Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Matthew Carberry on April 19, 2010, 03:11:09 PM
-
Lack of live coverage on the major cable news shows.
-
Lack of live coverage on the major cable news shows.
No blood coming down to my water treatment plant - but then, I'm on the Occoquan, not the Potomac =D.
-
?
-
There are two big gun rallies going on right now. An open carry in VA right across the river from DC and an unarmed one in DC itself.
First "armed protest in a National Park" since the law changed.
-
They've probably got those cop-killer teflon .55 caliber bullets that boil your blood.
-
They've probably got those cop-killer teflon .55 caliber bullets that boil your blood.
I've been meaning to get some of those for my 50 lb, single shot, fully automatic, bolt action, fifty cal rifle of right-wing extremism doom that I free hand when I shoot down airliners. Those are fifty five cal, that means they are five times better than my regular fifties, but I can still use them in the same gun, right?
-
They've probably got those cop-killer teflon .55 caliber bullets that boil your blood.
You mean the holowpoints? You know, the ones that are specifically designed to penetrate cops' vests, and annihilate entire playgrounds of children?
-
personally, I'm not as worried about cop killer bullets as I am about that shoulder thing that goes up. . .
-
Because I can't help myself....
Heat seeking bullets. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRQqieimwLQ)
-
I'm not that original. Instead, I'll tell you what was spewed by the reporter on Fox 13
"some toting semi automatic machine guns...."
You can take a guess how smarmy and snarky the whole bit was. Deep insinuations about those kooky bitter clingers without actually saying it. Lots of "conservatives" and "right wing" comments. I almost spewed forth some very bad language at the TV but my kids were in the room.
[barf]
-
Because I can't help myself....
Heat seeking bullets. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRQqieimwLQ)
Heh.
Reminds me of a certain cab driver I met who insisted that the copper jackets on bullets were designed to poison the victim. In case the wound wasn't enough, I suppose.
-
Heh.
Reminds me of a certain cab driver I met who insisted that the copper jackets on bullets were designed to poison the victim. In case the wound wasn't enough, I suppose.
as if the lead wasn't bad enough?
-
as if the lead wasn't bad enough?
I didn't argue the point with him, for obvious reasons.
-
They've probably got those cop-killer teflon .55 caliber bullets that boil your blood.
Those are the ones that will take off your (insert appendage of choice here) even if they miss by five feet!! Of course they are illegal, but you can still get them at a gun show through that loop hole they always leave open in the back of the building!
-
The day passed remarkably peacefully. Imagine my surprise. The local talky faces are idiots devoid of original thought.
TC
-
The day passed remarkably peacefully. Imagine my surprise. The local talky faces are idiots devoid of original thought.
TC
But oh, the snark. Cruising through some "major" and several small-town newspapers this AM I was unable to find any news on the front pages, as all the editorials had been moved there in the guise of coverage of what essentially seems to have been two almost-non events. It's likely I'm as much to blame for that as anybody else. I refuse to go to/through DC, so did not contribute to the staggering numbers of folks who showed up.
The problem, beyond the snark and editorializing, is that both events were over-billed. Sure it would have been nice to get tens of thousands of folks converging on the Mall, but until/unless that happens the liberal ideologues will have their way in saying that insignificant numbers of fringe-group whack-jobs were the ones who showed up. Perhaps I will reconsider my distaste for DC should there be a next time.
stay safe.
skidmark
-
funny how much press the MMM got, huh?
-
I was at the armed rally--links and some pictures here
http://news.google.com/news/story?ncl=d76rgE1mQouD0yMIVEuvbVCmMQiaM&hl=en-
The event went as well as could be expected. Lower turnout than we would haqve liked. Hopefully we'll have more next year.
ETA: Looks like I made it onto NPR!
http://wamu.org/audio/nw/10/04/n3100420-33835.asx (Media player--I'm the guy from Vermont)
-
Jocassee - seriously, what was the point of walking around with expensive paperweights slung across your back?
