Men tote assault rifles at Obama event in Arizona!

[Jamie6.5]

I think what this boils down to is a matter of perception. 2 of them to be exact.

One side feels they have a right to exercise their right to carry. I would agree.

The 2nd feels they have a right to not feel threatened (or have their president threatened) by a "gun toting redneck."

It's similar to the case of the guy shooting moles beside the highway.

The media and the anti gunners have demonized firearms to the point that some people feel threatened by the mere presence of a gun. The fact of the matter is, there is no threat, and the media needs to be reminded of that. The public needs to be educated along those lines. Apparently some here need it too! Stop bowing and giving knee jerk reactions to misperceptions!

THAT is what needs to be changed. Now you can OC half your life in a state where it's legal and you probably won't get any press. If you want to make an impact on peoples perception of gun owners then this is the place. These venues are the perfect place to show the public that a gun in the hands of a law abiding citizen is perfectly safe, as is the person carrying it. Despite what the press is saying, no one was hurt, no one was killed. As a matter of fact the prez was probably more safe because of extra firepower available to stop an assassin.

"Nevermind that there's a 330lb linebacker type skinhead whack job in the crowd that forgot to take his meds, and is carrying a noose. There's a guy over there with a gun!"

We have to restore the image of the gun as a tool. Innocuous in and of itself. The more the public is exposed to guns in a non violent way the better,...
As long as the people interviewed point that out. An impromptu opinion poll taken in public is not the place to start hollering about carry rights. When to opportunity presents itself, we have to stop responding to anti gun hysteria with our own defensive paranoia.
When and if a reporter stops and asks you what you think about it, just shrug and say "yeah, so?" If they take it further, then calmly explain the fact that guns in the hands of responsible people is a good thing, making clear to the reporter that it's a non-issue.

Just my TARP adjusted $.0724

 

[cameronhu]

I think what this boils down to is a matter of perception. 2 of them to be exact.

One side feels they have a right to exercise their right to carry. I would agree.

The 2nd feels they have a right to not feel threatened (or have their president threatened) by a "gun toting redneck."

I hear what you're saying here, but I think there are varying degrees of this perception. The two sides definitely exist, but I believe there are a lot of people who are spread out in the middle.

...we have to stop responding to anti gun hysteria with our own defensive paranoia.

Very well put.

 

[treemanx]

Very good points Jamie6.5! you did a great job explaining that, and I totally agree! Thanks!

 

[Mutoman]

I second that!

My only point is that I don't want my president shot; I don't care whether I agree with what the president is doing, I'd rather see him voted out than assassinated. :gun18:

Ultimately, I should see it from the perception of the Secret Service; if they didn't see it as a threat, I really shouldn't. A guy carrying an AR in the open is probably less likely to be a threat than the guy who has a pistol shoved down the front of his pants.

I anticipate the day when we can all carry our firearms in the open without offending someone; I believe that this should be accomplished with caution and that everyone showing up at the president's doorstep locked and loaded is a risky way to begin. As a gun owner and proponent of open carry, I believe we should begin with making our neighbors comfortable with guns, then our community, then our state, then our government, and finally, if at all possible our media.

I'm just from the old school of thought, nobody is won over in a day and good things come from hard work, not overzealous expression. Of course with great risk comes great reward.

 

[CEF1959]

I've honestly got really mixed feelings about this...

From a PR standpoint - it's confrontational. Those opposed to the Second Amendment are going to try to use it against us.

From a fundamental standpoint - if the right to keep and bear arms is an "inalienable right" - then why can it be suspended because of who is passing by?

I think this is an excellent point, and I too agree that it's a question worth thinking about. We shouldn't be cowed into behaving as we are illegitimately expected to behave. But tactically we have to think about what will further the cause of 2A rights the most. I don't want us to shoot ourselves in the foot just to make a point. And if you are only talking to strong pro-gun advocates, you aren't getting the full picture about what hurts or helps. There's a certain "bubblegum 'em. I got my rights" attitude that probably is effective with those already fully committed, but less effective in trying to protect gun rights from ugly restrictions.

