Bill that allows for CC of firearms in national parks.

Dave Workman · May 21, 2009

imported post

Bobarino wrote:

sorry Dave, now you're just adding stuff to CYA. in your original article you specified concealed and anyone who "who has to run around telling everyone he’s armed." is a bone head. well, by open carrying, we are all "running around telling everyone [we're] armed." that's the whole point of this board and this movement of OC.

do remember, that all you're posting here and all your articles are, are your opinion. it ain't gospel and you aren't always right. just as i'm not either. that said, lemme give you my opinion on it;

i think your approach is fine and the next nine months can indeed be spent educating and acclimating people to OC in the Parks. however, when we are allowed to carry in the Parks, i think we should, and we should do so openly. why? because when a fellow hiker passes us by on the trail and we give them a smile and a friendly hello and offer them a powerbar, they will see that hey, gun owners are just outdoor enthusiasts too. that guy wasn't crazy, and wasn't out to pop every squirrel he comes across. i don't think cowtowing to the irrational fears of a few is a good idea, ever. informing them plainly, simply and politely is far more effective than us walking on eggshells about exercising our Constitutionally protected rights. the other side certainly doesn't do us the service with their exercise of their Frist Amendment rights against us now do they?

and finally, sorry man, but you aren't the one that gets to decide for any one else what "responsible" open carry is vs. "irresponsible" open carry. that's up to the individual to decide. your opinions, however, are always welcome. your "in your face" approach to judging the actions of others and telling them what they need to do is a little Napoleonic in nature though. i see i'm not the only one you rubbed the wrong with your opinions. it's probably more productive to not do that to the people who are o your side. maybe try rubbing the other side the wrong way a little. they've been doing it to us for the last 75 years and make no bones about it. neither should we.

further, i am not the one pitching a tantrum and calling people "boneheads" and "irresponsible" because they "don't look at the world through [my] eyes." you are the one doing that, my friend.

nice job on the final parting insult too. you're getting really good at those directed towards your fellow gun owners.

Bobby

Oh for pity sakes.

The mere act of wearing a firearm in public is far, far, far from getting in anyone's face about it.

If you cannot understand the difference between showing off and minding your own business - and criticizing one while upholding and supporting the other - you are already in trouble.

You discuss being on the trail and interacting with fellow hikers. I hike all the time with a gun on my belt. I don't try to draw attention to it, it's just there. Been doing that for years. So what?

Perhaps the best part about this exchange is that it has caused you to think about some things.

You do whatever you think best.

Ajetpilot · May 21, 2009

imported post

... anybody who makes a point of showing off his defensive firearm for whatever reason ... is a bonehead.

Click to expand...

That pretty much sounds like everyone on this board. Sounds to me like you've just called us all "boneheads."

Bobarino · May 21, 2009

imported post

that's the point i was trying to make. Dave doesn't seem to realize that. insulting your base audience isn't the best way to get a message across.

Bobby

Dave Workman · May 21, 2009

imported post

Bobarino wrote:

that's the point i was trying to make. Dave doesn't seem to realize that. insulting your base audience isn't the best way to get a message across.

Bobby

You gwo guys have chosen to take my remarks as a personal insult. If you wish to think of yourselves as boneheads, that's up to you. Your indignation has been duly noted, and noticed.

On this forum, you are in the company of a lot of people who are not boneheads, but who have demonstrated time and again thatthey can tell the difference.

Here, consider this as kind of an object lesson:

I was down in Phoenix over the weekend at the NRA. Ran into Chris Knox, son of the late Neal Knox. Chris was chatting with a couple of people and on his hip he had a cocked and locked M1911 in stainless.

He must have been passed by 200-300 people who were oblivious to the fact that he was packing a shiny stainless steel cocked and locked full-size Government Model .45, and the reason for that was because he was being casual, going about his business, not making a spectacle of himself and certainly not misbehaving. Chris is one of the most publicly laid back people I ever met. Very low key and a genuinely nice guy. Now, had he been naked and wearing that gun, he probably would have drawn some attention, but maybe not to his sidearm.