If a bunch of responsible, law-abiding citizens cannot trust themselves to peaceably assemble to discuss petitioning for redress of grievances while responsibly, law-abidingly carrying real, live, loaded arms, what was the point of bringing them?
The nanny-statist hoplophobic anti-gun press vilified you guys every way possible except for not having the self-trust to come actually armed (meaning ammunition in the chamber, ready to fire).
stay safe.
skidmark
-
Last year at IGOLD (Illinois Gun Owner Lobby Day), we got over 5,000 people to show up in Springfield. Not one peep from the Chicago MSM. A week later, Jesse Jackson gets (e.g. pays) ~50 kids to skip school to protest violence and it's the lead story in the Chicago papers and the local noooooz.
This year over 7,000.....and from the Chicago media.....crickets....
-
Jocassee - seriously, what was the point of walking around with expensive paperweights slung across your back?
If a bunch of responsible, law-abiding citizens cannot trust themselves to peaceably assemble to discuss petitioning for redress of grievances while responsibly, law-abidingly carrying real, live, loaded arms, what was the point of bringing them?
The nanny-statist hoplophobic anti-gun press vilified you guys every way possible except for not having the self-trust to come actually armed (meaning ammunition in the chamber, ready to fire).
stay safe.
skidmark
The folks with handguns were loaded. We as organizers requested--not mandated--that people carry long arms slung, muzzle down with chamber flags. This was not to cater to the media. This was to assist the organizers and the Park Police in having a safe event. As the man with boots on the ground I assure you that our statement and presentation to the media and public at large was not lessened by the safety measures. In fact the only people who seemed overly concerned about it were the ones who didn't show up.
-
Jocassee - seriously, what was the point of walking around with expensive paperweights slung across your back?
If a bunch of responsible, law-abiding citizens cannot trust themselves to peaceably assemble to discuss petitioning for redress of grievances while responsibly, law-abidingly carrying real, live, loaded arms, what was the point of bringing them?
The nanny-statist hoplophobic anti-gun press vilified you guys every way possible except for not having the self-trust to come actually armed (meaning ammunition in the chamber, ready to fire).
stay safe.
skidmark
Is there any political benefit to be gained from carrying everything loaded? If so, is it enought to offset the gleeful media headline of: "Pro gun protestor killed by gun discharge at anti-government gun rally!"
Just saying.
-
I've been meaning to get some of those for my 50 lb, single shot, fully automatic, bolt action, fifty cal rifle of right-wing extremism doom that I free hand when I shoot down airliners.
I have one of those. God kills 50 kittens with instant AIDS every time I open the case it's in.
-
I had the privilege of being at this rally yesterday with a smallish group of patriots at Gravelly Park in Arlington VA. The idea behind the event was to show up armed at Gravelly Point National Park in Arlington and demand the restoration of the Constitution.
My impressions which I wrote up on another board:
I spoke with all manner of reporters and media, not only interviewing but just generally being friendly and figuring out what impression they got of the event. While I doubt many agreed with us I think few walked away believing we were racists or purely anti-government. I remarked to one Liberal documentary film maker from New York, "You know, you'd be surprised how many of these boys listen to NPR." She replied that one reason they came down is because a lot of people are throwing around accusations about this movement and the Tea Parties but few are bothering to come out and ask questions. We were able to talk for a little bit but I left her with the thought that yes, we were mostly white and southern but we believed in Liberty for everyone.
I tried to clarify for every journalist that we were concerned about the actions of both parties and not just the current administration. I also made extremely clear that we were NOT celebrating the OKC bombing--I believe everyone except Huffpo got the message on that.
Also I thanked every reported for taking the time to come down, ask questions and see what's actually going on.
All in all, good event. Hopefully bigger and better next year.
I was interviewed by one cute chick who was kind enough to quote me in an online article for her magazine. Maybe you've heard of it, some outfit called "TIME."