 

[westernsky20]

I just watched video on this form the Hard Ball with Chris Mathews. what that guy did to the pro gun advacate was shameful and I would have came to the same conclusion if I was not pro gun. I usualy don't get up set about debates but he did to this guy was just wrong.

 

[BlvdKing]

I have mixed emotions about open carry anyway and am really torn about open carry at a Presidential speech.

 

[swoop]

Well I was half right on this. It wasn't a BS trick by the BHO team, it was the Ron Paul team that got ya. This was a set up by Ernest Hancock and Chris, the black guy with the AR-15 both Ron Paul supporters. They run a talk show down there..cops were in on it?

 

[swoop]

Hancock has a online radio show and is the one who interviewed Chris his buddy with the AR-15. Ron Paul supporters? What are they trying to prove? Check it out on Free Republic.

 

[Monkeyman]

Very interesting post on the White House's response:

http://www.alphecca.com/?p=1666

 

[el gringo loco]

I think that a lot of people who support the open carry of firearms at this healthcare rally are viewing the incident through a pro-gun, pro second amendment, anti-Obama (or at least anti-Obama healthcare) lens. The problem is that not every gun owner or supporter of gun rights is necessarily against healthcare and not every gun owner is as committed to gun rights as some of us are. Strategically, I don't think it is wise to mix issues. We risk losing support because of divided loyalties to two separate causes. The pool of people who support gun rights is larger than the pool of people who support gun rights AND are anti-health care reform.

There are those that could care less what laws are passed as long as they keep their shotgun and their old .22 Marlin. There are folks that believe that we should all have the right to bear arms and then turn around and support "common sense" gun restrictions. We walk a fine line with a lot of the population. While the NRA can do a poll that says 83% of all Americans support the individual right to bear arms, I question how many of those truly share the same view of the 2nd Amendment. There are those on this site that would already argue that many existing gun laws violate the Constitution, and yet the Supreme Court and a large portion of the public would disagree. We can argue that it is an inalienable right until we are blue in the face, but that argument is academic and not how the law has been practically applied.

One only needs to look at the recently expired Assault Weapons Ban to look for examples of how public perception can be swayed and pro-gun folks (ie. Bill Ruger and the 1994 Crime Bill) can assist the enemy with anti-gun legislation. The American public was convinced that the ability to put a pointy object on a rifle made it vastly more dangerous and that a pistol grip made a gun infinitely more deadly. The Brady campaign used the fact that the public did not understand the difference between automatic weapons and semi-automatic weapons or that black plastic stocks do not make a gun any more or less dangerous than a wood stock, to pass a restrictive bill. Many of the supporters of this bill would consider themselves supporters of gun rights if asked, and yet they considered this bill a "reasonable restriction."

BOTTOM LINE: I worry that new gun restrictions are going to become a self fulfilling prophecy if this behavior continues. Do these people have a right to open carry? Yes. Is it wise? Not in this context. It reminds me of the anti-war protesters and the critical mass bicycle riders we get in Portland. Some of these folks believe that the best way to convince people of the worthiness of their cause is to block traffic, take over bridges, spit on passing cars, and vandalize businesses. I believe that the 5% of people who engage in DIRECT ACTION, in your face protesting, tend to diminish the message of the other 95% who respectfully voice their opinions. Right or Wrong--a lot of people see open carry as an in your face threatening form of protest and are put off by it.

 

[NWSteve]

Well...going back to this threads original post and second post without diving in to all this other stuff...the man that was being reported as racist/gun toter on MSNBC was in fact an African American. Funny how the reports on all the major networks never show his face or skin...

http://www.breitbart.tv/did-msnbc-edit-video-of-man-with-rifle-at-obama-event-to-hide-his-race/

 

[finch6013]

I like the fact that he looks like a respectable person an not a crazy gun crazed red neck.
That is what I pictured when I seen this thread. Still I think that open carry has no place at an event like this. It brings too much negative attention.

