Gun owners will be the demise of 2nd Amendment

[The Heretic]

To me, the open carry people running around with military look alike rifles, especially after mass shootings we have had, are like some of the freaks in the gay pride parades.



Just out there for the attention and the shock value.

It does more harm than good.

As I said, just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

 

[pchewn]

To me, the open carry people running around with military look alike rifles, especially after mass shootings we have had, are like some of the freaks in the gay pride parades.


Just out there for the attention and the shock value.

It does more harm than good.

As I said, just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.

And yet, it is WORKING for the gays -- they are gaining acceptance and laws are being changed in their favor.

 

[Norm0931]

And yet, it is WORKING for the gays -- they are gaining acceptance and laws are being changed in their favor.

And yet it is failing miserably for gun owners. Cases in Point:

http://money.cnn.com/2014/07/02/news/companies/guns-target/
<broken link removed>
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/06/01/sonic-chilis-join-restaurants-with-no-guns-policy/

All in the last 3 months...

 

[The Heretic]

And yet, it is WORKING for the gays -- they are gaining acceptance and laws are being changed in their favor.

No - no it is not.

Running around dressed like a drag queen doesn't help their cause.

Do you really think anybody sees a drag queen and thinks "oh, yeah, well, I guess I was all wrong about gay rights"??

The rights of gays are increasingly being respect in *spite* of those actions because there are a lot more people who support them and because they have been very active on other fronts.

The actions of open carry protesters have only alienated other people, including other gun owners.

 

[etrain16]

No - no it is not.

Running around dressed like a drag queen doesn't help their cause.

Do you really think anybody sees a drag queen and thinks "oh, yeah, well, I guess I was all wrong about gay rights"??

The rights of gays are increasingly being respect in *spite* of those actions because there are a lot more people who support them and because they have been very active on other fronts.

The actions of open carry protesters have only alienated other people, including other gun owners.

Agreed. It wasn't sensationalism that gradually changed people's views on the subject. They worked at it for decades, often behind the scenes, making their point to as many as possible, one person at a time if necessary. If you want to change public opinion, you have to get to their hearts and minds.

One thing about the photo above - it may be sensationalism, but I can tell you that none of the people around that person are potentially fearing for their lives. Replace that person with a guy carrying and AR, and at least some people in that crowd are calling 911 thinking there is another mass shooting about to happen. When it comes to guns in public, people are on edge. Yet the OC'ers (specifically the ones that are 'in your face' about it - I take no issue with the folks that quietly carry a pistol on their hip), are all too happy to rub against that edge, increasing fears, getting the police worked up, and gradually changing the hearts and minds of people - against gun ownership.

 

[GrpCapMandrake]

Define needless sensation please. We have children being suspended from school for bringing little toy guns that came with their GIJOE dolls. Pastries such as pop tarts eaten into a shape of a gun are being construed as the same as a real gun in a school cafeteria.



Sadly Group Captain, they do see you as an enemy. They do want to deprive you of your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Your RWR has failed you, check your six. They will report you to the gendarmerie out of fear (needless sensation?) when they see you loading your hunting rifle into the car let alone any evil black rifles you might have. You mentioned California and other states earlier. California if I recall correctly recently completely banned open carry. Why? To get around the supposed loopholes that allowed Californians to open carry pistols, so long as the pistols were not loaded. Those darn chipotle chuckleheads down there made a spectacle of themselves and more legislation happened. Not over AR15s but unloaded pistols openly carried.



Incrementalism in federal gun laws. Give a little here, take a little there and yet its never enough. The ultimate goal is to ban guns. You stated we have to worry about the perceptions of the people who will vote for those representatives who will make more legislation. Your compromise is to play by their rules of perception. They won't play by their rules but they will expect you to play by their rules. Two chuckleheads at a chipotle shouldn't matter when pushing facts.

I used to be more like you in that "I also do not see people with differing opinions as enemies". The past ten years of watching politics have taught me that one cannot rely on a live and let live philosophy in this country anymore. War is politics by other means. Politics is war by other means. Throw "the personal is political" in the mix too.

Ambiguity doesn't scare me Group Captain, society and laws based completely on random feelings or emotions do. You wake up one morning and the church of what's happening now says get on your knees and repent because what you believed in yesterday is evil and wrong. Because we say it is.

Sir I will not define these things for you. I would recommend a dictionary or online resource. Both words are rather common and you should be able to easily find the definition you seek.