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1983214,00.html
Up the Republic!
-
I was interviewed by one cute chick who was kind enough to quote me in an online article for her magazine. Maybe you've heard of it, some outfit called "TIME."
http://www.time.com/time/nation/art...1983214,00.html
Linking fail.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1983214,00.html
-
Is there any political benefit to be gained from carrying everything loaded? If so, is it enought to offset the gleeful media headline of: "Pro gun protestor killed by gun discharge at anti-government gun rally!"
Just saying.
There is political risk in a policy that all guns must be unloaded. Critics could easily, and quite rightly, point out that the gun nuts want to carry guns everywhere, but don't even trust one another to carry live rounds.
It's somewhat, but not entirely, along the lines of state gun groups (when concealed carry has just been legalized) telling their members to carry unloaded for the first few months/years, just to avoid bad headlines. Edit: I've never heard of that happening, just hypothesizing.
It would sound like we don't even believe our own rhetoric.
-
There is political risk in a policy that all guns must be unloaded. Critics could easily, and quite rightly, point out that the gun nuts want to carry guns everywhere, but don't even trust one another to carry live rounds.
It's somewhat, but not entirely, along the lines of state gun groups (when concealed carry has just been legalized) telling their members to carry unloaded for the first few months/years, just to avoid bad headlines. Edit: I've never heard of that happening, just hypothesizing.
It would sound like we don't even believe our own rhetoric.
Maybe it is just my safety voice talking, I dunno. Just seems....well, stupid, honestly, to carry weapons loaded unless you are planning on using them for self defense (or some actual purpose). Seems like a dangerous gesture with no possible political benefit.
And I'm saying that as my gun owning, sometimes hunting, weapons enthusiast self, not as my liberal, hippie, peace loving, socialist self.
-
Maybe it is just my safety voice talking, I dunno. Just seems....well, stupid, honestly, to carry weapons loaded unless you are planning on using them for self defense (or some actual purpose).
And I suppose you know exactly when you are going to be put in a position of self-defense? Do you only put on your seat belt just before you get in a crash or put a fire extinguisher in your kitchen just before your pan of delicious bacon bursts into flames ( :'(). An unloaded rifle is just a poorly designed club, and I already have an ASP to fulfill that purpose.
I agree that mandating everyone to stay unloaded can have a negative political effect by giving the opposition grounds to claim that we are hypocrites with regards to our own message. Given the assumption that your position of zero-gain is correct that leaves us in the position where we gain nothing by having them loaded, but still lose something by having them unloaded. The better position is still to have them loaded.
If negligent discharges were a significant concern the organizations could always polite advise people to keep their rifles condition 3 (yellow) or to keep the loaded magazines in a pouch carried with them. Note I said advice, not something that could be construed as a condition of participation. As always though the basic safety rules should be posted prominently. It never hurts to have them refreshed.
-
And I suppose you know exactly when you are going to be put in a position of self-defense? Do you only put on your seat belt just before you get in a crash or put a fire extinguisher in your kitchen just before your pan of delicious bacon bursts into flames ( :'(). An unloaded rifle is just a poorly designed club, and I already have an ASP to fulfill that purpose.
I agree that mandating everyone to stay unloaded can have a negative political effect by giving the opposition grounds to claim that we are hypocrites with regards to our own message. Given the assumption that your position of zero-gain is correct that leaves us in the position where we gain nothing by having them loaded, but still lose something by having them unloaded. The better position is still to have them loaded.
If negligent discharges were a significant concern the organizations could always polite advise people to keep their rifles condition 3 (yellow) or to keep the loaded magazines in a pouch carried with them. Note I said advice, not something that could be construed as a condition of participation. As always though the basic safety rules should be posted prominently. It never hurts to have them refreshed.
Don't make a strawman out of my argument, I just can't imagine the political benefit of having loaded long guns (in addition to typical sidearms) at a political rally. I'm not saying anything more than that.
