How I damaged gun rights today

[SteveM4A1]

What has this foolishness brought about?

Well it sure didn't help our cause.

Also, as I believe it has already been pointed out, judging OCT based upon false and bad journalism isn't helping "our" cause.

Regarding the Jack in the Box incident, nobody hid in the freezer. Open Carry Texas helps debunk story that ?terrified? Jack in the Box employees locked themselves in freezer | Twitchy

And we all know Starbucks and Chipotle have not banned guns.

MDA spreads disinformation through the media, and there are those who blame OCT for hurting gun owners' reputations? Not everyone wants to CC their firearm, and all of you bashing those who wish to OC or even OC a long gun are not helping "our" cause. If you want to help, reach out to OCT and offer them suggestions on how they can improve, give them donations, etc.

 

[rhino]

The count is now 102!

 

[Redhorse]

I'll play.

I went back to Lowes today. I had gone on Friday to check on appliances. This morning I went back with my beautiful 5-year-old daughter in tow and my SR1911 once again on my hip. (The 1911 may and/or may not be a product of a 35-47-11.1 lawsuit that advanced gun rights in Indiana. I'll let you wonder about it.)

At any rate, I spoke with a polite associate. He was very apologetic for being terribly busy, as when I arrived he was already on the phone trying to track down the status of a special order. I was very gracious.

Partway through, an announcement came over the loudspeaker for a meeting to take place in the appliance department of all associates who weren't currently with customers. It sounded to me like a normal Monday morning pep talk-Here's what's going on this week, keep an eye on such & such areas' stock levels because they're selling fast right now, etc.

As the associates (about 8-10 of them) trickled back, one youngish-looking guy stopped near me and commented apologetically that they were about to surround me for their morning meeting. I smiled and said "I don't mind, as long as you're friendly." He smiled back and agreed.

I also checked out at the register and walked through the gardening area to look at flowers with my daughter.

If you think that a clean, neatly dressed, polite guy in cargo shorts and a polo shirt, with his 5-year-old daughter, carrying a 1911, politely going about his business, is a set back for gun rights, then the problem is yours, not mine.


Oh yeah, my daughter was openly carrying a stuffed bunny the entire time. I guess we set back bunny rights as well.

Well that was an unexpected ending. I figured you were leading up to an ending where the associates told you to leave or the cops got called, you know, something along that lines. Be careful, MDA is gonna hit Lowes now.

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

Apparently, Shannie Watts, Mayor Doomberg and the anti's have defeated some of us here on INGO.

They see the opportunity to divide us and you have fallen into their trap.

Not one of these eating establishments have banned anything. Gun legislation, save for a couple of insane moves by legislatures, are expanding. We are winning and we aren't winning by hiding our views, our voices or our guns. We are winning because we are right.

If popularity is your "cause" then so be it. Freedom; natural, God given right to defend myself, that's my cause.

 

[88GT]

I have watched this thread. Not really different from the others. But it is morphing a tad because we're talking about private property rights that have always existed. We haven't lost a thing from OCing. Those stores have always had the authority and power to put the kabosh on it. (And now would be a good time to remind some of you that a few of them haven't actually changed their policy.) So all this hand-wringing about the end of gun rights is one giant straw man.

Really, how does a group (or just one) carrying long guns to a store help our cause? cce1302, do you have an answer or am I asking an inane question? How does this logic work and can you or anyone give a common sense answer to such an asinine action?

Let me re-post something from this thread with some, um, editing:

Blacks are not the voting majority. The more blacks draw unfavorable attention to themselves the greater the risk that the majority with become less tolerant. We are seeing that with the backlash to the various sit-in/civil rights events.

Case in point. In many states it is fully legal for a black man to be served next to a white man. Legal and Constitutional yes but it is still a very bad idea. Doing so WILL NOT make the non-blacks become more comfortable with blacks at counters but it certainly will fuel a movement to eliminate ALL blacks from shared public places with whites.

\Not every black is smart enough to know his place. Those that do are great. Uppity blacks are a bad thing. IMHO it is highly irresponsible to allow blacks and *******-lovers to pretend that blacks are truly equal.

