• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

New/old term for OCer/ CCWer

longwatch

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
4,327
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

I saw this over on Glocktalk and thought it would be a good term to describe ourselves, maybe better than OCer or whatever.

Originally Posted by franktait
If asked about my firearm I was going to say that I was an 'Associator'. Which is the colonial name for someone who was armed with their personal weapons to defend their personal liberty (PA didn't have a Militia - it had armed Associations with members being called Associators. Benjamin Franklin started these in the 1740's.)
....Interesting facts courtesy of the book The Founders View of the Right to Bear Arms by David E Young. (I highly recommend it)

I like Associator, it seems to fit very well with why many of us carry. What say you all?

 

longwatch

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
4,327
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

That does bring up the question do we need a label? I think it could be useful if we have some dignified title for the members of our movement. Open carrier is kinda just an adjective, describing only what the person is doing when they are armed. Whereas, Associator can mean a lot more, that armed person is exercising their rights and liberty and is prepared to protect them.
 

Sheepdawg

Regular Member
Joined
May 10, 2008
Messages
134
Location
The High Plains, New Mexico, USA
imported post

I agree with both Longwatch and VAopencarry. I don't like labels either, but our society is all about them. If we don't give ourselves a name some one else will. And since I'm not a smart man by any means with no great ideas of my own, I think Associators is a great name. Especially with its roots in early American history.
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
imported post

I'm thinking that perhaps in this day and age that having a catchy name may make it easier for the gov't and antis to single us out to the public and couch our purpose in nefarious light. I can just hear a Nancy Pelosi, or Barack or Harry Ried or Jess Jackson giving speeches about "We have to eliminate these Associators. They are harbingers from an age before law and order reigned over our nation and are practitioners of vigilantism. How long before they don white robes and charge through the country side at night enforcing their xenophobic view of America? They cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Yep, labeling ourselves "Associators" is just a hop, skip and jump away from being called "Regulators" by our opponents and being rounded up as domestic terrorists.

I much prefer the labels, "Law abiding citizen" or "patriotic American" or "Constitutional American"
 

Felid`Maximus

Activist Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2007
Messages
1,714
Location
Reno, Nevada, USA
imported post

deepdiver wrote:
I can just hear ... Harry Ried... giving speeches about "We have to eliminate these Associators. They are harbingers from an age before law and order reigned over our nation and are practitioners of vigilantism.





Actually, despite Harry Reid being associated with the top democrats, I don't think he is very anti-gun.

As far as the title "associator"I can't really find much about such a historicalbackground.How about "Arms Bearers?" "Arms bearer" would reference the second amendment right to bear arms. Or hey, we're all just "gunslingers..." how's that for connotation! There's a word that already exists. http://www.answers.com/gunslinger&r=67According to wikipedia,"pistoleer" may be an even older term.


American Heritage dictionary defines "gunslinger" as: "One who is armed with a gun, especially an outlaw." We aren't outlaws, but we are armed with guns.


We don't really need a label, although several alreadyexist.
 

longwatch

Founder's Club Member - Moderator
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
4,327
Location
Virginia, USA
imported post

Well we know the old terms and the connotations they have.
Gunslinger isn't great, to old west.
Pistoleer or pistolero, well Col. Cooper was a fan of pistolero, but I don't feel the terms reflect the rights aspects of our movement.
Hence why I like associators. I suppose any label could be used pigeon hole use, look at the derision when the antis refer to 'the NRA'.

I think the best way to prevent that kind of thing would be to write the definition ourselves.

To me an Associator= A defender of individual rights and liberty, prepared and equipped with the tools to do so. This is not the right to bear arms, but our 1st, 4th, 5th, etc, our tools may be a firearm, or a personal recorder, a blog or a FOIA.

Maybe I'm overreaching, but I do like the term.
 

deepdiver

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
5,820
Location
Southeast, Missouri, USA
imported post

longwatch wrote:
Whereas, Associator can mean a lot more

I've been thinking about this Longwatch and I'm still on the fence. Maybe you can help me clarify a few issues.

I understand the concept of why you would like it and know a bit about the history of the Association. What I want to know is which Associator do you want to be?
 

Attachments

  • association.jpg
    association.jpg
    22 KB · Views: 121
Top