The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: PegLeg45 on June 03, 2014, 11:49:21 AM
-
A story on the NRA's thoughts on the OC demonstrations:
NRA calls 'open carry' rallies 'downright weird'
NRA criticizes Texas 'open carry' rallies, in which advocates bring guns into businesses
http://news.yahoo.com/nra-calls-open-carry-rallies-142822502.html
Companies, customers and others critical of Texas gun rights advocates who have brought military-style assault rifles into businesses as part of demonstrations supporting "open carry" gun rights now have a surprising ally: the National Rifle Association.
--------------------
The NRA has long been a zealous advocate for gun owners' rights. But the group's lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action, has called the demonstrations counterproductive to promoting gun rights, scary and "downright weird."
The NRA said the demonstrations have "crossed the line from enthusiasm to downright foolishness."
"Using guns merely to draw attention to yourself in public not only defies common sense, it shows a lack of consideration and manners. That's not the Texas way. And that's certainly not the NRA way," the NRA said in a statement posted on its website Friday.
----------------------------
But in a statement posted on its Facebook page, Open Carry Texas criticized the NRA, saying if the group doesn't retract its comments, Open Carry will have to withdraw its full support for the NRA.
------------------------------
Texas has some of the least restrictive gun laws in the country, but openly carrying handguns remains illegal. Long guns like rifles can be carried openly but must be done so in a way that does not cause alarm. But gun holders can be charged with disorderly conduct if anyone around them feels threatened.
The activists' demonstrations, while peaceful, have upset some witnesses.
The Chipotle restaurant chain asked customers last month not to bring firearms into its stores after members of Open Carry Texas brought military-style assault rifles into one of its restaurants in the Dallas area.
------------------------
***EDITED FOR CLARITY OF THOUGHT*** ;D
I agree that we certainly DO have the right, based on the 2nd Amendment....but the right doesn't mean we should (because we can), just to make a point (particularly if the 'point' ends up hurting the end-game).
This is not the way to win hearts and minds.
This step has to come later.
-
A story on the NRA's thoughts on the OC demonstrations:
NRA calls 'open carry' rallies 'downright weird'
NRA criticizes Texas 'open carry' rallies, in which advocates bring guns into businesses
http://news.yahoo.com/nra-calls-open-carry-rallies-142822502.html
I agree that we have the right....but this is not the way to win hearts and minds.
This step has to come later.
I agree.
If you want a demonstration, plan a walk on public streets...and be very careful not to "brandish" the long guns or other wise act like a cowboy.
Long guns slung or carried at port arms are safe and controlled...that is why the military travels by foot when in non-combat in one of those manners.
For sure do not do not congregate en mass on private property as part of a open carry demonstration unless explicitly invited to do so by the owner.
If you, as an individual, are one who carries openly daily or often, continue that practice solo if you wish. But remember you are a making yourself a "Poster Boy" for the anti's if you draw complaints.
-
For sure do not do not congregate en mass on private property as part of a open carry demonstration unless explicitly invited to do so by the owner.
^^^THIS!!!^^^
Protest at the legislature if you want but leave private business out of it.
I would prefer an empty holster protest or carrying 10-22s rather than ARs & AKs so they don't come across as Brady poster children FOR gun laws.
When the antis are using your picture for THEIR ads, you're doing it wrong!
-
You all, along with the NRA, are missing the major points here.
First off, it isn't about convincing any one of anything.
Most peoples minds are already made up as to whether or not they support the US Constitution.
The point is to get people used to the idea of seeing law abiding citizens exercising their Constitutional Rights with out having a heart attack or calling out the SWAT teams.
America is still legally, a Constitutional Republic.
What that means is that no matter what a Judge rules, or what law is passed if it is contrary to what is stated in the Constitution it is not valid since the Constitution is supposedly the instruction manual for the operations of the Republic.
As for anyone concerned about "offending others " by openly exercising your civil rights, you are the very ones who need an education because you have been pussified into thinking real Americans always have to be polite to the subversive scum destroying our nation.
The country was not founded by effeminate gentleman over tea and crumpets, (actually they were the ones who lost it) and it will not be rescued by politically correct metrosexuals sharing their feelings over a bottle of white wine.
What part of "Shall not be infringed" is so damned hard to understand ?
There is no room for "moderation, there is no middle ground.
-
Had a short conversation with a conservative thinking women of 60 whom I work with....
She had no clue that the Constitution is there to protect our rights but also restricts our elected officials on what they're allowed by the people!
We're becoming a nation of drones, governed by imbeciles, regulated by shysters...
As a scientist recently state most profoundly..."Aliens have visited earth and determined that the local residents are too stupid to be bothered with!"
