Anti Open Carry Article in Michigan State University Newspaper

This is a discussion on Anti Open Carry Article in Michigan State University Newspaper within the Open Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Hotguns , well said. Originally Posted by HotGuns That guy knew what he knew and the facts didn't matter, nothing could convince him of reality, ...

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 61

Thread: Anti Open Carry Article in Michigan State University Newspaper

  1. #46
    VIP Member Array ccw9mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    24,132
    Hotguns, well said.

    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    That guy knew what he knew and the facts didn't matter, nothing could convince him of reality, nor did he care to learn. Some people really are a waste of time and effort and they wont be educated. They were born stupid and more than likely they will die stupid.
    Yup.

    Look at me. I know what I know, believe what I believe ... and I'm fairly comfortable with the fact that it works well for situations I've actually experienced. In those instances, it worked the way it worked.

    Yet, I am not stupid enough to believe I know or have seen all, nor do I believe that the way I understand it to be the best for the given situation. In many instances, too many people with far more experience have seen otherwise. I'd be a dolt-and-a-half to ignore all of that, merely to end up being right (like this range turkey you mentioned). And, frankly speaking, holding onto mistaken beliefs in the topics we consider here can get one killed. Pass.

    May I always keep an open mind ... even if it "kills" me.
    Your best weapon is your brain. Don't leave home without it.
    Thoughts: Justifiable self defense (A.O.J.).
    Explain: How does disarming victims reduce the number of victims?
    Reason over Force: The Gun is Civilization (Marko Kloos).
    NRA, GOA, OFF, ACLDN.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #47
    Ex Member Array MMABC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Houston TX
    Posts
    84
    Quote Originally Posted by tinkerinWstuff View Post
    Sorry to be on the other side of it but I tend to agree with most of the article. Unless I'm out riding my horses or ATV in the woods, concealed is the only way to go. I don't believe you further your cause by rubbing it in the face of those who are fearful of it.
    Ever hear of a woman named Rosa Parks?

    Fail!

  4. #48
    VIP Member Array Cupcake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    3,164
    Quote Originally Posted by MMABC View Post
    Ever hear of a woman named Rosa Parks?
    I had a similar answer:

    I was thinking that gays have made their strides in becoming accepted in society not by staying in the closet, but by being who they are and people seeing it, people came to accept it.
    Spend few minutes learning about my journey from Zero to Athlete in this mini documentary!
    Then check out my blog! www.BodyByMcDonalds.com

    Cupcake - 100 pound loser, adventurer, Ironman Triathlete.

  5. #49
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by MMABC View Post
    Ever hear of a woman named Rosa Parks?
    The situations are not in the least bit comparable. Rosa Parks broke the law and it was not a planned demonstration.

    These guys planned a stunt doing something already legal. It is not courageous in any sense of the word. All they accomplished was giving a black eye to responsible gun owners.

    Now if they do the same thing in Chicago then you might have a point. But we sure don't see that happening, do we?

  6. #50
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,626
    You missed the point.

    Rosa Parks had the guts to do something different and the world is a better place for it. What she did was courageous.
    The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it...- George Orwell

    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  7. #51
    Member Array TravisABQ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Moving to Texas
    Posts
    499
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    The situations are not in the least bit comparable. Rosa Parks broke the law and it was not a planned demonstration.
    You don't know what you are talking about. Not only was Rosa Parks defiance of the law planned, She was selected for the task. The subsequent bus boycott was planned as well.

    You think it was a coincidence that she worked for the NAACP?

    She was an activist, not some non-political person who backed into the civil rights movement out of the blue.

    Civil disobedience has been quite controversial, but I fail to understand the hostilitity to gunowners acting WITHIN the law.

    Am I to take your comments to suggest that you support gunowners going into Chicago and flouting Daley's laws?

    Somehow I think you'd be screaming about that, too, "giving us a black eye".

  8. #52
    kpw
    kpw is offline
    VIP Member Array kpw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,150
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    The situations are not in the least bit comparable. Rosa Parks broke the law and it was not a planned demonstration.

    These guys planned a stunt doing something already legal. It is not courageous in any sense of the word. All they accomplished was giving a black eye to responsible gun owners.