One more example. A black man can legally <insert action of choice here> but how many really believe a <insert string of insulting put-downs> <insert racial epithet> is a good image for society?

Where do you think blacks in this country would have been had they followed your advice to keep things hidden and not rock the boat? There hasn't been a single "right" in this country that has been "won" that wasn't shoved in the faces of the unwilling public. Every social change was achieved through blatant in-your-face here-take-that demonstration. So while you want us to sit back quietly, the "enemy" is parading his position and talking points to the public. Haven't you heard of the squeaky wheel getting the grease?

If a man has a right to do something, he doesn't need a reason to do it. I can't think of a time when being free and behaving such has ever been a bad thing.

This is about freedom. Either you support it for all, or you become an apologist for tyranny.

Neh, It's all arrogance on my part! Of course it just might have something to do with my concern with the future, which it's doubtful I'll be a part of.

Let's say you're right. If tomorrow every business in America closed its doors to firearms, what then?

 

[jcwit]

Let's say you're right. If tomorrow every business in America closed its doors to firearms, what then?

You just don't get it. Its not about the stores banning firearms of any kind. Its about the fools traipsing around with long guns "because they can", there by giving a bad rep. to all the rest of us to many people, especially those who are on the fence. An AK or an M16 have no place in a shopping center, to think otherwise is plain foolishness.

I realize this is hard to understand, its somewhat the same as those laughable pics folks post about the idiots who are shopping at WalMart, in that case its funny, in our case it is far from funny.

One is what they project to the public. Would you trust a lawyer dressed in ghetto garb?

Well maybe you would, but then I'd want one dressed in a suit.

 

[cce1302]

You just don't get it. Its not about the stores banning firearms of any kind. Its about the fools traipsing around with long guns "because they can", there by giving a bad rep. to all the rest of us to many people, especially those who are on the fence. An AK or an M16 have no place in a shopping center, to think otherwise is plain foolishness.

I realize this is hard to understand, its somewhat the same as those laughable pics folks post about the idiots who are shopping at WalMart, in that case its funny, in our case it is far from funny.

One is what they project to the public. Would you trust a lawyer dressed in ghetto garb?

Well maybe you would, but then I'd want one dressed in a suit.

You sound just like the people who told me handguns have no place in a polling station.

My lawyer disagrees.

And I don't care if he wears pajamas.

 

[88GT]

You just don't get it. Its not about the stores banning firearms of any kind.

Then what are you *****ing about?

Its about the fools traipsing around with long guns "because they can",

Oh, you like to control the behavior of other people, and if it doesn't conform to your idea of acceptable, you call them names and belittle them. Well, firearms gives you plenty of targets, doesn't it?

there by giving a bad rep. to all the rest of us to many people,

No, I don't see it. I haven't come across a whole lot of people who were fine with handguns but drew the line at long guns. It's usually an all-or-nothing dislike for firearms.

especially those who are on the fence.

I suppose it hasn't occurred to you that it might also wake up some fence-sitters to the concept of a free country. Sometimes exposure to freedom has the funny result of making people want to be free.

An AK or an M16 have no place in a shopping center, to think otherwise is plain foolishness.

Why not? Without your emotional rationalization. I suppose it never occurred to you that there's no logical reason a long gun shouldn't be carried and it's the act of treating someone who carries one like a leper that has created an irrational idea that there are places they don't belong. I submit that you are perpetuating the fear of long guns by continually credibl-izing (yeah, I think I just made up a word) the fear people have of them.

I realize this is hard to understand, its somewhat the same as those laughable pics folks post about the idiots who are shopping at WalMart, in that case its funny, in our case it is far from funny.

It's not hard to understand: your idea of freedom is to accept only those actions that conform to your idea of acceptable.

One is what they project to the public. Would you trust a lawyer dressed in ghetto garb?

Well maybe you would, but then I'd want one dressed in a suit.

Whether I did or didn't, I wouldn't base my opinion on all lawyers by his behavior. I see your point, but the analogy is a poor one. And since being a lawyer isn't criminal, I wouldn't care.