 

[swoop]

Well...going back to this threads original post and second post without diving in to all this other stuff...the man that was being reported as racist/gun toter on MSNBC was in fact an African American. Funny how the reports on all the major networks never show his face or skin...

http://www.breitbart.tv/did-msnbc-edit-video-of-man-with-rifle-at-obama-event-to-hide-his-race/

If you check out my posts #69 and #70 you will see that this wasn't a for real deal. The black guy and the interviewer, who is a radio jock of sort are buds and Ron Paul guys. They, with the help of the cops set up this whole sham. The real question is why. It did however fire up some of the guys here on the forum, and made for some good debate.

 

[NWSteve]

If you check out my posts #69 and #70 you will see that this wasn't a for real deal. The black guy and the interviewer, who is a radio jock of sort are buds and Ron Paul guys. They, with the help of the cops set up this whole sham. The real question is why. It did however fire up some of the guys here on the forum, and made for some good debate.

I understand what you are saying and agree. However, my point was in the fact that the mainstream media used it in the manner they did i.e. the video I posted. And started to pull the race card out as they went on. The fact that it was all rigged is irrelevant to how some media outlets reported on it.

 

[swoop]

I understand what you are saying and agree. However, my point was in the fact that the mainstream media used it in the manner they did i.e. the video I posted. And started to pull the race card out as they went on. The fact that it was all rigged is irrelevant to how some media outlets reported on it.

Agreed, they are just following in the footsteps of the man they helped put in office. The fact that it was rigged could be relevant depending on why. Maybe some one wanted the media to have the chance to show a AR-15.. terrible black gun at a protest where the Pres. was speaking. You can count on the race card being played by media, the Pres. has played it himself.

 

[treemanx]

Man, interesting turn of events here. Thanks for everyone who has posted on the new developments and given their opinions. I, though, still stand by my original view. I would love to see a future in America where pictures could be taken in our local stores like the one posted earlier in a Switzerland store. Where people are not terrified if they see someone open carrying. I think the more lawful, open carry exposure ANYWHERE is a step on the right path.

 

[unionguy]

I'm sure I'll catch flak here for this...but I think stuff is really a problem. Let's be honest for a second--if hundreds of union people were rallying with a few dozen toting rifles or handguns, i think the reaction on this forum would be very different. Or, what if it was a rally of (insert the group you dislike), would you still be saying "it's cool they brought guns to show their 2nd Amendment rights? Open carried guns do not have a place at a political demonstration (unless it was a specific 2nd Amendment Rights Rally).

Also...I agree with others who have stated...this is a bad political strategy for us. It won't win voters or allies to our cause.

 

[treemanx]

Also...I agree with others who have stated...this is a bad political strategy for us. It won't win voters or allies to our cause.

And what will? Nothing, IMO. I dont believe there are many people in the US who are "on the fence" so to speak on this issue. Most if not ALL the voices heard in regards to this topic have already made their mind up one way or the other. I can see not doing anything to make opponents take a more agressive stance, but not at the cost of the few rights I have left. The people who make gun owners look bad are those who choose to commit crimes with them.

This would be somewhat similar to saying, "I'd better not consealed carry anymore, because if my coat flipped up on accident and my weapon was exposed to someone who didnt like it, that may inspire anti-gunnies to fight harder to take away my rights." Isnt it?

I get the point being that it was at a rally for health care (not 2A rights), and the President was there. SO what? No fear of liberal retribution will stop me from using my rights to their full extent.

 

[unionguy]

I disagree with you as to "few are on the fence". Just in the last year I've taken about a half-dozen new shooters out. Every single one left with a much more positive opinion of firearms (they ALL had fun) and it gave me a chance to talk to them about the 2nd Amendment and why I'm a proud firearm owner. They all left with a better view on our issue. At least half of them would be called "died in the wool" liberals too. So, I think we do have work to do here that is positive.

Your example about concealed carry is a stretch, to me. You describe an accidental showing as opposed to an open carry at a public event...very different. I'm not saying you can't use your rights, I'm just saying why I disagree with doing so in this context.