Apples to orangesSo for all of the people so concerned about what others think, how many of you will refuse to use your gun to protect yourself, or those around you out of respect for anyone who might not approve of you shooting the criminal?
Comparing Israel to US. When they have the Doc to guide their country, comparison MIGHT be closerAnd I understand NOBODY turned in their high capacity magazines the the New Jermany police. It's time we stood up for our rights. It's not uncommon in Israel, a nations that has some strict gun control laws, to see someone open carrying an AR or an Uzzi or AK. It's seen often and nobody cares. Except terrorists.
So for all of the people so concerned about what others think, how many of you will refuse to use your gun to protect yourself, or those around you out of respect for anyone who might not approve of you shooting the criminal?huh? I was only talking about one person.
Ok, I guess I can see what you're saying, I was referring to the posteres here, but singular in the situation, if that makes sense.So for all of the people so concerned about what others think, how many of you will refuse to use your gun to protect yourself, or those around you out of respect for anyone who might not approve of you shooting the criminal?
Didn't seem singular the way you posted it.
It's a little-known fact that Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and Alexander Hamilton always carried concealed Glocks, 24/7/365....lets look at depictions of the Continental Congress, I've never seen any of them openly carrying arms while determining what's to be included in the BOR.
What? Are you on something? If I was concerned about using my gun to protect myself or my family if we are under a threat, I might as well not carry at all. However, there is absolutely no reason to feed the Anti's stereotype when i am carrying.So for all of the people so concerned about what others think, how many of you will refuse to use your gun to protect yourself, or those around you out of respect for anyone who might not approve of you shooting the criminal?
I believe in the sentiment of your argument, that as free men and women we should be able to live our lives as we see fit as long we don't intrude on another's freedoms. I don't think that the OP was disputing that. However I think the OP was trying to say that if the man in the photo was trying to convert undecided Americans to the Pro-2A side, he was going about it the wrong way. Persuasion does not often involve "in-your-face-tactics," as a kid on a high school debate team can tell you. If often results in people digging their heels in on their opinion. I have had much better results taking people to a gun range and having them shoot, especially if we start with a .22LR rifle, then getting into a red-faced shouting match with them (which I have done). Heck, just having my kids' friends shooting a BB gun in our back yard has helped with some very anti-gun families.My last comment on this because I truly believe this is actually another useless thread either endorsing or bashing open carry.
I have observed people in America for 7 decades, 2 centuries, and 2 millenniums. Here we are 243 years downstream and I believe we still do not really understand what it means to be free.
Freedom means no one has to seek out your approval for doing something that is not restricted by law. Freedom means some people will say and do things you don't like. Some people will order their steak well done, or rare, or their ice cream chocolate or vanilla. Some people will just rub your fur the wrong way. The response usually flows along the lines of, "Well if they had good taste, or common sense, or if they just understood things like I do, or saw the reality of things the way I see them, they would restrain themselves - as I do."
Thank the good Lord above those who founded this country didn't believe that to be necessary. I believe freedom, real freedom as outlined in the Constitution (and a book we cannot discuss), is a lot more complicated than we imagine. We honestly think everyone should think and believe and say and act and dream as we do. We ridicule and scorn those who do not. With every word we only prove the assertion again and again that we do not really know what it means to be free in America.
You don't have to eat what I eat, or go to the same church, or not go at all, or wear socks with your sandals, barefoot in your loafers, or own a Sig instead of a Glock, or carry OWB, IWB, AIWB, or Mexican even. You and I can be as different as the Sun and the Moon, yet freedom means we must learn to respect one another as Americans. When our fur gets rubbed the wrong way, maybe we should just be thankful that we are all Americans and celebrate the reality that we are free.
Pardon my soapbox, but if we are going to lose this precious freedom we all cherish, it will be partly because we have lost respect for those who are not like us in every way.
Now back to your regularly scheduled argument.
And therein lies the basic problem. We form judgments based on a single photo. We don't know who this is from Adam. We don't have any more idea what his purpose is than the man in the moon. In short, we work from total ignorance and then judge someone an idiot because of what the PHOTO seems to show.So, the person in the OP's photo may have every right to OC a rifle at a farmers market. Absolutely. But he ain't converting anyone to our side which we need to do if we want to secure our rights in the future.
Which is one of several reasons that I dislike apples-to-oranges analogies as opposed to solid arguments for one's position.Some of the comparisons being made are not quite in alignment.
First, coming from a family with several member who were 'first blacks', All of these men and women were not out to make a political statement. They just wanted to do what they enjoyed doing. This applies to playing football and achieving high ranks in the military. On the flip side, my father did work to change the political landscape in Massachusetts during the 60's.