I respect your rights to believe what you want to believe. I even thank you for trying to explain your point of view. I, however do not agree with a number of your assumptions and conclusions. There are fringe elements on every side of this the gun rights debate. Then there is a whole host of people in the middle that can easily tip the scale to one side or the other as they make up their minds about the issues. If you feel the OP was wrong and I am wrong in advocating that we all do what we know we should do in being responsible gun owners, then please go do as you see fit sir. If you feel you will win the hearts and minds of the masses by doing as you please without a second thought for your fellow citizens or a thought as to how your actions will be perceived, than please go and do. I hope it will work out for you in the long run, sadly though life experience tells me you will have a rough go of it.

If you feel you will preserve your gun rights, by carrying an AR15 in front of the damn family fun center in Vancouver because you want to educate people that guns are not bad, then go do. Lets me know how that works for you?

However I will choose to lead by example. The example of being, in my opinion, a responsible gun owner. Nothing in that position or action constitutes compromise or support for gun control. It does however mean that when I am on the range safety is first and foremost. It means when I carry a gun or protection, I don't suddenly become deluded into thinking I am teaching the world guns are not evil. It means in my house I have control over every firearm and know where every firearm is at all times. It means that I do not store my guns in a ridiculous fashion. It means I do not engage in shouting matches with anti gun people, because creating a defensive posture among people doesn't give me the chance to get my message across. If you think I sit idly by waiting to kiss the arse of the next Diane Feinstein that comes by in vain hope that she leaves me alone, you are sorely mistaken. I do not apologize for owning guns, I do not apologize for buying them or wanting to buy more. I do not agree with the anti-gun position. I do however feel that we as the actual gun owners can do something very simple and sensible within our own ranks by ensuring two things:

1. We are not turning the hearts and minds of the general public against ourselves with ridiculous actions.
2. We are acting at all times in a responsible fashion.

Though it seems you see those two point as being an infringement of your rights. Nevertheless I rest my case. The jury of time will eventually issue a verdict.

 

[Riot]

Oh, really?
And why is that?

Sorry, on my phone app (TapaTalk) it made it look like you were the one advocating mandatory training to carry and people were responding to your post. My bad

 

[RB87]

Sorry for the late reply. I've enjoyed the debate Mandrake.

No, I don't need a definition of "needless sensation". I provided my own to counter yours. Yes, I too am worried about some open carry protests and the image they push could lead to bad things. I just don't worry about it as much as you do for many reasons. For every "needless sensation" created by folks open carrying scary black rifles (and hunting rifles or shotguns) you have twice or more reactions on the other side like I mentioned with toy guns in schools leading to suspensions. Up thread was posted a right way to protest and a wrong way. Well I hate to break it to people but those clean cut folks holding signs at the protest rally with a shouldered rifle and pistol are still viewed as a threat of force. See here:

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/...n-at-obama-rally-to-support-racism-narrative/


"I do however feel that we as the actual gun owners can do something very simple and sensible within our own ranks by ensuring two things:

1. We are not turning the hearts and minds of the general public against ourselves with ridiculous actions.
2. We are acting at all times in a responsible fashion."

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Why is open carry being pushed so much these days? Reaction to anti-gun laws and attitudes that want to ban them. Reactions to schools calling a toaster strudel eaten into the shape of a gun a threat to safety. Its a reaction to "being honest ruined my life": http://jpfo.org/articles-assd04/kenyon-honesty.htm .

"I do not apologize for owning guns, I do not apologize for buying them or wanting to buy more."

Your opponents who hold different opinions might not leave you alone to your thoughts or desires and might affect your life financially, emotionally and physically.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...book-can-hurt-your-reputation-and-wallet.html

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/07/robert-farago/texas-tech-cheerleader-fire-african-hunts/

"If you think I sit idly by waiting to kiss the arse of the next Diane Feinstein that comes by in vain hope that she leaves me alone, you are sorely mistaken."

"Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in." has already told you her end goal, why worry about imagery? They aren't.

 

[bnsaibum]

...why worry about imagery? They aren't.

Truer words were never spoken.

 

[etrain16]

Truer words were never spoken.

