NRA Not in Support of OC Movement

[PegLeg45]

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***   

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.

[Solus]

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.

[kmitch200]

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!

[tombogan03884]

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.

[Timothy]

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!"

[Sponsor]

[Solus]

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.

[TAB]

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

[tombogan03884]

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.

[Pathfinder]

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.

[kmitch200]

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.