Edit: And if you really think you need to keep a loaded long gun ready at a political rally, 'just in case' I'm not sure what to say, lol.
-
Don't make a strawman out of my argument, I just can't imagine the political benefit of having loaded long guns (in addition to typical sidearms) at a political rally. I'm not saying anything more than that.
Edit: And if you really think you need to keep a loaded long gun ready at a political rally, 'just in case' I'm not sure what to say, lol.
Oblique stab at my temperament bordering on ad hominem aside, while you may see this bereft of benefit, I can certainly see a liability in the media by playing it out the other way, not to mention that firearms were quite germane to this particular event and the bearing of such was in fact the central point and principal.
-
Don't make a strawman out of my argument, I just can't imagine the political benefit of having loaded long guns (in addition to typical sidearms) at a political rally. I'm not saying anything more than that.
I think it is a strong statement against us that we don't trust each other to carry loaded weapons. So it's not that carring loaded long guns has a political benefit, it's that not carrying them loaded could be politically negative. It says that the lack of trust the antis have in us is well founded, as we don't even trust ourselves.
-
It might be most helpful to look at the demonstrations that have already occurred with loaded weapons present, and ask whether any negligent discharges have actually occurred. If not, we can proudly point to them as evidence that loaded guns in public are not a danger to the public. Of course, the net advantage of crime-deterring gun carry should be pointed out as well.
There's also a valuable psychological aspect to loading the weapon. One purpose of the rallies is to accustom people to the idea that carrying guns is a normal, safe activity that should be accepted in everyday life. IF word gets out that the guns were not loaded, some of that is lost.
I also shudder at the idea of ND's at such an event, but it just has to be done. =|
When it comes to long guns, I'm assuming chambers are empty, magazines loaded. Unlike a sidearm, you can't carry a long gun in a holster with eighteen safety features to keep it from going off. And unless you have it in hand, or in some kind of assault sling, it will be behind you, and easily manipulated by some psychotic hoplophobe saboteur.
-
Oblique stab at my temperament bordering on ad hominem aside, while you may see this bereft of benefit, I can certainly see a liability in the media by playing it out the other way, not to mention that firearms were quite germane to this particular event and the bearing of such was in fact the central point and principal.
I media liability by not having your longguns loaded? Really? What am I missing here kgb?
Edit: I don't see anything in the media reports about the event in question saying anything negative about the long guns being unloaded.
If people want to carry loaded rifles to a rally because it makes them feel better, feel free I guess. I just don't see a rational motive.
-
There's also a valuable psychological aspect to loading the weapon. One purpose of the rallies is to accustom people to the idea that carrying guns is a normal, safe activity that should be accepted in everyday life. IF word gets out that the guns were not loaded, some of that is lost.
I'm not sure if this is a *good* reason but at least it *is* a reason. Thank you for giving it some thought.
-
Let me ask a question out of curiosity.
Would the request to keep longarms unloaded keep any of you from attending the event, and if so, why? I will be passing this information along to the organizers for next year.
-
Let me ask a question out of curiosity.
Would the request to keep longarms unloaded keep any of you from attending the event, and if so, why? I will be passing this information along to the organizers for next year.
You already had my vote on the issue. Yes, such a rule would kep me away.
See all the comments above regarding the perception of distrust in my ability to properly comport myself and my longarm, as well as the distrust of all the others attending. If I cannot trust my fellow protesters to maintain individual safety how the heck am I going to trust them to organize a recovery of the Constitution or anything else?
BTW - I never expected the liberal, left-leaning press to understand the craziness of chamber flags, as tthey are still trying to figure out that bolt-operated semi-automatic machine gun with the shoulder thing that goes up. It's the gun crowd that notices the incongruity of the scene.
Final thought - I might as well rejoin the military - at least they are open and clear about the level of mistrust they place in people carrying arms.
stay safe.
skidmark
-
I still don't really understand why carry long guns at all.