-
You all, along with the NRA, are missing the major points here.
First off, it isn't about convincing any one of anything.
Most peoples minds are already made up as to whether or not they support the US Constitution.
The point is to get people used to the idea of seeing law abiding citizens exercising their Constitutional Rights with out having a heart attack or calling out the SWAT teams.
America is still legally, a Constitutional Republic.
What that means is that no matter what a Judge rules, or what law is passed if it is contrary to what is stated in the Constitution it is not valid since the Constitution is supposedly the instruction manual for the operations of the Republic.
As for anyone concerned about "offending others " by openly exercising your civil rights, you are the very ones who need an education because you have been pussified into thinking real Americans always have to be polite to the subversive scum destroying our nation.
The country was not founded by effeminate gentleman over tea and crumpets, (actually they were the ones who lost it) and it will not be rescued by politically correct metrosexuals sharing their feelings over a bottle of white wine.
What part of "Shall not be infringed" is so damned hard to understand ?
There is no room for "moderation, there is no middle ground.
That just is not true, Tom.
We has Starbucks who stood up to the anti's and would not ban open carrying from their stores.
They had no position on the 2nd Amendment but would not infringe on customers rights to do what was legal.
It was when throngs of long gun open carries started congregating in their stores and even went so far to make a copy of their trademark that read Starbucks- Coffee and Guns.
It was hurting their business...and it has nothing to do with pro or con 2nd Amendment. Folks have the right to eat Limburger cheese too..but if a business became the focal point of throngs of Limburger eaters and driving away other customers, they would ban them....just like Starbucks banned gun carriers.
In this case open carry did change the mind of Starbucks and turned them against carrying firearms in their establishments.
If your goal is to further the acceptance of open carry and the 2nd Amendment, then thumbing your nose and intimidation by open carry is not the way to get that done.
I have heard talk of how the "in your face" attitude of gays helped get them generally accepted. I think that is an error..I think the managed to become accepted in spite of the "in your face" attitude of some.
It is that "in your face" attitude that causes most of the antagonism towards gays...excepting that from religious beliefs.
I think it is the same for open carry.....it is that same "in your face" action that will turn folks away from understanding those who carry.
-
That just is not true, Tom.
We has Starbucks who stood up to the anti's and would not ban open carrying from their stores.
They had no position on the 2nd Amendment but would not infringe on customers rights to do what was legal.
It was when throngs of long gun open carries started congregating in their stores and even went so far to make a copy of their trademark that read Starbucks- Coffee and Guns.
It was hurting their business...and it has nothing to do with pro or con 2nd Amendment. Folks have the right to eat Limburger cheese too..but if a business became the focal point of throngs of Limburger eaters and driving away other customers, they would ban them....just like Starbucks banned gun carriers.
In this case open carry did change the mind of Starbucks and turned them against carrying firearms in their establishments.
If your goal is to further the acceptance of open carry and the 2nd Amendment, then thumbing your nose and intimidation by open carry is not the way to get that done.
I have heard talk of how the "in your face" attitude of gays helped get them generally accepted. I think that is an error..I think the managed to become accepted in spite of the "in your face" attitude of some.
It is that "in your face" attitude that causes most of the antagonism towards gays...excepting that from religious beliefs.
I think it is the same for open carry.....it is that same "in your face" action that will turn folks away from understanding those who carry.
this
-
Solus, Did you ever hear of the Munich agreement, how about that whole "Mutual Assured Destruction" thing ?
Have you been watching Russian foreign policy the last 10 years or so ?
How about reading about how much the Mafia actually makes off extortion ?
Intimidation is one thing that actually does work, where the Starbucks OC people screwed it up was by not moving on to the next target when they had won their point.
It was NOT the principle that failed, it was the implementation.
-
So-called private businesses that are open to the public are subject to all manner of laws that essentially mean they are not private. You cannot discriminate against blacks in your store, and if you don't want to make a wedding cake for a couple of gays who want to get married, tough, you do as the .gov says. So "private" stores open to the public are not private.
Also, remember, the NRA has also backed Reid and McConnell, among others, so they ain't exactly batting 1000 here.
-
The point is to get people used to the idea of seeing law abiding citizens exercising their Constitutional Rights with out having a heart attack or calling out the SWAT teams.
America is still legally, a Constitutional Republic.
What that means is that no matter what a Judge rules, or what law is passed if it is contrary to what is stated in the Constitution it is not valid
I'm all for that - except when it works against what progress has already been made.
If you live there, you either work within the framework of TX law or you don't. Saying to a cop or judge "This law is not constitutional!!" still gets you arrested and jailed. Let us know how that works out for you.
Making an argument from OUTSIDE of prison is much easier than making an argument from INSIDE.