    Now if they do the same thing in Chicago then you might have a point. But we sure don't see that happening, do we?
    As you said, it was a "stunt doing something already legal". That's the sad part. It's legal and they get harrassed and ridiculed for doing it so they feel they have to take some action. Your point of view seems to be that it's legal and that's fine as long as they only OC when you deem it appropriate, or when LE deems it appropriate. Things don't work that way... atleast they shouldn't. I'm not real happy with the way some express their 1A rights but I have to concede and accept that if it's legal, they have that right. Thank God and our founders that they do...even when it PMO!

  9. #53
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    With that being said, I do believe that people can be educated and I think that it is a worthy cause, however, at some stage in the future you have to determine if it is worth the effort or a complete waste of time.
    Why do you think you have a right to force your 'education' down other people without their consent? Did you appreciate it when religious zealots approached people in airports, or even just stood there espousing their beliefs? So many thought it offensive we passed laws preventing that behavior. If that is the way you want to see gun rights go then feel free to support open carry stunts and the bad publicity it generates.

    We can even see it here in a limited manner in our occasional and often lively discussions. Sometimes you just have to reach a point where you have nothing more to say, because doing so is a waste of time and effort.
    I reached that point but decided to post again anyway.

    When it comes to open carry and seeing armed people in restaurants, movie theaters or just walking down the side walk, there are those that are seeing and thinking. Some are indifferent, some are interested, some think its a great idea, others think its terrible but continue on, and others choose to be offended.

    A small percentage of those that choose to be offended can be shown the facts and they will learn. As for the others...well, they know what they know and nothing will change that.
    What you describe is very different than a staged event designed specifically to inflame others. It is very different than an attempt to draw attention to themselves. It is very different than childishly wanting to open carry for the sole reason of defying an authority. Further, the people described in the article were unable to even articulate a valid reason for carrying at all, let alone carrying openly. I cannot image worse representatives for our cause.

    Since open carry is a legal activity, the idea of it being offensive or immature or not the right thing to do is a moot point, it simply doesn't matter.
    I think you missed my point. It is not open carry that is immature and childish. It is the way they acted that was immature and childish.

    I firmly believe in the old saying that says, "lead, follow or get the heck out of the way". If you are going to lead, do it and be a man about it and if you are going to follow,then do it and be a man about that too.

    Otherwise, get the heck out of the way because you are taking up space and making it more difficult for better men than yourself. Sure, you have your place in society...as cannon-fodder.
    Leading our cause down the road of more gun control is only leading Second Amendment rights supporters off a cliff. I'll pass.

    I prefer to support legislation concerning expanding gun rights in Arizona and let my representatives and senators know how a least one of their constituents feels about the issue. That is a positive way to effect change.

  10. #54
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by TravisABQ View Post
    Civil disobedience has been quite controversial, but I fail to understand the hostilitity to gunowners acting WITHIN the law.
    The fact is that the Rosa Parks incident was civil disobedience. This was not. That is why the situations are not comparable at all.

    [UOTE]Am I to take your comments to suggest that you support gunowners going into Chicago and flouting Daley's laws?[/QUOTE]

    No. But at least they would earn my respect for being willing to go to jail for a right in which they strongly believe. I do not support civil disobedience to effect changes in law. It can, however, highlight a law that is unjust. Flaunting open carry where it is legal for the sole reason of making a scene s detrimental to all gun owners.

    Somehow I think you'd be screaming about that, too, "giving us a black eye".
    Yes, exactly.

  11. #55
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by kpw View Post
    Your point of view seems to be that it's legal and that's fine as long as they only OC when you deem it appropriate, or when LE deems it appropriate.
    That is not my view. I support open carry whenever and wherever it is legal.

    My objections is those who carry a gun just to carry a gun. Worse, those who carry a gun to defy an authority or 'to educate' the public. I think carrying a gun is a grave responsibility and carry for my own protection and protection of loved ones. Notwithstanding sport and hunting, I cannot be convinced there is another valid reason. Certainly not for a negative publicity stunt.