I should think it's fairly obvious - negative imagery about gun owners gets splashed all over the news and leads to the writing of new gun laws. Contrast that with negative imagery on their side, which largely gets swept under the rug. So yeah, negative imagery on our side has a bigger, more negative effect on gun rights than negative imagery has on those trying to take those rights. A simple review of the media should make that obvious. If we don't care about our image, then we feed them all the publicity they need to bring new anti-gun legislation. By and large the media only presents one side, and they are always drooling for videos and photos of gun owners doing something that they can use to generate fear and panic.

 

[Riot]

 

[bnsaibum]

View attachment 95006

Not sure if you are aware, but your photo goes along with another and has some telling info for context.
http://bearingarms.com/three-questions-for-moms-demand-action-about-gun-bullies-in-dallas/

I should think it's fairly obvious - negative imagery about gun owners gets splashed all over the news and leads to the writing of new gun laws. Contrast that with negative imagery on their side, which largely gets swept under the rug. So yeah, negative imagery on our side has a bigger, more negative effect on gun rights than negative imagery has on those trying to take those rights. A simple review of the media should make that obvious. If we don't care about our image, then we feed them all the publicity they need to bring new anti-gun legislation. By and large the media only presents one side, and they are always drooling for videos and photos of gun owners doing something that they can use to generate fear and panic.

So, we should play their game by their rules? Seems like Mark Twain covered that in a pithy quote having to do with arguing with fools. How about we don't and play a different game. One where we use reason and fact with the occasional emotional plea for emphasis like most of us have been doing. It is a far cry from their emotional pleas that are only backed with facts if and when the facts fit their agenda. Most Americans are generally reasonable and most would see that the anti-rights groups have no foundation in reality if we keep doing what we have been doing. Their way is one of instant gratification and because of this they will always need to repeat and escalate, sort of like a drug. Our way is a longer game. We must learn to deal with constantly changing tactics and the continual repackaging of ideas that have been proven ineffectual, but that is part and parcel of this endeavor.

 

[Heywood]

I strongly disagree with the OP.

Soft spoken secret shame firearm owners let us get to this point in the first place.

X 1000
The reason people resort to the "from my cold dead hands" retort is simply because using facts, logic and even meekness has not and will never work with most people who are anti gun. Their dislike for weapons is a product of emotional retardation coupled with anger and sociopathic projection to the point that it is completely an emotional issue. There is no convincing them so we are simply left with courteous warning. Which I think is the neighborly thing to do.
Having said that, these people carrying long guns in to business are going about it all wrong.
Their way of thinking is based on logic from their perspective which just doesn't work with these people and scares others.
Their logic is that it is ok to OC a long gun but not a hand gun in their state and they are trying to prove how asinine the law is.
The logic of OC of a hand gun is that if you cc one and it somehow becomes visible in a non OC state it could be troublesome as has been in the past.
It is also ironic that before cc was ok'd the argument against it from the antis was "how can you trust a man that wants to hide his guns from us and walk around no one the wiser"? My point is I guess, that no matter what tactic you use they will change theirs when they know they are about to lose.

 

[mkwerx]

View attachment 95006

More Texan Tards open carrying with guns in their hands - what's with the jackwagon and the AK kneeling down, run at a ready position. Looks like he's trying to pick out a target - no, there's nothing that makes gun owners look bad there at all, right?

The guys with AR's on their backs aren't quite as bad but as a whole, that group looks like they're preparing for an altercation, a violent altercation, and not a simple counter-protest. Instead of guns - those guys should be carrying signs. Instead of actually looking like bullies - which a lot come off looking like in that picture - they should be trying to look like well adjusted, normal people.

Rubber guns carried in hip holsters would be better to get the message across and not be threatening to the sheep-voters. These idiots likely made more anti-gun voters who will remember in November.

Way to make it tougher for the rest of us again Texas open carry crowd!

 

[Riot]

More Texan Tards open carrying with guns in their hands - what's with the jackwagon and the AK kneeling down, run at a ready position. Looks like he's trying to pick out a target - no, there's nothing that makes gun owners look bad there at all, right?

The guys with AR's on their backs aren't quite as bad but as a whole, that group looks like they're preparing for an altercation, a violent altercation, and not a simple counter-protest. Instead of guns - those guys should be carrying signs. Instead of actually looking like bullies - which a lot come off looking like in that picture - they should be trying to look like well adjusted, normal people.

Rubber guns carried in hip holsters would be better to get the message across and not be threatening to the sheep-voters. These idiots likely made more anti-gun voters who will remember in November.