Nobody cares what Tom or KMitch think is constitutional or not, what matters is getting the people who think the way we do elected.
-
NRA backs down, admits it ‘was a mistake’ to shame open carry activists
Chris Cox, the executive director of the group’s lobbying arm, said Tuesday on an NRA-hosted radio show that the group “unequivocally” supports open carry laws, and that the controversial statement saying otherwise was written by a staffer who was expressing his personal opinion.
“The truth is, an alert went out that referred to this type of behavior as ‘weird’ or somehow not normal, and that was a mistake. It shouldn’t have happened,” he said, the Associated Press reported.
A statement that appeared on the website for the NRA’s lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action, shunned Open Carry Texas and similar groups after they walked into Texas-area outlets of Sonic and Chili’s restaurants carrying military-style assault rifles, causing the restaurants to stiffen their gun policies.
The statement charged that the demonstrators crossed the line “from enthusiasm to downright foolishness.”
“Using guns merely to draw attention to yourself in public not only defies common sense, it shows a lack of consideration and manners. That’s not the Texas way. And that’s certainly not the NRA way,” the statement said, which remained on the NRA’s website Wednesday morning.
As a result, many open carry groups, including Open Carry Texas, threatened to leave the NRA if it didn’t change its stance.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/4/nra-backs-down-admits-it-was-a-mistake-to-shame-op/#ixzz33mIEiDNc
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
-
I still cannot support the OCT tactics. While I support the cause, their approach hurts our position. Open carrying a pistol in a holster on your hip is one thing. Carrying an AR in a ready position with multiple mags in a chest rig, is another. They are in Texas, not Detroit.
I am in complete agreement with MB on this one. If you come to my house, I assume you are armed, because I am. However if you come out of a vehicle with a rifle slung ready, my first reaction is to assume you are a threat.
Not only that, but you have lost all tactical advantage if something were to go down. I have to defer to Rob Pincus's analysis on this. Keep it concealed. I carry a mini 1911 on my hip, and I keep my AR in a 5.11 covert bag in my truck. ( I tell people it's snowshoes) I do this for 2 reasons, first no one needs to know I am armed, and second, guns get stolen from vehicles. snowshoes don't. How many times have we talked about blending in, and not making yourself a target? I know that we have discussed it in the context of a SHTF situation, but why does it not apply here?
Unfortunately I have to lump these guys in with the radical gays in San Fran that run around naked in the streets. They hurt the cause by making us all look like we are all a bunch of basement dwellers that play too much Call of Duty.
-
I still cannot support the OCT tactics. While I support the cause, their approach hurts our position. Open carrying a pistol in a holster on your hip is one thing. Carrying an AR in a ready position with multiple mags in a chest rig, is another. They are in Texas, not Detroit.
I am in complete agreement with MB on this one. If you come to my house, I assume you are armed, because I am. However if you come out of a vehicle with a rifle slung ready, my first reaction is to assume you are a threat.
Not only that, but you have lost all tactical advantage if something were to go down. I have to defer to Rob Pincus's analysis on this. Keep it concealed. I carry a mini 1911 on my hip, and I keep my AR in a 5.11 covert bag in my truck. ( I tell people it's snowshoes) I do this for 2 reasons, first no one needs to know I am armed, and second, guns get stolen from vehicles. snowshoes don't. How many times have we talked about blending in, and not making yourself a target? I know that we have discussed it in the context of a SHTF situation, but why does it not apply here?
Unfortunately I have to lump these guys in with the radical gays in San Fran that run around naked in the streets. They hurt the cause by making us all look like we are all a bunch of basement dwellers that play too much Call of Duty.
Yep.
Thanks for the update, Haz (and good to see you posting :) ).
*A note sent to the NRA-ILA:
Hey NRA-ILA, don't you guys have some way of reviewing or approving content BEFORE it is released?
Like say an editorial staff??... and if the guy who wrote the original piece IS on the editorial staff, shouldn't everyone on staff be in agreement on general releases before the release?
Regardless of whether I agree with one point of view or the other in the argument over blatant in-your-face OC'ing, this looks bad......even if we disagree on topics, we don't need to show it off to those in the middle, or the Liberal enemy with these "release and reversal" stunts.
Keep an eye on this type thing in the future guys.....you know.....so you guys don't look like complete buffoons to the general public, while representing gun owners.
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
*A note sent to the NRA-ILA:
Hey NRA-ILA, don't you guys have some way of reviewing or approving content BEFORE it is released?
Like say an editorial staff??... and if the guy who wrote the original piece IS on the editorial staff, shouldn't everyone on staff be in agreement on general releases before the release?