The only reason I can think of is that they attract cameras, other than that... "Because we can?"
To what end, what exact message is having a long gun, loaded or unloaded, supposed to send? Carrying long guns around is a pain in the ass, barring some high-percentage likelihood of use I will, for the rest of my adult life, prefer to leave it in my car at best.
I spent far too long hauling a rifle around professionally to view it as anything but an annoyance if there's nothing around that immediately needs shooting. Barrying a coherent purpose that is likely to have some desireable effect, I'll do my protesting with just a nice comfortable pistol.
-
I'm not sure if this is a *good* reason but at least it *is* a reason. Thank you for giving it some thought.
We have already provided a very good reason. If you don't understand it, I'm sorry. Hope you catch up someday.
Carrying long guns around is a pain, barring some high-percentage likelihood of use I will, for the rest of my adult life, prefer to leave it in my car at best.
I spent far too long hauling a rifle around professionally to view it as anything but an annoyance if there's nothing around that immediately needs shooting.
Word. I'm a little surprised they were toting long guns, but I'm glad they did. The public needs to get over its fear of guns of all kinds, long or short. It was probably a good idea.
-
I still don't really understand why carry long guns at all.
The only reason I can think of is that they attract cameras, other than that... "Because we can?"
To what end, what exact message is having a long gun, loaded or unloaded, supposed to send? Carrying long guns around is a pain in the ass, barring some high-percentage likelihood of use I will, for the rest of my adult life, prefer to leave it in my car at best.
I spent far too long hauling a rifle around professionally to view it as anything but an annoyance if there's nothing around that immediately needs shooting. Barrying a coherent purpose that is likely to have some desireable effect, I'll do my protesting with just a nice comfortable pistol.
Because they look dangerous, project violence and threat and attract cameras and attention. The people carrying them might have different opinions about why they are carrying them (maybe even some good reasons), but those three things are the 'real' message that is sent to the outside world. The quotes like this don't help: "There will be blood, and they can have mine" or, "we will resist" or, "The types of laws and things that [Congress is] shoving down our throat, I'm not O.K. with that. It might come down to where the only way to stop that is to remove them, and they're not going to walk away peacefully".
Yea, yea, no-one is talking about murder or revolution. There are even quotes like, "We don't mean anyone is going to get shot or blown up."
You get such a mixed message, I'm still not sure what the motivation behind these things really is. It certainly isn't just about gun rights. To your average urban resident though the message is probably pretty clear.
----
To me, carrying a long gun is about thinking you might need a long gun. When do you carry a long gun? Hunting, warzones, protection from large animals, target shooting, serious self defense, guarding sensitive areas, protecting VIPs, and political rallies. To me, one of those things is not like the others.
I don't have much else to say though, I've made my point as best I can. If people can rationalize carrying long arms to a political protest, fine. Just be aware of the message you are sending because it might not be the message you intend.
-
Well, carry a pitchfork then :P
-
Because they look dangerous, project violence and threat...
That is exactly what many people would say about side-arms, and it is precisely the misconception that needs to be countered. Hence the peaceful demonstrations with long guns.
and attract cameras and attention.
Which is a very good thing for the success of the rally, and of your gun rights Constitutionally-protected human rights.
You get such a mixed message, I'm still not sure what the motivation behind these things really is. It certainly isn't just about gun rights. To your average urban resident though the message is probably pretty clear.
Yeah, you're right. It's a Klan rally. ;/ If you've got something to say, you can say it. We're all adults here; just say what you mean.
To me, carrying a long gun is about thinking you might need a long gun. When do you carry a long gun? Hunting, warzones, protection from large animals, target shooting, serious self defense, guarding sensitive areas, protecting VIPs, and political rallies that specifically address the right to keep and bear arms.
Fixed that for you. You're welcome.
-
Fixed that for you. You're welcome.