Way to make it tougher for the rest of us again Texas open carry crowd!

They were posing for a photo...that is all.

Sorry, I thought you all were gun advocates and were knowledgeable about the anti-gun organizations like Moms Demand Action, Everytown, Brady Campaign, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, etc...

 

[etrain16]

So, we should play their game by their rules? Seems like Mark Twain covered that in a pithy quote having to do with arguing with fools. How about we don't and play a different game. One where we use reason and fact with the occasional emotional plea for emphasis like most of us have been doing. It is a far cry from their emotional pleas that are only backed with facts if and when the facts fit their agenda. Most Americans are generally reasonable and most would see that the anti-rights groups have no foundation in reality if we keep doing what we have been doing. Their way is one of instant gratification and because of this they will always need to repeat and escalate, sort of like a drug. Our way is a longer game. We must learn to deal with constantly changing tactics and the continual repackaging of ideas that have been proven ineffectual, but that is part and parcel of this endeavor.

What?? Did you actually read what I wrote? Have you read my comments in the rest of this thread? Where did I say we should play the game by their rules? My point was that we can't play by their rules - because they abuse the rules. If we go out on public displays, particularly ones that can be twisted for their use - like the photo above - it hurts us. Sure there are two sides to that photo - but which one gets splashed across national media outlets? The one that makes it appear that these folks were there to cause trouble. They seem to do just fine doing whatever they want, damn the consequences. When we do that, we get turned into another poster/soundbite for them to use against us.

I think you and I are actually in agreement. We must find a way to convince people from all political spectrums that gun ownership is not just a Republican/Conservative issue - it's an American issue. Regardless of your party affiliation or personal beliefs, you should support the 2nd Amendment. Want to support the 2nd, but don't want to vote for conservatives? Okay, then support the 2nd by telling your liberal buddies to leave it alone. I said it in another thread, tyranny hurts us all. We need to take these folks, one by one, and teach them about how the 2nd amendment helps to protect the very freedom they exercise every day. Once they see that, they may just start to change their minds. However, for those who believe showing up in a big group with AR's is going to win us what we need in the court of public opinion, one need only look at how the media portrays those events, and the ultimate negative outcome it has on our rights.

Ultimately, the only way we can protect our rights is if a majority of Americans stand up and defend them. If we make it a requirement that you have to join a conservative party, you're going to isolate half the country - and we simply can't afford to do that. If you convince more Americans that regardless of political ideals, that they need the 2nd Amendment to remain intact, then maybe, just maybe, we can keep those rights in place.

 

[GrpCapMandrake]

Sorry for the late reply. I've enjoyed the debate Mandrake.
No, I don't need a definition of "needless sensation". I provided my own to counter yours. Yes, I too am worried about some open carry protests and the image they push could lead to bad things. I just don't worry about it as much as you do for many reasons. For every "needless sensation" created by folks open carrying scary black rifles (and hunting rifles or shotguns) you have twice or more reactions on the other side like I mentioned with toy guns in schools leading to suspensions. Up thread was posted a right way to protest and a wrong way. Well I hate to break it to people but those clean cut folks holding signs at the protest rally with a shouldered rifle and pistol are still viewed as a threat of force. See here:
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/08/19/unreal-msnbc-edits-clip-of-man-with-gun-at-obama-rally-to-support-racism-narrative/
"I do however feel that we as the actual gun owners can do something very simple and sensible within our own ranks by ensuring two things:
1. We are not turning the hearts and minds of the general public against ourselves with ridiculous actions.
2. We are acting at all times in a responsible fashion."
Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Why is open carry being pushed so much these days? Reaction to anti-gun laws and attitudes that want to ban them. Reactions to schools calling a toaster strudel eaten into the shape of a gun a threat to safety. Its a reaction to "being honest ruined my life": http://jpfo.org/articles-assd04/kenyon-honesty.htm .
"I do not apologize for owning guns, I do not apologize for buying them or wanting to buy more."
Your opponents who hold different opinions might not leave you alone to your thoughts or desires and might affect your life financially, emotionally and physically.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/10961406/Beware-Facebook-can-hurt-your-reputation-and-wallet.html
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/07/robert-farago/texas-tech-cheerleader-fire-african-hunts/
"If you think I sit idly by waiting to kiss the arse of the next Diane Feinstein that comes by in vain hope that she leaves me alone, you are sorely mistaken."
"Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in." has already told you her end goal, why worry about imagery? They aren't.

