Judge's advice? Perhaps he needs to reconsider.

[rob63]

Iknowright. History says advocate is rarely enough. It takes attention whore to achieve radical change.

Why would I pee my pants? I am not the one who opposes OCing rifles in public.

The logical fallacy exists in the ridiculous notion that everything is viewed and evaluated through the myopic lens of nothing more than whether or not the individual is OCing, that all OC is equal and no other factors need be considered.

Now I'm just curious. How do you reconcile these 2 quotes? First, you support the guy wearing a bullet-proof vest while handing out leaflets because being an attention whore is necessary to achieve change. Then when I posted a photo of 2 guys wearing tunics you suddenly understand that other factors besides carrying a rifle make a difference in how things are viewed? Which is it, does the appearance you make to the public matter or not?

 

[rob63]

Oh the humanity

I don't see anybody wearing a bullet-proof vest. Why is that?

Why are they gathering in a public street instead of inside the mall?

Could it be that what you wear and where you do it makes a difference in how you are perceived?

The problem with you oc guys is that anytime anyone dares to suggest that the overall appearance you give to the public makes a difference in whether or not you are helping the cause you become all defensive, jump to conclusions, and start making all kinds of stupid accusations.

 

[BugI02]

I'm genuinely curious...he did this while handing out 2A flyers. I'm assuming they're pro-2A flyers and he's doing grass roots campaigning to bring people to our side. On the whole, I wonder, are his efforts swaying people towards our side or turning them away? Will this cause legislators to support legislation that will roll back more gun related laws? Or make them less likely? Will this cause more businesses to decide to post signs to keep us nut jobs out of their stores? I guess we'll (and especially my friends in Tennessee) find out.

I think this is really the crux of the issue. In our heads we don't want to make things worse than they already are. In our hearts we KNOW we shouldn't have to consult an etiquette book before exercizing our constitutional rights. I don't know THE answer I only know an answer, what works for me.

 

[88GT]

Now I'm just curious. How do you reconcile these 2 quotes? First, you support the guy wearing a bullet-proof vest while handing out leaflets because being an attention whore is necessary to achieve change. Then when I posted a photo of 2 guys wearing tunics you suddenly understand that other factors besides carrying a rifle make a difference in how things are viewed? Which is it, does the appearance you make to the public matter or not?

The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I think this is really the crux of the issue. In our heads we don't want to make things worse than they already are. In our hearts we KNOW we shouldn't have to consult an etiquette book before exercizing our constitutional rights. I don't know THE answer I only know an answer, what works for me.

It's probably safe to say that the vast majority of folks that are members on this site support the unfettered, non-infringed, owning and bearing of arms--anywhere, anytime. I view what we're in is a multi-faceted war to roll back the various infringements that have been layered, stacked, and intertwined with one another almost since the BoR's and the Constitution were adopted. In all other struggles, there are always differring theories on how to fight. We've seen it before; there are those that are the direct, in your face types; there are others that are the less direct, more subtle, progressive tacticians.

In my opinion, both have their advantages and points in various battles where one or the other are more effective. We always have to be aware the other side gets to vote too. We'll never achieve our goal(s) by turning more folks against us than we do for us. It's easy pickin's for the anti's to jump on every guy carrying a EBR in public and portray him as a nut-job because it fits the public's perception of what the guy looked like right before he opened fire at Sandy Hook. It's unfortunate but we cannot deny perceived reality among the majority of the public--especially among those that don't care about guns and couldn't care less about the Constitution.

I might be wrong but it seems as though, since the OCT activities, the Starbucks episodes, etc., there is a pre-emptive capitulation among businesses that is going against us. There seems to be a rise in GFZ signs reportedly popping up. Are they related to the news stories and the work of Bloomberg and the Mad Moms? I don't know. But I could easily understand, from a business standpoint, it would be an easy decision to make. There are a lot more people out there that at best, don't care about your gun rights, to those that believe "why do need to bring that in a place like this?", to those that out-right hate all guns and believe you're no better than a pedophlle. (Some of those are gun owners too). This is a disappointing trend and it's one that requires no legislation to enforce.

 

[88GT]

I might be wrong but it seems as though, since the OCT activities, the Starbucks episodes, etc., there is a pre-emptive capitulation among businesses that is going against us. There seems to be a rise in GFZ signs reportedly popping up. Are they related to the news stories and the work of Bloomberg and the Mad Moms? I don't know. But I could easily understand, from a business standpoint, it would be an easy decision to make. There are a lot more people out there that at best, don't care about your gun rights, to those that believe "why do need to bring that in a place like this?", to those that out-right hate all guns and believe you're no better than a pedophlle. (Some of those are gun owners too). This is a disappointing trend and it's one that requires no legislation to enforce.

Private businesses deciding to disallow the carry of firearms in their establishments are NOT a reduction of rights. No one ever had the right to carry in a private business. Ever. It's always been by permission. Revocation of that permission is not a restriction of our rights. It has become commonplace for the anti-OC crowd to conflate the two issues for their selfish purposes.

That said, it is far easier to persuade change in the policies of private businesses than it is within the halls of the state legislatures.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Private businesses deciding to disallow the carry of firearms in their establishments are NOT a reduction of rights. No one ever had the right to carry in a private business. Ever. It's always been by permission. Revocation of that permission is not a restriction of our rights. It has become commonplace for the anti-OC crowd to conflate the two issues for their selfish purposes.

I know. I didn't say it was. I do contend it is a reflection of public sentiment...or at least to the extent to which they're willing to put up with the "bull****".

That said, it is far easier to persuade change in the policies of private businesses than it is within the halls of the state legislatures.

Agreed. And if my sense is correct, we may be losing on that front while winning in the legislatures (some of them) and at the bench (some of them).

 

[88GT]

I know. I didn't say it was.

Understood. But the less honest amongst us would like to pretend they are the equivalent. I just like to keep reminding them.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Understood. But the less honest amongst us would like to pretend they are the equivalent. I just like to keep reminding them.

Fair enough. There are a number of INGO members that clamor for legislative relief regarding other peoples' property rights, for sure.