The effectiveness of open-carry demonstrations

[cpgrad08]

with certain regulations and restrictions too, or does that not count as "infringement" in your eyes? If not, I'd be happy to agree with you and apologize for being a smug ass.

Every right was restrictions and limits but the difference I don't interpret it as you do.

 

[Wiseone]

Every right was restrictions and limits but the difference I don't interpret it as you do.

If you agree with the SCOTUS then you do interpret it as I do

 

[TurtleDude]

If you agree with the SCOTUS then you do interpret it as I do

do you think the federal government has the proper authority to restrict where and how people carry firearms (save for federal facilities such as courthouses, army bases, and the IRS service centers etc)

 

[Wiseone]

do you think the federal government has the proper authority to restrict where and how people carry firearms (save for federal facilities such as courthouses, army bases, and the IRS service centers etc)

No, but I believe the SCOTUS has the authority to rule on any issues about how and where people carry firearms that come up to it from lower courts.

 

[TurtleDude]

No, but I believe the SCOTUS has the authority to rule on any issues about how and where people carry firearms that come up to it from lower courts.

sure if it implicates constitutional issues and after McDonald, state gun laws may be found to violate the Second Amendment.

 

[Wiseone]

sure if it implicates constitutional issues and after McDonald, state gun laws may be found to violate the Second Amendment.

Sure just like any other amendment, I wouldn't change that at all the states have a bad history of taking away people's rights and its good for the SCOTUS to put them in their place from time to time.

 

[Phys251]

I don't bet my life on anything like that, then again I am going to comply with a legal(key word) inquiry by a police officer. I understand why they may want to ask a couple of questions if I have a rifle or shotgun on my back and will answer all questions in a calm and rationed manner. That is what these demonstrators MUST do if they choose to demonstrate. I have seen videos of the clowns that carry just to force a negative reaction and on that we agree, that is beyond dumb. An officer has suspicion if one is walking around with a long gun displayed, whether it's reasoned or not the law states as such and there is no reason to cause an incident for a simple inquiry. If they step out of line and make a false arrest, charge them and sue them, make sure you get your firearm back in the interim.

Disagreement is fine, I am not going to argue that a person who is concerned or afraid of firearms is a lesser person, it's when they hide behind that to infringe on rights that I will have an issue. I am not asking a person concerned about an armed individual to "suck it up and deal" but rather invite them to learn a bit more for their own sanity. If I were to freak out every time a gun were present here in the south, I would need to be committed for PTSD.

Maybe. I just think that a gradual, more gentle approach may be more effective.

They may cause some uncomfortable feelings, but as a free society we need to be able to accept that people can and will exercise their rights.

And I accept that. My disagreement is with what I feel people should be doing, not with what they should be legally entitled to do. Just because a set of actions offends me is not sufficient reason to try to make those actions illegal.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Maybe. I just think that a gradual, more gentle approach may be more effective.

If I saw that the other side was truly open to understanding the issue(not those simply concerned, the ones with an agenda) then I would tend to agree. However, the gentle and gradual approach has gotten us the NFA, GCA, Brady Bill, Hughes amendment, etc. and it is becoming painfully obvious that another approach is needed.

 

[Phys251]

If I saw that the other side was truly open to understanding the issue(not those simply concerned, the ones with an agenda) then I would tend to agree. However, the gentle and gradual approach has gotten us the NFA, GCA, Brady Bill, Hughes amendment, etc. and it is becoming painfully obvious that another approach is needed.

With deference to the fact that I'm pretty liberal by US standards, I do think that many Democratic voters do automatically believe that guns = BAD without giving the idea a second thought. And to be fair, that's an attitude that makes our side look bad. Personally I believe that being a liberal requires a full deference to facts over beliefs, no matter where those facts may lead, as long as they are not stacked to support racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. views.