I have enjoyed it as well, thanks for participating. Debate and discussion is needed to continually evaluate your position on something to ensure you are where you want and need to be.

I just want to address one part of what you posted. I really don't disagree with what you said, I largely think we are arguing different sides of the same coin.

""Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in." has already told you her end goal, why worry about imagery? They aren't."

I have been thinking on this statement for a while. I keep coming to this idea. There are four types of people in this debate.

1. Those whose philosophy is set in stone. Regardless of the logic, reason or persuasion used, they will not budge from their position. Even when faced with their own hypocrisy they will not see the truth.(Your Diane Feinstein's & Dick Durbin's of the world)

2. Those who like to be told what to think. They vote with the party of choice simply because their parents were (Enter Party Name Here). They have never really questioned their own belief system.

3. Those who don't know what to think. This is kind of like category 1 inasmuch as it never seems to matter what logic, reason or persuasion you throw at them, they are just too damn slow to make a decision. These are the one on election day that still don't know what candidate they will vote for.

4. Those who can think their way out of the paper bag. People who have the ability to look at the given situation, reason through the realities, and even apply some consideration for what will follow.

These four categories exist on each side of the political isle and on each side of every issue known to mankind. The strategies used with each category to get something done has to be slightly different. Group one is, for the most part, a lost cause. However people in group one will need the support of groups 2 & 3 to get their agenda completed. This is where how and what you do will have the most impact. If the Feinstien's and Durbin's of the world do not have the constituent support for their efforts to ban guns, then their cause celeb will have less traction.

In the current reality we live in there is a large portion of the populace that has now started to associate the AR with dead children. This is no different than most people thinking that pitbulls are vicious bloodthirsty killers, even though that conclusion is not really true. So with the AR being associated in such a way, does it make sense to carry one at the family fun center "to teach people guns are safe"? No it doesn't. The immediate reaction by a large group of the people will be one of concern and fear. That will give way to anger and further walls built between them and the desired end goal of learning guns are not creations of Satan. Such activity also helps build the idea that gun owners are irresponsible, self centered, egotistical guys that have a Rambo complex. The same thing happens when an unauthorized person gets a hold of a gun and goes about committing an act of vile evil in society. People begin to ask questions and build walls.

I have heard some variation on this statement though whenever these types of discussions come up.

"A right unused is soon taken away!"

This is a fallacy. A more accurate analysis of the situation is that the vast majority of us have a very short attention span. We are all generally so caught up in the minutiae of our daily lives we do not have time to care about what the rest of the world is doing, at least not in any grand detail. However if our attention is called to something, more important called to something that has a current negative image, people tend to want to make that go away so they can worry only about their lives and not the greater whole of the world.

Therefore a more accurate statement would be, "A right people are generally oblivious too, when employed stupidly for sensationalistic effect, is soon taken away."

Also think about who your constant companion is, regardless of whether or not you like it. The Media. A good portion of this industry has a biased set against you and your "rights". Where do a lot of people get the information they use to make up their minds on an issue? Books? Research? Personal Study? No to all of those. They get it from the sound bites they hear from the news. Sadly a lot of young folks get their information from the Daily Show, Colbert Report, Facebook, Twitter, etc. So if you do something stupid with a gun, you are then the poster child for why gun control is needed.

Therefore, like it or not, you are a representative of this hobby, sport & lifestyle. Like it or not people make decisions based in part on what they see. If someone with an anti-gun opinion drives past one of the authorized shooting sites on Larch Mtn and sees some the asshatery that goes on up there (poor gun handling and loads of trash) their opinion will not change. It will simply ensconce their devotion toward taking away your "rights". We as gun owners are therefore in a position to effect that opinion. By exercising better care and concern, not only for what you want, but also in how you are seen by those around you, will go a long long way in shaping the opinions of those who want to take away your "rights", or those who are trying to decide.

So while I really have no concern to change Feinstein's opinion, I do care about those in groups 2 & 3 because they will have the most impact. The more of them I can get to either question their assumptions or make up their mind that guns are not evil the more secure our "rights" will be.

Not caring what other think is like peeing into the wind. Don't be surprised when you get urine on your shoes.

 

[etrain16]

I have enjoyed it as well, thanks for participating. Debate and discussion is needed to continually evaluate your position on something to ensure you are where you want and need to be.