 

[OWGEM]

It's not hard to understand: your idea of freedom is to accept only those actions that conform to your idea of acceptable.

Hum, that works both ways now doesn't?

 

[88GT]

Hum, that works both ways now doesn't?

There is nothing in my position that seeks to control how other people think or behave. So, no, it doesn't work both ways.

 

[Redhorse]

Go back to post 87 and check it out for starters.

At present we have gained on the legislation front. But in public opinion we are loosing, and in the end that is what we must win, and running around with long guns in fast food establishments and retail stores is not going to accomplish gaining in public opinion. To think otherwise is pure folly.

He makes a point about public opinion you know. If the public looks unfavorably on gun owners, they're more likely to vote for candidates who support more gun control because they either won't care about their position on guns or they will care and thus cast their vote because of such. And by the way, I could care less if any of you get all upset because I'm agreeing with this guy when you don't because this is an Internet forum and we're all safe behind our keyboards. Don't forget all of this is virtual and not real.

 

[Redhorse]

From what I've gathered from people around me, A LOT of citizens who aren't concerned with gun rights or gun control (thus neutral in the entire debate) were uncomfortable about the whole open carry rifle thing. Personally, I could care less either way but I can't help but make this observation from people I noticed.

 

[ShootnCut]

There is nothing in my position that seeks to control how other people think or behave. So, no, it doesn't work both ways.

Of course there is. The fact that you dispute every single sentence in every post that doesn't agree with your opinion is a perfect example. Walking into a crowded restaurant with an AR15 when it's clear what people's reaction is going to be and then criticizing them for what they think and how they behave is doing just that. And yet you support that very behavior. So constantly debating with everyone who disagrees with you, telling them why they're wrong, and then innocently saying you don't seek to control how they think or behave is laughable.
What I also find laughable is the fact that while the federal government is seeking to use mental health as a backdoor tactic to disarm people, you proudly post on a public forum a self description of "soulless raving lunatic."

 

[Redhorse]

You guys know this is what they want, right? For us to fight amongst ourselves so we can destroy ourselves?

 

[ATM]

The anti-liberty gun owners never do well in debates here. I'm always amazed that they even wander into topics of freedom and rights expecting their contrary opinions to stand unchallenged, their reasoning (or lack thereof) to go unrefuted.

There are plenty of less contentious general gun topic discussions out there where their opinions or experiences would likely still hold sway as gun owners even if they do harbor some anti sentiments regarding carry preferences or practices.

I'm not complaining, I actually enjoy arguing, but in many examples they seem to really get frustrated and bent out of shape when they fail to advance or support the opinion they tossed into the ring against even the mildest of challenges.

I just have to wonder what they're getting out of the exchange.

 

[rhino]

I just have to wonder what they're getting out of the exchange.

Maybe they're just here to bask in the glow of your presence?

 

[rob63]

From what I've gathered from people around me, A LOT of citizens who aren't concerned with gun rights or gun control (thus neutral in the entire debate) were uncomfortable about the whole open carry rifle thing. Personally, I could care less either way but I can't help but make this observation from people I noticed.

Exactly! I know several people that are not gun owners, but that have always been gun neutral and, in one case, gun positive, that are now openly opposed to open carry of any guns as a result of this nonsense. Hopefully, they haven't taken the time to write their representatives, but they are certainly posting on social media about it. Meanwhile, some on here think they are winning the argument just because other gun owners are too frustrated to keep arguing with them. Sigh...

 

[rhino]

Exactly! I know several people that are not gun owners, but that have always been gun neutral and, in one case, gun positive, that are now openly opposed to open carry of any guns as a result of this nonsense. Hopefully, they haven't taken the time to write their representatives, but they are certainly posting on social media about it. Meanwhile, some on here think they are winning the argument just because other gun owners are too frustrated to keep arguing with them. Sigh...

Are they opposed because of what really happened, or because of what was reported by MDA and repeated by the media as factual and timely?

 

[cce1302]

We're not winning because you're frustrated.


We're winning because you're arguing against liberty.

 

[ShootnCut]

I'm not arguing against liberty, I'm arguing against irresponsible stupidity that's going to cost all of us our liberty.