a lot of back and forth, LOL. I could accept that. But I would still object to the vilification of people who are demonstrating a legal right to open carry, and who are posing no threat to anyone.[/quote]

At a minimum they're posing a threat to the continued goodwill of businesses who were previously at least not against us, even if not overtly for us. That much is indisputable. The results speak for themselves. As for what you probably meant by "threat", what threat they were/weren't posing in reality doesn't matter here. What matters is the public's perceptions.

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20067]Their way of demonstrating might not be everyone's cup of tea. One can promote Open Carry in other ways. But the history book has not been written yet which says whether theirs was The Worst Way Ever.[/quote]

Again, hyperbole does not a valid argument make. I'm not saying it's the "worst" method. I'm saying that, on balance, it is producing more negative effects than positive. The evidence for the negative effects is plain. I have yet to see ANY evidence of anything even remotely resembling a positive effect...at least nothing that wasn't already being achieved through the other methods (sans the negative effects).

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20067]I take your point and wholeheartedly agree with the premise, but not the conclusion. At least not if the conclusion is that it is best to discourage a lawful demonstration in support of what's right just because the public is too dumb or unsophisticated or distracted to handle the truth in the face of anti-gun propagandists. And certainly not if the conclusion is that it's best to discourage these demonstrations because a weakness of the public is partially due to the media's laziness, incompetence, incuriousness or hidden agenda. IT IS THE CHALLENGE BEFORE US TO OVERCOME THOSE OBSTACLES.[/quote]

My interest is in getting the public comfortable with the idea of open carry of legally owned/possessed firearms, not in tossing that away in favor of some abstract principle that is of no practical benefit to anyone. I also dispute the notion that the Chipotle incident is somehow a demonstration of "what's right", because a private business is under no obligation to let anyone carry on their property.

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20067]Yes, maybe I'm twisted. I would rather challenge the public's shortcomings and the media's flaws than accept them, because I view neither as uncorrectable. And I am not fatally pessimistic about the public's ability to evolve in our favor on this issue.[/quote]

Good luck changing thousands of years of human nature.

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20067]What troubles me is that, on the part of people who want to deride the demonstrators, I see no curiosity to find out whether there was, in fact, any irresponsible behavior at the events getting most of the attention. If it turns out there was none, my money is on radio silence from that group to supplement their narrative to date, correct the record, or retract the epithets.[/QUOTE]

Because again, whether or not there was any behavior that you or I would call irresponsible is utterly irrelevant. What matters is the perception of the general public. This is a political PR battle, not a court trial.

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20067]But it's facts such as whether there was bad behavior and real harm which will matter when and if this comes down to judges, not speculation about fear and discomfort and obnoxiousness that may or may not have been part of the mix.[/quote]

But that's just it. This incident (and others just like it) won't come down to judges, because there's no issue of law at question with regard to it. The demonstrators broke no law, and Chipotle's response was well within their legal rights. This is all about public perception and policy. Of course, as we've been saying all along, the ultimate goal is protection of legal rights, and that question will be coming before judges. But whether or not these guys were behaving "obnoxiously" won't have anything at all to do with the questions those judges will be wrestling with.

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20067]That's how it's supposed to work, anyway.[/QUOTE]

And then there's how things actually work. If I'm trying to accomplish something I'm going to base my strategy and tactics on that.

38.) Deerminator - 05/22/2014

wow!,
That could be the longest responce ever.

39.) DParker - 05/22/2014

[QUOTE=Deerminator;20087]wow!,
That could be the longest responce ever.[/QUOTE]

Does that mean I win the innernetz?! :-)

40.) Deerminator - 05/22/2014

that and 2 scales from a very large soon to be skewered carp

41.) Floyd - 05/22/2014

Holly Cow!! Look at all them captured quotes up there. Must be a record.

42.) crookedeye - 05/22/2014

he's got the touch..lol

43.) Swamp Fox - 05/22/2014

[QUOTE=DParker;20085]You're moving the goalposts here. The issue under discussion is specifically the tactic of carrying rifles/shotguns (often in a ready position) into private businesses, striking silly poses for the camera, etc...not "demonstrators about town" carrying on public property... . [/QUOTE]


Actually, I'm not talking about that (carrying on public property)... I'm talking about what I wrote: photos of "the demonstrators about town," as in "at other locations, demonstrating." Sorry for the confusion. I can supply the photos if you'd like, I think.