  12. #56
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,626
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    Why do you think you have a right to force your 'education' down other people without their consent? Did you appreciate it when religious zealots approached people in airports, or even just stood there espousing their beliefs? So many thought it offensive we passed laws preventing that behavior. If that is the way you want to see gun rights go then feel free to support open carry stunts and the bad publicity it generates.
    Where did I say anything about forcing education on anyone? Those that can be will be. Those that cant,wont. As for bad publicity, the only "bad" article I have seen on it is the one at the beginning of this thread. Thats one article. Its not like it was reported on the 6:00news or anything.

    Actually, anytime I am approached by either religious "zealots" as you call them or extremely liberal wackos I always find myself somewhat amused.


    I reached that point but decided to post again anyway.
    Whats up with that? That last post of mine was days old. Surely you haven't thought it about that long have you?I hope you haven't lost any sleep over it.Life is too short.

    I think you missed my point. It is not open carry that is immature and childish. It is the way they acted that was immature and childish.
    What they were doing was a legal activity that is actually protected by law. There was nothing immature or childish about it...unless you happen to see it from an anti- gun point of view. That I would believe.

    Leading our cause down the road of more gun control is only leading Second Amendment rights supporters off a cliff. I'll pass.
    Pure conjecture. If anything, it strengthens it...unless of course you happen to see if from an anti point pf view. Then I could see where one might actually think that.


    I prefer to support legislation concerning expanding gun rights in Arizona and let my representatives and senators know how a least one of their constituents feels about the issue. That is a positive way to effect change.
    That is one way to do it. There are others.
    The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it...- George Orwell

    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  13. #57
    Restricted Member Array SelfDefense's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Tucson
    Posts
    2,736
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    Where did I say anything about forcing education on anyone? Those that can be will be. Those that cant,wont. As for bad publicity, the only "bad" article I have seen on it is the one at the beginning of this thread. Thats one article. Its not like it was reported on the 6:00news or anything.
    HotGuns, none of this is personal though I know we differ on this topic. Frankly, your message is a positive message. And somehow I think you could eloquently articulate the reasons why we carry, not just say because it is in the Constitution.

    Actually, anytime I am approached by either religious "zealots" as you call them or extremely liberal wackos I always find myself somewhat amused.
    Sure, but the point is they were so annoting to the public that we passed laws prohibiting their active harrassment. No, I am not comparing open carry with harrassment. It is only an example of how negative public reaction can and does 'infringe on our rights.' I disliked those people because the airport is stressful enough without a bunch of idiots wasting my time.

    Whats up with that? That last post of mine was days old. Surely you haven't thought it about that long have you?I hope you haven't lost any sleep over it.Life is too short.
    I simply thought the Rosa Parks analogy was so far off I wanted to step in again. And as long as I was in...

    What they were doing was a legal activity that is actually protected by law. There was nothing immature or childish about it...unless you happen to see it from an anti- gun point of view. That I would believe.
    They claimed they did it for the sole reason to defy a sheriff and could not articulate a valid reason when asked by a reporter. It sound more like a tantrum than a reasoned interaction with the media. Yes, it was a legal activity. No, they did not show maturity and did not successfully represent gun rights advocates.

    We are making great progress with positive publicity like the Heller opinion. These incidents are setbacks, which hopefully will not damage the cause irreparably. I'm sure you remember the Dickinson incident whose only tangible result was another no guns allowed sign. That was certainly not showing gun owners in a positive light.

  14. #58
    kpw
    kpw is offline
    VIP Member Array kpw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,150
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    That is not my view. I support open carry whenever and wherever it is legal.

    My objections is those who carry a gun just to carry a gun. Worse, those who carry a gun to defy an authority or 'to educate' the public. I think carrying a gun is a grave responsibility and carry for my own protection and protection of loved ones. Notwithstanding sport and hunting, I cannot be convinced there is another valid reason. Certainly not for a negative publicity stunt.
    Oh, like the Dickson City diners? They weren't bothering anyone or protesting anything, just eating and chatting. Those are the types of incidents that bring about protest and hard feelings. I wouldn't presume to know why people carry the way they do. I carry for the same reason you do, wether I OC or CC. I would imagine that most people do it for similar reasons. That doesn't mean that they don't have secondary reasons. So I might make the presumtion that they attended that gathering to show support for their fellow OC'ers that have been harrassed for doing nothing illegal.
    I'm sorry you view that in a negative way because I see it as a positive example of citizens voicing their concerns. Your fears of negative reactions by the masses may prove correct or it may acclimate people to the idea that guns don't equal evil. Time will tell.