True. However, many of the quotes make it clear that they were not at the rally purely for those issues and that is more my point.
It would make more sense of there was any large gun debate right now, but there isn't. I doubt there will be any time soon unless something dramatic happens to give anti's a boost.
-
God forbid gun guys should have any other issues on their minds!!
Yeah, obviously, they should have all been giving talking points for the media. That would have been a good idea.
It would make more sense of there was any large gun debate right now, but there isn't.
Maybe they're trying to start one. Ever think of that? Given the growth of CCW, the Heller decision, National Park carry, and a third state going Vermont carry just recently, the momentum is in our favor. Strike while the iron is hot, as they say.
But anyway, where were you back in the day, to tell MLK & friends when to demonstrate? I'm sure they could have really used your help.
-
God forbid gun guys should have any other issues on their minds!!
Yeah, obviously, they should have all been giving talking points for the media. That would have been a good idea.
Maybe they're trying to start one. Ever think of that? Given the growth of CCW, the Heller decision, National Park carry, and a third state going Vermont carry just recently, the momentum is in our favor. Strike while the iron is hot, as they say.
But anyway, where were you back in the day, to tell MLK & friends when to demonstrate? I'm sure they could have really used your help.
I probably wouldn't have told them to carry guns =)
-
Come on folks, can we not play nice here?
What was the message of the rally? "Restore the Constitution." We made an VERY effective statement to that effect and the guns, longarms included, were part of that message. After all, the 2nd Amendment IS part of the Constitution and it IS being infringed upon in many quarters.
As to the trust issue, I repeat that no one was FORCED to follow the longarms guidelines. Skidmark, if that was the reason you stayed away, you needn't have. We would have welcomed you.
However, the safety requests made EVERYONE more comfortable.
-
I probably wouldn't have told them to carry guns =)
But I hope you do get the point. I was not just taking a swipe at you. The right to bear arms is like the right to vote, or to ride anywhere on the bus you want to. Our right to bear is currently being infringed in most parts of the country, in various ways. There's something very wrong when you're telling people not to be active in pursuing basic human rights.
-
I probably wouldn't have told them to carry guns =)
Might have made it a little harder for the police to issue all those beat-downs....just sayin.....
-
Might have made it a little harder for the police to issue all those beat-downs....just sayin.....
If I recall correctly, the Black Panthers learned that lesson at their rallies.
-
If I recall correctly, the Black Panthers learned that lesson at their rallies.
All of California paid for those lessons in increased gun control and it's taken(ing) 40 years to fix.
Fighting smart is not the same as surrendering. Reading your audience and balancing what you "can" do with the smartest way to actually do it is the way to win. When you're in the minority, playing hardball every time all the time can cost you big time.
-
All of California paid for those lessons in increased gun control and it's taken(ing) 40 years to fix.
Fighting smart is not the same as surrendering. Reading your audience and balancing what you "can" do with the smartest way to actually do it is the way to win. When you're in the minority, playing hardball every time all the time can cost you big time.
Unless you mean "40 years to fix" everywhere else... yeah.
But in California, the legislature is now working to BAN OC, specifically because of the OC demonstrations. And in California, they're unloaded by law already. Although that may be what the OC protesters there want. If OC is banned in CA, CA may have a really hard time under Heller and McDonald/2A incorporation... and the third case working it's way up that I forget the name of right now, that has a lot more to do with the "bearing" part of the 2A.
And judging, at least anecdotally from the statements of anti's... they're very afraid the OC protests are working and "Getting everyone desensitized to having guns on everyone everywhere..."
-
Unless you mean "40 years to fix" everywhere else... yeah.
But in California, the legislature is now working to BAN OC, specifically because of the OC demonstrations. And in California, they're unloaded by law already. Although that may be what the OC protesters there want. If OC is banned in CA, CA may have a really hard time under Heller and McDonald/2A incorporation... and the third case working it's way up that I forget the name of right now, that has a lot more to do with the "bearing" part of the 2A.