Second, and my history is a little weak on this one. I am not sure of the that Parks set out to make a change. She, like most, were simply tired of the experience and just sat down. Life being black during the the first half of the century was exhausting.
Last, Open carry pre-, during, and post the reconstruction was not a political statement but more of intimidation and defense. From some of the history of Race and guns that I am currently reading, the US looked to be on the verge of a major internal war. Both sides of race were definitely in a full feud.
Admittedly, I am still learning/reading historical works, but at this moment, I am seriously considering that the emancipation was more out of political necessity to prevent a complete war. Many local gun laws were enacted as local attempts to control one side or the other.
In other words, there is more depth to Rosa Parks than current OC statements.the background was far more violent than current OC statements which seem to be more of an effort to change minds. As a result, I remain on the fence but do default to acceptance of their actions although, the activity could be better organized for a cleaner result.
Edit: I was about to PM you with the assurance that our disagreement on this issue is in no way intended to be directed at you personally, or that I am taking any of it personally. It occurred to me that I could say the same thing to several other posters here, so much better to simply state it on-board expressing the same sentiment. We can and sometimes do disagree bitterly, but for me it is never personal, giving or taking. I enjoy these discussions, even if no opinions are changed or if passions sometime run high.And therein lies the basic problem. We form judgments based on a single photo. We don't know who this is from Adam. We don't have any more idea what his purpose is than the man in the moon. In short, we work from total ignorance and then judge someone an idiot because of what the PHOTO seems to show.For better or worse, this is often how life works. We get a blurb, sound-byte or photo upon which to base our opinions. This works across the spectrum of world views. People who know little to nothing positive about guns have their biases confirmed based on photos like the one shown in the OP.
When I wore a badge we had a practice that worked pretty well. Everyone who wore a badge got the benefit of the doubt, until proven conclusively that they were not worthy of it. In fact, everyone, badge or not, got the benefit of the doubt until we had evidence to the contrary. People say a picture speaks a thousand words, and that may be true.If the guy had a badge on in the picture, I missed it. But no one has ever said a single photo, or even 30 minutes of video, tells the WHOLE STORY. It doesn't cost anybody anything (except a bit of childish chest thumping) to give ALL gun owners the benefit of the doubt until the person is proven by the evidence not to warrant it.Toting an AR in an unexpected scenario is childish chest thumping taken to the max, IMO
The best way I know for everyone to lose ALL rights protected under the 2nd Amendment is for gun owners to judge all other gun owners motives and intentions based on ignorance because all we see is a PHOTO. Continuing to sway public opinion further into the anti-gun camp with foolish, poorly-conceived displays of open carry is a much better way, again, IMO.We turn on each other at the drop of a hat, and then wonder why the people who want to confiscate guns continue to make strides to do just that. Telling someone their behavior is fool-hardy isn't turning on them. To the contrary, it is merely pointing out the folly of their endeavor, whatever their rationale may be. No different than voicing safety concerns at the range.
Does anyone here remember the vehemence that gun owners who only hunt used on anyone who dared to suggest it should be legal for people wanting to protect their lives to carry a pistol? Nope, that one must have gotten by me. I was around and paying attention when the move from no issue to shall issue happened in Ohio in 2004, and I don't recall any anti-CC Fudds getting mic time during the debates and demonstrations.
IMHO it would be far better we reserve judgement until the evidence is in. The photo and accompanying text are all the evidence we are likely to get, so that is what we get to formulate our opinion upon.In that way we would present a united front. I'm just not sold on the fact that those who judge and condemn the motives of others based on such superficial evidence are not a greater threat to freedom than anyone else - even those who stand on a presidential debate stage and declare they intend to confiscate guns. Merely another key point upon which we diametrically disagree.
And I'll probably get flamed for saying this, but exactly how many of YOU have done ANYTHING to convince ANYONE in a public place that concealed carriers, (who are secretive in the extreme) are worthy to be trusted with a gun? And by that I mean let anyone know you carry a deadly weapon but would never use it to harm an innocent person? Anyone who carries concealed ever done that to influence anyone? You think anybody has ever looked at you (with your carefully hidden pistol) and said to themselves, "Wow, that is a responsible gun owner" ?
Feeding the stereotype...that you’re a person who is armed? You either care about their feelings or you don’t.What? Are you on something? If I was concerned about using my gun to protect myself or my family if we are under a threat, I might as well not carry at all. However, there is absolutely no reason to feed the Anti's stereotype when i am carrying.