Gun group tours Boise zoo while armed

imported post

Gun group tours Boise zoo while armed
The Associated Press Edition Date: 07/20/08

BOISE, Idaho — Idaho members of a group that advocates openly carrying handguns in public gathered at Zoo Boise this weekend to tour the area while packing guns on their hips.

The 10 members of OpenCarry.org were allowed into the southwestern Idaho zoo on Saturday after initial confusion at the entrance on whether it was legal to bring an unconcealed handgun into the zoo.

After getting the OK, the group bought tickets and entered through the front gates.

"Coming to the zoo was something we could do together, like any family would," group member Carol Schultz of Nampa told the Idaho Statesman.

Schultz said she's never without her handgun that she keeps in a holster that's attached to a heart-studded belt.
She said she's also gone through the training and background check to qualify for a concealed weapons permit.

"In an ideal society, one of peace and people taking control of their own lives, ideally, you wouldn't need a gun," she said.

Blaine Tewell of Eagle also took part in the visit to Zoo Boise. He said he's in the process of getting a concealed weapons permit, but for now openly carries a weapon in plain sight.

He said he's not a vigilante and doesn't want to chase down criminals, but does want to be able to defend himself.
"When seconds count, police are still minutes away," he said.

Schultz and Tewell said they've never had to use a gun in self-defense. However, they have been asked to leave private property, such as restaurants and stores, when told they were making others nervous with their guns.

"We support peoples' constitutional rights, but we also want to ensure public safety," said Lt. Alan Cavener of the Boise Police Department. "People need to use common sense about where they choose to bring a firearm."

Zoo visitor Laura Greaves of Salem, Ore., said she didn't see why other visitors need to carry guns at the zoo.

Alex Lundgren of Boise also questioned the group's decision to bring firearms into the zoo.

"Legal and appropriate are two different things," he said.

imported post

These kinds of events can be very powerful and informative, ESPECIALLY if those invovled will phrase their reasoning and arguments in terms used by gays, blacks, and other minorities favored by the left.

There was a recent thread on this and this story illustrates another opportunity to highlight need to think about and phrase soundbites appropriately.

"It is important for gun owners to 'come out of the closet'."

"We are tired of being forced to sit on the back of the bus."

"It is time that gun owners are allowed to sit at the same lunch counters as everyone else."

"We are here, we are all around you, we are your neighbors, family members, and fellow church members. We are not going away."

I will also add, having learned the hard way after a few too many media interviews, that one is generally better served by NOT saying too much. The more you say, the more a reporter (or his editor) can then twist it, take it out of context, or otherwise make you look foolish.

Ideally, think of two or three specific sound bites and stick to using those during an interview. If asked a question that doesn't fit one of the subjects you've chosen, deflect the quesiton and answer the question you want to answer. It may drive us crazy watching politicians do this, but those who do it well get elected while those who don't, get skewered in the media.

Question: "Why do you choose to carry guns to the zoo?"

Good answer: "We think it is important for gun owners to come out of the closet and exercise our civil rights."


Question: "But what about that guy that got shot last week?"

Bad answer: "Well, um I don't have any details, but that didn't involve a law abiding gun owner........."

Good answer: "I'm not prepared to speak about that. We think it is important for gun owners to stop sitting at the back of the bus. We must exercise our rights."

Charles

imported post

I respectfully disagree. I am a liberal gun rights advocate and I think using terms such as "come out of the closet" and "sit at the back of the bus" are horrible and are only going to hurt our cause. Sorry but comparing the right to open carry your gun at walmart with Rosa Parks is offensive to me. I fully support the right to open carry but I don't think trying to compare it to gay rights or the black civil rights movement is going to get you anywhere with liberals.

To me your first answer about how the guy was not law abiding and admitting to not knowing the details is much better than avoiding the question by saying you aren't ready to talk about it and then making a reference to the back of the bus.

imported post

Cykaos wrote:

Sorry but comparing the right to open carry your gun at walmart with Rosa Parks is offensive to me.

Click to expand...

The Second Amendment exists to protect all of your other rights. Comparing it to Rosa Parks, black rights, gay rights, or any other group that just wants to exersise their rights and be left alone seems perfectly reasonable to me. Personally, I think if Rosa were allowed to have a gun on her hip (and all black people/minorities during that time) she probably wouldn't have been hassled.

Ms. Parks did face much more adversity than most of us do though, and the level of bravery she displayed can't be compared to the "bravery" I work up to OC down the street in my hometown.

imported post

Cykaos wrote:

I respectfully disagree. I am a liberal gun rights advocate and I think using terms such as "come out of the closet" and "sit at the back of the bus" are horrible and are only going to hurt our cause. Sorry but comparing the right to open carry your gun at walmart with Rosa Parks is offensive to me. I fully support the right to open carry but I don't think trying to compare it to gay rights or the black civil rights movement is going to get you anywhere with liberals.

To me your first answer about how the guy was not law abiding and admitting to not knowing the details is much better than avoiding the question by saying you aren't ready to talk about it and then making a reference to the back of the bus.

Click to expand...

Well, with all due respect carrying a firearm (and/or other personal weapon) for self defense IS a constitutionally enumerated right that is being grossly infringed in far too many cases. It is PERFECTLY reasonable to compare it to other civil rights issues.

And it is very powerful with the current media love affair for all things homosexual to use images like "coming out of the closet" to force liberals to give some thought to why we should be any more ashamed of our lifestyle than are gays.

That said, almost NOTHING is going to get us very far with the mindset that can collective refer to police as "pigs" and military veterans as "baby killers" and then turn around and suggest that only the police and military should have guns. This is the mindset that was offended at an air force fly over at Clinton's innaguration UNTIL the observer realized those were now "their planes."

With the passing of Ed Mayne, we're hard pressed to find a single Democrat in the Utah legislature who does not vote to rob of us our RKBA every chance and in every way possible. Even those like McCoy who are openly advocating for "gay rights" are so quick to deny us our basic right to defend our life. I wish those of you who support RKBA but claim to be otherwise liberal would get active enough in the Democrat party that the GOP could no longer lay exclusive claim (among those who are actually in office) to not being anti-gun. Few things would make me happier, politically, than to have the two major parties trying to be the most respectful of our individual right to an effective, armed, self-defense.

No, NOTHING will gain much headway with the hardcore liberals. BUT, to their credit, the liberals are far more masterful at sound bites and pulling at emotion than are conservatives in most cases. So I will happily borrow their very successful language and images to advance our RKBA with the great masses of mostly undecided folks who are NOT the hardcore liberals.

Charles

imported post

We can agree to disagree. I understand perfectly what you are saying and where you are coming from with your logic but being a liberal myself I have a hard time seeing this help the cause and I think it in fact hurts the cause. I think most liberals are going to be turned off by such soundbites. I can only speak for myself though because everyone is different regardless of the label you try and place on them. Neither of us really knows how other people will see things. I would think since I might share a little more in common with liberals than you I might have a better idea about how they would see it but even then liberal is a word that covers many people with often completely opposite viewpoints on many things. Perhaps some liberals will hear such soundbites and be moved. Again I think amongst most liberals it will have the opposite effect.