I just want to address one part of what you posted. I really don't disagree with what you said, I largely think we are arguing different sides of the same coin.

""Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in." has already told you her end goal, why worry about imagery? They aren't."

I have been thinking on this statement for a while. I keep coming to this idea. There are four types of people in this debate.

1. Those whose philosophy is set in stone. Regardless of the logic, reason or persuasion used, they will not budge from their position. Even when faced with their own hypocrisy they will not see the truth.(Your Diane Feinstein's & Dick Durbin's of the world)

2. Those who like to be told what to think. They vote with the party of choice simply because their parents were (Enter Party Name Here). They have never really questioned their own belief system.

3. Those who don't know what to think. This is kind of like category 1 inasmuch as it never seems to matter what logic, reason or persuasion you throw at them, they are just too damn slow to make a decision. These are the one on election day that still don't know what candidate they will vote for.

4. Those who can think their way out of the paper bag. People who have the ability to look at the given situation, reason through the realities, and even apply some consideration for what will follow.

These four categories exist on each side of the political isle and on each side of every issue known to mankind. The strategies used with each category to get something done has to be slightly different. Group one is, for the most part, a lost cause. However people in group one will need the support of groups 2 & 3 to get their agenda completed. This is where how and what you do will have the most impact. If the Feinstien's and Durbin's of the world do not have the constituent support for their efforts to ban guns, then their cause celeb will have less traction.

In the current reality we live in there is a large portion of the populace that has now started to associate the AR with dead children. This is no different than most people thinking that pitbulls are vicious bloodthirsty killers, even though that conclusion is not really true. So with the AR being associated in such a way, does it make sense to carry one at the family fun center "to teach people guns are safe"? No it doesn't. The immediate reaction by a large group of the people will be one of concern and fear. That will give way to anger and further walls built between them and the desired end goal of learning guns are not creations of Satan. Such activity also helps build the idea that gun owners are irresponsible, self centered, egotistical guys that have a Rambo complex. The same thing happens when an unauthorized person gets a hold of a gun and goes about committing an act of vile evil in society. People begin to ask questions and build walls.

I have heard some variation on this statement though whenever these types of discussions come up.

"A right unused is soon taken away!"

This is a fallacy. A more accurate analysis of the situation is that the vast majority of us have a very short attention span. We are all generally so caught up in the minutiae of our daily lives we do not have time to care about what the rest of the world is doing, at least not in any grand detail. However if our attention is called to something, more important called to something that has a current negative image, people tend to want to make that go away so they can worry only about their lives and not the greater whole of the world.

Therefore a more accurate statement would be, "A right people are generally oblivious too, when employed stupidly for sensationalistic effect, is soon taken away."

Also think about who your constant companion is, regardless of whether or not you like it. The Media. A good portion of this industry has a biased set against you and your "rights". Where do a lot of people get the information they use to make up their minds on an issue? Books? Research? Personal Study? No to all of those. They get it from the sound bites they hear from the news. Sadly a lot of young folks get their information from the Daily Show, Colbert Report, Facebook, Twitter, etc. So if you do something stupid with a gun, you are then the poster child for why gun control is needed.

Therefore, like it or not, you are a representative of this hobby, sport & lifestyle. Like it or not people make decisions based in part on what they see. If someone with an anti-gun opinion drives past one of the authorized shooting sites on Larch Mtn and sees some the asshatery that goes on up there (poor gun handling and loads of trash) their opinion will not change. It will simply ensconce their devotion toward taking away your "rights". We as gun owners are therefore in a position to effect that opinion. By exercising better care and concern, not only for what you want, but also in how you are seen by those around you, will go a long long way in shaping the opinions of those who want to take away your "rights", or those who are trying to decide.

So while I really have no concern to change Feinstein's opinion, I do care about those in groups 2 & 3 because they will have the most impact. The more of them I can get to either question their assumptions or make up their mind that guns are not evil the more secure our "rights" will be.

Not caring what other think is like peeing into the wind. Don't be surprised when you get urine on your shoes.

Nicely stated. I try as often as possible to be a #4 myself.

 

[mkwerx]

They were posing for a photo...that is all.

Sorry, I thought you all were gun advocates and were knowledgeable about the anti-gun organizations like Moms Demand Action, Everytown, Brady Campaign, Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, etc...