Earlier, I was present at a rather oddball conversation between a visitingNRA member and a guy at one of the booths. The member was kind of alarmed because he had just seen some guy packing a hogleg and he was wondering if that was allowed in the exhibit hall. He was gently assured that it was definitely allowed.

The difference in these two scenarios: Knox was not trying to get noticed by anybody. He was having a good time, or at least seemed to be, and he was doing nothing, zip, zero to call attention to himself.

The other guy, however, seems to have selected the biggest, most garish and noticeable handgun he could find in the gun shop to wear down to Phoenix. He might as well have been wearing a portable neon sign that said "Hey EVERYBODY, look at ME!!! I'm packing a great big pistol! See?"

That is the difference, and the fact that it got an NRA member's eyebrows raised in a convention hall full of guns and visibly armed people underscores what I've been trying to tell you.

Ajetpilot · May 21, 2009

imported post

Dave Workman wrote:

Your indignation has been duly noted, and noticed. (emphasis yours)

Explain please.

Bobarino · May 21, 2009

imported post

Dave,

the only thing you're underscoring is the fact that just like you, there are plenty of people even amongst our own ranks that want people to exercise their Second Amendment rights, as long it's done in a manner of which they approve. i don't think you realize that your assertions are just as bad as the hunters who don't care if "assault weapons" are banned, as long as they don't have to give up their Pappy's ol' Winchester.

do you also disapprove of people who choose to drive bright red cars? how about people that wear a lot of jewelry? or someone the wears a Che Guevera t-shirt? or heaven forbid, a shirt with a swear word on it? those are pretty "in your face". are they all boneheads too?

the 2A is an absolute right. endorse it absolutely or quit portraying yourself as the voice of the 2A activist. you certainly aren't speaking for me or AJetPilot.

it seems you didn't bother reading my earlier response so let me say again. i'm about as far removed from "in your face" OC activist as you can get. i'm a member here because i want to lend my support to those who are. good for them. and i do like the choice to be able to when i choose.

we won this right back from those that made no effort to "ease" us into having our rights curtailed. i am not going to extend that courtesy. catering to the fears of anti's is what got us where we are today. if you want to keep on doing that, go right ahead.

the problem in your NRA convention scenario lies with the vendor, not the hawg leg carrier. support the right. support it fully. support those that support it their own way too, not just in the way thar you choose to support it or think it should be supported.

maybe it's time for you to "think about some things" from this thread too, instead of just pontificating how right you are and how wrong we are. or are you too far above that?

Bobby

Bobarino · May 21, 2009

imported post

simple AJP

dictionary definition:

in⋅dig⋅na⋅tion [in-dig-ney-shuh

n] –noun strong displeasure at something considered unjust, offensive, insulting, or base; righteous anger.

Dave's definition - daring to disagree with something that Dave believes to be true.

did you notice that too Dave? thanks for noticing. your notice has been noticed.

Bobby

Dave Workman · May 21, 2009

imported post

Before this gets too much farther afield

How long have you lived in Puyallup?

Have you ever heard of a guy named Hunt Bromley?

Bobarino · May 21, 2009

imported post

google reveals the name as a gunfighting character in "the Gunfighter". is that what i am supposed to know?

i've lived in Puyallup off and on for all my 32 years. been in the general area all that time though.

Bobby

edit: i've never watched "the Gunfighter" so don't know anything about the character.

Bill that allows for CC of firearms in national parks.

Dave Workman

Regular Member

Ajetpilot

Regular Member

Bobarino

Regular Member

Dave Workman

Regular Member

Ajetpilot

Regular Member

Bobarino

Regular Member

Bobarino

Regular Member

Dave Workman

Regular Member

Bobarino

Regular Member