Regardless of whether I agree with one point of view or the other in the argument over blatant in-your-face OC'ing, this looks bad......even if we disagree on topics, we don't need to show it off to those in the middle, or the Liberal enemy with these "release and reversal" stunts.
Keep an eye on this type thing in the future guys.....you know.....so you guys don't look like complete buffoons to the general public, while representing gun owners.
::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
I remember early last year MB urging all of us to join the NRA, give money to the ILA, and saying that we had to put aside our petty grievances between the different gun rights groups. However I must point out that this is the exact kind of stunt that sours people to the NRA. This and their support of people like Reid. There are much more productive ways to support OCT and still be critical of their tactics. It's not like we all have to agree with the methods. (I tried to type MEATHEADS which may also be appropriate) But we do have to stand together, and not be publicly flip flopping. That also hurts the overall cause. Pull them aside behind the scenes and tell them to knock it off, but good grief don't do your infighting over the loud speaker!!!!
-
Yep..... I agree.
I am a Life Member, and have been for years and there have been some management mis-steps over the last few years that make me shake my head at the way they have done some things.
But all things considered, they are still the biggest voice for our lobby....so I won't 'renounce' my membership just yet. ;D
-
Yep..... I agree.
I am a Life Member, and have been for years and there have been some management mis-steps over the last few years that make me shake my head at the way they have done some things.
But all things considered, they are still the biggest voice for our lobby....so I won't 'renounce' my membership just yet. ;D
As am I but only for a year or so. I joined years ago but committed as a Life Member to extend my support. I cannot renounce a Life Membership...the money's already in their bank...
I'll voice my opinion to them if I see an issue that violates my ideology but until that happens, I'll support the only lobby that is looking out for our best interests!
I'm convinced that this show has done nothing to support my position but I'm not one to unzip my fly to show what I've got packed anyway!
8)
-
I've been a life member for awhile and just became an endowment member last fall, and I'm ok with the NRA generally, but I'm often disappointed in their public responses. Fact is, they really ARE our only big, barking dog. The other groups get things done, but NRA applies the heat and takes the heat, and it's an important part of the puzzle.
I believe they certainly have an image problem with EVERYONE, especially members or non-member pro-gunners. Anti-s really don't know anything, so their view of the NRA is what it is. For pro-gun folks, though, the constant harangue for money is tiresome and the amount of money they spend soliciting donations is embarrassing.
Politicians seem to be respectful only because they might be hurt, not because NRA represents basic citizen civil rights. I'm not sure about all the trendy new spokespersons, although I think they are somewhat effective. And I guess my biggest concern is Wayne LaPierre.
As a spokesman, I think he's weak. He's often got this "Golly, gee" handwringing kind of persona that does not convey wisdom, confidence, or righteousness. He is often stiff, and lately his hairdo has had an unnerving "Hitler combover" look to it. Comeon man, ... let's be confident. It's the Constitution we're talking about here.
I think they could do a lot more on the PR, safety, and training fronts, programs for Vets, and other outreach things that would strengthen the positive side of the argument. But without the NRA we would have either lost our rights by now or the whole country would be like this shithole NJ I live in now. We're not all ever going to agree on everything, but if we all keep our eye on the ball, we're a lot stronger.
-
The NRA is NOT our only "big barking dog in the fight" as Jaybet put it.
For example, the NRA wanted no part in either the Heller, or McDonald SCOTUS cases.
But they are the most visible working the halls of Congress and drawing all the liberal hate allowing groups like SAF (Who DID win the afore mentioned cases) to work the courts largely unnoticed by the haters in the liberal media.
-
The NRA is NOT our only "big barking dog in the fight" as Jaybet put it.
For example, the NRA wanted no part in either the Heller, or McDonald SCOTUS cases.
But they are the most visible working the halls of Congress and drawing all the liberal hate allowing groups like SAF (Who DID win the afore mentioned cases) to work the courts largely unnoticed by the haters in the liberal media.
Absolutely right, Tom. SAF is more like our ninja - no one knows where they are at the moment. NRA is a lightning rod, the "shiny thing" that distracts the uninformed...it doesn't take much
-
Here's some thoughts on "Open carry"
You only see it as an issue in restrictive states.
Here in NH there are no restrictions on open carry, you can open carry with out any sort of "permission" any place you can concealed carry.
But no one bothers because the CCW is only $10 and a one page form, (With large print on the one page).
As for long guns, the only reasons for open carrying them is to and from the gun store , range or hunting area, which I have done on occasion.
In that case (Unless you are standing outside an Obama rally in Portsmouth) if you are questioned , it is far more likely to be by a game warden than by a cop.
The only places these type of open carry events with long guns take place are in restrictive environments where every effort is needed to raise awareness that this is just as much of a "Civil Right" as voting.