    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    We are making great progress with positive publicity like the Heller opinion. These incidents are setbacks, which hopefully will not damage the cause irreparably. I'm sure you remember the Dickinson incident whose only tangible result was another no guns allowed sign. That was certainly not showing gun owners in a positive light.
    You should keep up a little with what is going on with the Dickson City incident. The sign that was put up at OCB basically says you cannot OC in their establishment. Signs have no legal weight in PA, CC is still fine. The chief tried to get the rest of the city's businesses to post similar signs and it pretty much failed. Many members of that board have OC'd in D.C. since that event and have not encountered any negative responces to date, either by civilians or the LE. It may have been a negative incident but the results have been mostly positive. Negative encounters with LEO seem to have dropped a bit lately. It may or may not have anything to do with that incident but the timing is quite a coincidence.

  15. #59
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,626
    Quote Originally Posted by SelfDefense View Post
    HotGuns, none of this is personal though I know we differ on this topic. Frankly, your message is a positive message. And somehow I think you could eloquently articulate the reasons why we carry, not just say because it is in the Constitution.
    Perhaps. But if my sole reason was to make a point the Sheriff why would I need to articulate any further?

    I simply thought the Rosa Parks analogy was so far off I wanted to step in again. And as long as I was in...
    Ahh..I see. I would probably would have done the same...

    They claimed they did it for the sole reason to defy a sheriff and could not articulate a valid reason when asked by a reporter. It sound more like a tantrum than a reasoned interaction with the media. Yes, it was a legal activity. No, they did not show maturity and did not successfully represent gun rights advocates.
    I'd be willing to bet that they felt like they already answered the question. Perhaps they felt like the reporter was fishing for more and did'nt want to play.

    We are making great progress with positive publicity like the Heller opinion.
    Yep. We have the momentum going our way. With the possibility of the next President caring more about being a citizen of the world, than being a citizen of the country that elected him, we need to take full advantage of it while we can.

    These incidents are setbacks, which hopefully will not damage the cause irreparably.
    I dont think that one negative article by an anti-gun reporter could be called a set-back for the cause.

    I'm sure you remember the Dickinson incident whose only tangible result was another no guns allowed sign. That was certainly not showing gun owners in a positive light.
    From what I recall it was nothing more than an overeaction by someone in management that had an unhealthy fear of guns.
    The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it...- George Orwell

    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  16. #60
    Member Array chuck brick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    331
    Quote Originally Posted by Grislic View Post
    The State News: Protest by gun activists sends wrong message

    I am sure the authors would like your feedback.
    This time, I rather hope they didn't.

    Stay Safe,

    Chuck Brick.
    Why do I use 230 gr. for my .45acp?
    Because I can't find a source of 250 gr!
    http://chucksrantings.blogspot.com/

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. University president opposes open carry law on campus
    By cyberdogg in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 11th, 2011, 11:29 PM
  2. IKEA is Anti-Concealed Carry and Open Carry Store and presumed anti-RTBA
    By mikestilly in forum Open Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: February 8th, 2010, 04:43 PM
  3. HUGE article in Denver newspaper, front page, concealed carry
    By Sticks in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: May 6th, 2008, 01:43 AM
  4. My Reponse to an Anti Article in the UK University Newspaper.
    By SammyIamToday in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: February 21st, 2008, 08:39 AM
  5. Miami University Newspaper and CCW
    By ellerblr in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: October 6th, 2007, 08:05 AM

Search tags for this page

anti open carry articles
,
anti open carry businesses in michigan
,
can i open carry on a atv in mich
,
can you carry a gun in a atv in michigan
,
can you open carry at michigan state university
,
can you open carry at msu
,

michigan open carry gun law

,
michigan open carry university
,
michigan state university carry firearms
,

michigan state university open carry

,
michigan state university open carry laws
,

open carry in michigan state parks

,
open carry on atv in mi
,
open carry on atv in michigan
,
what laws bans guns from campus in michigan and open carry
Click on a term to search for related topics.