 

[LaMidRighter]

With deference to the fact that I'm pretty liberal by US standards, I do think that many Democratic voters do automatically believe that guns = BAD without giving the idea a second thought. And to be fair, that's an attitude that makes our side look bad. Personally I believe that being a liberal requires a full deference to facts over beliefs, no matter where those facts may lead, as long as they are not stacked to support racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. views.

Fair enough, experience has taught me(and I have a scar on one hand to prove it, knife) that the person who is intent on doing harm typically hides their weapon until they think they have the upper hand, the problem is people are being conditioned to fear firearms without actually assessing the situation. That type of mentality, automatically assuming that an armed person is a threat is no way to live life, and it creates the type of panic that will not end well.

When I was a new member over here there was a story about a man who was legally and openly carrying in a book store with his wife and child by his side, he ended up thrown against a wall and frisked like a criminal because some(sorry, have to use this) pansy didn't take five seconds to think that a man is not going to put his loved ones in danger by doing anything aggressive with his firearm. The family was minding their own business, and the husband was not aggressive, but because someone threw a fit and panicked a situation went out of control. That was completely the fault of the person who overreacted, and the officer for initiating aggression but had the husband resisted someone could have gotten hurt, again, conditioning to fear something that was not a threat.

 

[TurtleDude]

Fair enough, experience has taught me(and I have a scar on one hand to prove it, knife) that the person who is intent on doing harm typically hides their weapon until they think they have the upper hand, the problem is people are being conditioned to fear firearms without actually assessing the situation. That type of mentality, automatically assuming that an armed person is a threat is no way to live life, and it creates the type of panic that will not end well.

When I was a new member over here there was a story about a man who was legally and openly carrying in a book store with his wife and child by his side, he ended up thrown against a wall and frisked like a criminal because some(sorry, have to use this) pansy didn't take five seconds to think that a man is not going to put his loved ones in danger by doing anything aggressive with his firearm. The family was minding their own business, and the husband was not aggressive, but because someone threw a fit and panicked a situation went out of control. That was completely the fault of the person who overreacted, and the officer for initiating aggression but had the husband resisted someone could have gotten hurt, again, conditioning to fear something that was not a threat.

Hopefully the family is about 250K richer and the cop and his department are having a harder time getting insurance as is the case of the person who threw a fit

 

[LaMidRighter]

Hopefully the family is about 250K richer and the cop and his department are having a harder time getting insurance as is the case of the person who threw a fit

My thoughts exactly.

 

[American]

Some people are happy to see the guns and some aren't, but the main thing is to get people accustomed to seeing them in public.

 

[molten_dragon]

Whether it hurts or helps really depend on the circumstances I think. When you have a group of people open carrying together to raise awareness I think that can be helpful. When it's just one guy who's doing it for attention, it hurts more than it helps. Most people probably don't see a group of a dozen people open carrying together and think "Those people might all be planning to shoot people". Most would probably recognize that it's being done for political reasons, even if they disagree with them. One guy walking down the street with an AR-15 is going to scare a lot of people.

 

[Jerry]

No. In Texas, it's already legal to carry a long gun in public.

I thought only while hunting or on your own property.

 

[Jerry]

Guns aren't speech

Then neither is fire and burning a flag is treason.

 

[Wiseone]

Then neither is fire and burning a flag is treason.

No its not

 

[WCH]

I thought only while hunting or on your own property.

Nope...even rifles not necessarily for hunting purposes.

 

[Jerry]

Open Carry Guys -- Stop Helping, Because You Aren't - Right Wisconsin - Conservative politics and perspective powered by Charlie Sykes

A new trend has emerged of small groups of gun owners holding peaceful rallies/protests in public sectors with their long guns in tow. As is to be expected, some are enthused, while others are afraid and occasionally call the cops.

Are these open-carry mini-rallies helping or hurting the cause of RKBA?

No poll option for me. I care, but I've never seen or participated in such a rally, nor have seen empirical data studying it, so I have no idea.