And judging, at least anecdotally from the statements of anti's... they're very afraid the OC protests are working and "Getting everyone desensitized to having guns on everyone everywhere..."
The upcoming DC case which may make some form of lawful carry mandatory (in every state with McDonald incorp) is either Palmer or Parker. Whichever one wasn't a co-plaintiff with Heller.
We should get those rulings about the same time.
-
I'd like someone here to define the word "loaded". Are we talking full mag inserted with no round in the chamber or full mag inserted with a round in the chamber and safety on? Just curious. I have no real compunction to lean either way in this discussion. I do agree I'd probably have shown up with my sidearm only because I don't believe I'd feel like lugging a rifle around all day.
If Rev wanted to let me borrow his Uzi to dangle off a lanyard around my neck I'd probably be ok with that. :lol:
-
Either one.
stay safe.
skidmark
-
Hmph, tough call.
-
Please just accept the fact that loaded or unloaded, the possibility exists for a negative spin by the various news media.
Loaded: You are paranoid and you don't trust your fellow gun owners.
Unloaded: You are irresponsible and don't trust yourself.
Personally, I would rather see all unholstered guns unloaded. This is consistent with all manner of gun-related events. Behind the firing line at the range, floor of a gun show, etc.
I blame page 2 of this thread on fistful
-
Personally, I would rather see all unholstered guns unloaded. This is consistent with all manner of gun-related events. Behind the firing line at the range, floor of a gun show, etc.
Kind of the way I'm thinking too. I was wondering if holstered sidearms were also kept unloaded at this event. That I see no reason for.
-
But I hope you do get the point. I was not just taking a swipe at you. The right to bear arms is like the right to vote, or to ride anywhere on the bus you want to. Our right to bear is currently being infringed in most parts of the country, in various ways. There's something very wrong when you're telling people not to be active in pursuing basic human rights.
No, I get that.
Personally, I would rather see all unholstered guns unloaded. This is consistent with all manner of gun-related events. Behind the firing line at the range, floor of a gun show, etc.
That was my only point really, but I get derailed easily.
-
I'm undecided about the wisdom of the in-your-face OC movement. Sunday coming home from the river, I stopped at a Sheetz (mega-minimart) at Rtes 301 and 3, and noticed a guy carrying a Glock in a normal holster on his belt. Thought about striking up a conversation, but I was in a hurry and went about my business selecting salted peanuts and getting on the road again. In line, I watched two youngish women whispering and one pointed to his gun. I watched them as they left ; sure enough, they got into a decrepit minivan from MD.
My point? OC, if noticed by the sheep at all, alarms them. They really don't understand that it's completely legal. Nor do they probably even know that the Second Amendment exists. This being rural Virginia, the 911 dispatcher, or the responding officer, would probably strongly assured them that the man's behavior was completely legal.
How do you think they would respond to some politician (MD or US) who proposed to "remove the threat to public safety caused by reckless VA rednecks who open carry weapons of mass destruction like a Glock!?
Thus my ambivalence. I prefer concealed, thanks.
TC
-
I'm undecided about the wisdom of the in-your-face OC movement. Sunday coming home from the river, I stopped at a Sheetz (mega-minimart) at Rtes 301 and 3, and noticed a guy carrying a Glock in a normal holster on his belt. Thought about striking up a conversation, but I was in a hurry and went about my business selecting salted peanuts and getting on the road again. In line, I watched two youngish women whispering and one pointed to his gun. I watched them as they left ; sure enough, they got into a decrepit minivan from MD.
My point? OC, if noticed by the sheep at all, alarms them. They really don't understand that it's completely legal. Nor do they probably even know that the Second Amendment exists. This being rural Virginia, the 911 dispatcher, or the responding officer, would probably strongly assured them that the man's behavior was completely legal.