[QUOTE=DParker;20085]You're confusing "advantages" with "options" here. The "advantage" I cited was that, nationwide, these companies had no problem at all with people legally carrying...either concealed or openly...self-defense handguns in their stores. That was a good thing in terms of public perception. And now those businesses have publicly stated that they are no longer OK with the practice. [/QUOTE]


I think it was you who first used the term "advantages." I was responding to your question. I think having options is an advantage. If you didn't have an option (and you really didn't, as I pointed out, since the restaurants could have done what they did as soon as the first firearm appeared, whether there was a demonstration or not) you didn't have an advantage. So no confusion.


[QUOTE=DParker;20085]You're also confusing what you have a legal right to without government interference vs. what you have a right to do on someone else's private property. So you're correct that you never really had the "right" - in the legal sense of that term - to waltz into Chipotle with a rifle. But you also never had the right to do so with a handgun, unless the management was OK with it. You know, property rights and all that. [/QUOTE]


No confusion here, either. Exactly what I was indicating in my Bojangles example. As you point out?


[QUOTE=DParker;20086]You don't have any legal/moral/ethical right to force private businesses to accept your behavior on their private property. And let me repeat....THAT is the issue here. [/QUOTE]


I never said I had such a right.. And I thought the issue here was whether the demonstrations/demonstrators were good, bad or ugly. OC and private property or OC rights and government restriction, etc. are subtopics. Important subtopics, but subtopics.



[QUOTE=DParker;20086] Where we disagree is on the idea the Second Amendment is about getting in people's faces and trying to force private businesses to be used - again, against their wishes -as a venue for pursuit of the governmental non-infringement of the right to keep and bear arms. [/QUOTE]


I never said that was the idea, nor indicated that I thought that even the [I]demonstrations[/I] (as opposed to the Second Amendment) were trying to force private businesses to do anything. As far as I'm concerned, the Second Amendment is about how the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by law, and I'm quite clear on the difference between government and private business.




.

44.) bluecat - 05/22/2014

I think this may come down to a field goal in overtime.

45.) Swamp Fox - 05/22/2014

How about a penalty kick? LOL

46.) DParker - 05/22/2014

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20096]Actually, I'm not talking about that (carrying on public property)... I'm talking about what I wrote: photos of "the demonstrators about town," as in "at other locations, demonstrating." Sorry for the confusion. I can supply the photos if you'd like, I think.[/quote]

No problem. So far the only businesses that have been involved (as in OCers carrying rifles/shotguns inside of a store, slung in a read position) as far as I'm aware have been Starbucks and Chipotle, and outside of Jack-In-The-Box. And in all three cases we've ended up with "Please keep all of your guns out of our stores" requests from all three companies.

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20096]I think it was you who first used the term "advantages." I was responding to your question. I think having options is an advantage. If you didn't have an option (and you really didn't, as I pointed out, since the restaurants could have done what they did as soon as the first firearm appeared, whether there was a demonstration or not) you didn't have an advantage. So no confusion.[/quote]

But we most certainly did have both options AND advantages. We had the option of carrying handguns openly (depending on local law) in several nationwide businesses that welcomed us doing so. Now we no longer have that option in those businesses unless we want to appear as being rude and disrespectful of their wishes. That we had that option was an advantage in at least two ways: (1) We could do it, thus further exposing people to open carry. (2) It demonstrated to the public that these businesses had done their due diligence and decided that open carry shouldn't be a problem, which suggests that it isn't...hopefully influencing others to think that way as well. Now we've lost both of those.

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20096]I never said I had such a right.[/quote]

That's certainly implied by the repeated insistence that refraining from carrying rifles/shotguns into places like Chipotle/Starbucks is tantamount to risking loss of the right (you know, the "a right not exercised is a right lost" refrain).