Quite aware of MDA, Everytown, etc. Doesn't change the fact that, even if they were just posing for a photo - they come off looking as thugs and bullies looking for a fight - and the guy with the AK looks like he's getting ready to take aim. That is NOT what we need as gun owners or civil rights advocates. Anyone looking at that photo by itself will say that those guys are ready to fight. When they learn that these are "pro gun protestors" counter-protesting a Moms Demand Action event - they look even worse. A bunch of unarmed women and "sensitive" men gathered to spout anti-gun rhetoric, being met by a bunch of guys packing rifles who decide that they need hands on those rifles.

If these guys were posing for a photo - the rifles should have all been slung on their shoulders or around their backs. Such carry methods are less threatening than some doofus with two hands on his rifle with it aiming at god knows what - at the very least that picture demonstrates poor muzzle discipline, and could be construed as showing ill intent.

IMAGE is a lot in today's world. Gun owners will be portrayed as poorly as possible by the media - we don't need to help them make us look bad.

 

[Gunguy45]

I'd say more like only 85% of gun owners are responsible from what I see when I go out shooting in the woods. I'm not just talking trash but shot up signs and unsafe places people have been target practicing in. Also the many "accidental" discharges in the news and loaded guns left laying about around young kids.

Add to that the in your face open carry in non traditional places like fast food joints etc. and we gun owners are getting too much bad attention. Save the open carry in urban areas for when it's needed like after a big disaster when the looters and bad guys are about!

With all the bad media attn. lately the "Don't tread on me" attitude should be saved for the gun grabbing Politicians.
The non gun owning public will have to be won over by other means. Start a conversation on normalcy bias or WOROL, SHTF. Direct them to a youtube vid of a brutal home invasion of an unarmed woman and child.
Show them some Chicago crime stats where gun restrictions are tight. This will change their minds faster than a guy with an AR walking into a Mcdonalds ordering a Big Mac!

I agree that the idiots walking around with long guns (which serve no useful defensive purpose) at Starbucks or wherever are asshats looking for attention.

I completely disagree when it comes to holstered handguns.

If the average citizen goes into panty-peeing hysterics that I have a gun openly on my hip, then I expect those same hysterics when it comes to police, who do exactly the same thing for exactly the same reasons. But the cops (Who kill a lot more innocents than CCW-holders by WIDE margins) aren't even worthy of notice. Nope, it's some panty-waist who thinks the very fact that he can SEE a gun is a threat.

Sorry, there's no cure for that person. They are mentally ill, Immune to fact, logic and history.

For the REST of the citizenry, "the 99%" as some folks like to call it, it's just not a big deal.

As for shot up signs etc? How many signs can I shoot up on ONE drunken evening? How long will those signs stay up, full of bullet holes? The answers is of course, "lots" and "lots."

It only takes one idiot. Something like 80 million gun owners means that quite a few people will be idiots. It's not guns, it's MATH.

However, I agree with you on the long-guns.

If you look like you're patrolling Fallujah as you walk through the isles of Walmart, I'm going to approach you. I'm going to be rather rude and confrontational because you're being an asshat and endangering my rights by making SANE people think we're on the same side.

Just so ya know O/C rifle-carrier, we're not. You're a jerkwad trying to get his 15 minutes of fame on Youtube. I'm just a guy buying bread and milk. Don't even TRY to tell me it's the same thing. You aren't bearing arms, you're intentionally causing a public disturbance.

Anyone who has any idea of how to fight can make your long-gun useless in about the 1st 1/2 second of your fight. -Hope you know how to actually FIGHT, cause otherwise you're going to get you $1000 AR taken from you and used to beat you a new bubblegum.

The same thing CANNOT be said of a handgun, because by its very nature, it's made to be fired one-handed. Feel free to show me the litany of "gun-grabs" from civilians. Or, for that matter, from cops. Who's JOB it is to chase down fleeing suspects and capture them. (which very definitely isn't MY job).

So ya, the O/C long-gun guys need to go back to their mother's basement and STFU. Because they're hurting us grownups.

That does not apply to the tens of thousands of people (including me) who O/C a holstered pistol every day. I'm carrying my gun O/C instead of CC for convenience and because I want the next Trayvon Martin to take one look at me and walk away, not decide to try his luck.

The O/C Rifle guys are trying to "normalize" something that will NEVER, EVER be normal: Carrying your AR with you everywhere. That's not EVER gonna be normal. If you think it is, you're either too stupid to pound sand or mentally ill.