How do you think they would respond to some politician (MD or US) who proposed to "remove the threat to public safety caused by reckless VA rednecks who open carry weapons of mass destruction like a Glock!?
Thus my ambivalence. I prefer concealed, thanks.
TC
Here we go again.
You see the sheep becoming skittish and say you prefer to carry discreetly. Then you add in comments about some theoretical politician saying "Save the sheep!" and ask how "the sheep" would react. I don't hear ambivilance - I hear opposition.
In Virginia the default carry option is open carry - discreet carry is an allowed violation of the law if one has bothered to purchase a permit. And for those between 18 and 21 years old, the option to purchase a permit does not exist.
Oh, BTW. Your description of the non-event does not suggest to me that the two young things from the van with Maryland plates were "alarmed". They did notice, but could thing 1 have been saying to thing 2 something along the lines of "See the guy wearing the tupperware in the Fobus holster? He'd be a whole lot more desirable if he was carrying a tricked-out 1911 in a basketweave leather holster"? How is that scenario any less possible than yours suggesting panic and fear?
In closing - How would you please suggest conveying the message to the general public that OC in Virginia is legal, without having the person actually OC?
stay safe.
skidmark
-
Jesus.
Here we go again.
I don't recall having expressed my views before, although I've certainly read all the pro/con views around the various forums and discussion sites, and had several conversations with adults in Virginia that are aware of the issue.
I hear opposition
Seek medical attention. There are hearing aids. My very first sentence: I'm undecided about the wisdom of the in-your-face OC movement.
Oh, BTW. Your description of the non-event does not suggest to me that the two young things from the van with Maryland plates were "alarmed". They did notice, but could thing 1 have been saying to thing 2 something along the lines of "See the guy wearing the tupperware in the Fobus holster? He'd be a whole lot more desirable if he was carrying a tricked-out 1911 in a basketweave leather holster"? How is that scenario any less possible than yours suggesting panic and fear?
All my life I've tried hard to avoid assuming conditions I didn't witness and extrapolating from there. How about you?
In closing - How would you please suggest conveying the message to the general public that OC in Virginia is legal, without having the person actually OC?
I don't claim to know the best answer to that. I'm also not sure I was ever assigned that particular mission.
TC
-
I don't claim to know the best answer to that. I'm also not sure I was ever assigned that particular mission.
[flippant attitude]
Ok...
Leatherneck, I want you to figure out the best way of conveying the message to the general public that OC in Virginia is legal, without having the person actually OC.
Since (IIRC) you work for the government, and I as a citizen am (theoretically) the government's boss, that gives me the authority to assign this mission.
What do ya think: a week be enough time for a preliminary report? :P
[/flippant attitude]
Sorry... some of y'all have been getting too serious. Nothing against you, Leatherneck: your quoted comment sparked my snark is all.
-
For myself...
If you want to do something that is legal where you are, just do it don't make a big deal about it. There's a difference between wearing a gun and going about your normal business and having mass protests to declare you are able to do a legal thing.
It's legal, it isn't going to get "more legal-er". The risk of making it a big deal is that you might lose it if enough PSH arises.
I can see protesting with OC if it is actively at political risk anyway and you want to show it's safe; or if you are trying to get/not lose a CC option as well; or you are at a single-purpose protest for one or another other gun right (so the OC is just one of many).
Where I see it as, at best, a distraction, is when you are protesting a non-associated issue. For instance, I know health care is bad, but it doesn't directly impact gun rights in any way and explaining the overarching similarity of statism to someone not really interested isn't going to effectively happen.
The press certainly isn't going to report the nuance, just the "people with guns at a health care rally", which will probably seem out of place or unnecessary to most uninvolved viewers, particularly if you are in a state where gun rights are more or less solid and safe in the immediate future.
Where's the upside?
They won't clearly see the connection and in any event while they're distracted by your gun they aren't getting your on-point message about the other topic, the one actually being protested about.