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20096]And I thought the issue here was whether the demonstrations/demonstrators were good, bad or ugly. OC and private property or OC rights and government restriction, etc. are subtopics. Important subtopics, but subtopics.[/quote]

Uh, no. The issue here is, and was from the very beginning, whether or not THIS SPECIFIC METHOD OF DEMONSTRATING OPEN CARRY (carrying long guns at low ready into [i][b]a private business[/b][/i] like a restaurant) is good, bad or ugly. Hence the repeated differentiation between that and the other "smarter" forms of long gun open carry demonstration. That's not a subtopic. It's THE topic, and always was.

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20096]I never said that was the idea, nor indicated that I thought that even the [I]demonstrations[/I] (as opposed to the Second Amendment) were trying to force private businesses to do anything. As far as I'm concerned, the Second Amendment is about how the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed by law, and I'm quite clear on the difference between government and private business.[/quote]

Then none of the rationalization for these demonstrations in PRIVATE BUSINESSES (remember, that's been the subject all along) makes any sense at all. Intelligently-conducted (ie, non-threatening and conducted by people who don't look like weekend survivalists and whatnot) open carry of long guns in public spaces = A-OK. Foolishly conducted carry of long guns in private businesses that were at least amenable to open carry of handguns where legal, resulting in alienation of those businesses (and probably more than a few of their customers), not OK.

47.) Swamp Fox - 05/22/2014

Jane, you ignorant slut...


We're just gonna have to agree to disagree on some of this.

You make some good points, and I come from a long line of contrarians, subversives, rebels, insurrectionists and bomb-throwers, so I've got that going for me.



(And BTW, there are pics out there from restaurants other than Starbucks, Chipotle and Jack in the Box. A pizza place in the Dallas area, for example, springs to mind. Benign pictures.)

48.) DParker - 05/23/2014

Just for context...

[video=youtube_share;k80nW6AOhTs]http://youtu.be/k80nW6AOhTs[/video]


[I]The thing that's depressing about tennis is, no matter how good I get, I'll never be as good as a wall. I played a wall once. That thing was relentless![/i]

~ Mitch Hedberg

49.) Swamp Fox - 05/23/2014

You know there's not anything even close to a full Point/Counter-point sketch out there....Not that I could find, anyway. My evening is half-way ruined, LOL.

This is the best I could do:

50.) Swamp Fox - 05/23/2014

[QUOTE=DParker;20116][I]The thing that's depressing about tennis is, no matter how good I get, I'll never be as good as a wall. I played a wall once. That thing was relentless![/i]

~ Mitch Hedberg[/QUOTE]



:laugh:

51.) bluecat - 05/23/2014

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20118]You know there's not anything even close to a full Point/Counter-point sketch out there....Not that I could find, anyway. My evening is half-way ruined, LOL.


[/QUOTE]

A couple of episodes of Mountain Monsters and you will be right as rain.

52.) DParker - 05/23/2014

[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;20118]You know there's not anything even close to a full Point/Counter-point sketch out there....Not that I could find, anyway. My evening is half-way ruined, LOL.

This is the best I could do:

[/QUOTE]

I thought I found and posted the full version of that one once upon a time (debating the Lee Marvin/Michelle Triola palimony suit, and for my money Dan Aykroyd's best bit ever). Let me see if I can locate it again...

53.) Swamp Fox - 05/23/2014

Hey, pal... If I need a medical diagnosis I'll see a psychiatrist, thank you very much...

54.) Swamp Fox - 05/23/2014

[QUOTE=bluecat;20123]A couple of episodes of Mountain Monsters and you will be right as rain.[/QUOTE]


Hey, pal... If I need a medical diagnosis, I'll see a psychiatrist, thank you very much...

55.) DParker - 05/23/2014

OK, I can't find an embeddable version, but here's a link to the full skit....

[url]https://screen.yahoo.com/point-counterpoint-lee-marvin-michelle-000000157.html[/url]

56.) Swamp Fox - 05/23/2014

Excellent! :tu:

57.) DParker - 05/23/2014

Another poor open carry choice...although for much different reasons...

58.) Pa bowhunter - 06/02/2014

:grin::grin:[ATTACH=CONFIG]427[/ATTACH]

59.) Jag - 06/02/2014

[ATTACH=CONFIG]428[/ATTACH] Always loved this poster