"Openly Carrying Guns Can Be Unwise, Even When It’s Legal"

imported post

There was a day when the sight of two men showing excessive affection would have caused a riot and public lynching. We now regularly see such behavior on tv and in many city streets. It's a matter of getting people used to it. Not that I think that's a good thing, but killing queers just for being queer is primitive, and as Americans most of us are well above that mentality, though many of us wish they'd stay closer to the closet door.

Mr Cramer may not agree with us on this one issue, but he deserves no more vitriol from people who usually agree with him, than Juan Williams deserved to be called a "porch negro".

I've considered what Mr Cramer has written, and he has a point. We have our own counter points, and should continue the dialog with him and others in order to at least persuade them to no longer oppose us, or even support us. It should be an easy thing to do. Sending the man hate mail is childish. We don't need to get in people's faces with our guns, but we shouldn't be forced to "get back in the closet", and that's what people need to understand.

imported post

PrayingForWar wrote:

There was a day when the sight of two men showing excessive affection would have caused a riot and public lynching. We now regularly see such behavior on tv and in many city streets. It's a matter of getting people used to it. Not that I think that's a good thing, but killing queers just for being queer is primitive, and as Americans most of us are well above that mentality, though many of us wish they'd stay closer to the closet door.

Mr Cramer may not agree with us on this one issue, but he deserves no more vitriol from people who usually agree with him, than Juan Williams deserved to be called a "porch negro".

I've considered what Mr Cramer has written, and he has a point. We have our own counter points, and should continue the dialog with him and others in order to at least persuade them to no longer oppose us, or even support us. It should be an easy thing to do. Sending the man hate mail is childish. We don't need to get in people's faces with our guns, but we shouldn't be forced to "get back in the closet", and that's what people need to understand.

Click to expand...

Perhaps not hate mail, but someone has to call the spade a spade...

imported post

ixtow wrote:

PrayingForWar wrote:

There was a day when the sight of two men showing excessive affection would have caused a riot and public lynching. We now regularly see such behavior on tv and in many city streets. It's a matter of getting people used to it. Not that I think that's a good thing, but killing queers just for being queer is primitive, and as Americans most of us are well above that mentality, though many of us wish they'd stay closer to the closet door.

Mr Cramer may not agree with us on this one issue, but he deserves no more vitriol from people who usually agree with him, than Juan Williams deserved to be called a "porch negro".

I've considered what Mr Cramer has written, and he has a point. We have our own counter points, and should continue the dialog with him and others in order to at least persuade them to no longer oppose us, or even support us. It should be an easy thing to do. Sending the man hate mail is childish. We don't need to get in people's faces with our guns, but we shouldn't be forced to "get back in the closet", and that's what people need to understand.

Click to expand...

Perhaps not hate mail, but someone has to call the spade a spade...

Click to expand...

agreed

imported post

Posted on that particular comment board.

Clayton,

I have to vehemently disagree with you on this. We’ve worked together on issues with open carry before, specifically with the state of Washington and open carry being de facto illegal due to police misinterpretation. You may remember me and Jim March, and I was known under a different name.

I take a tremendous objection to your comparison to open carry with same sex affection, and open carry gathers as the same as “San Francisco-style” pride events.

I seem to remember you claiming that if “San Francisco-style Pride events happened in every town above 10,000, LGBT folk would have completely lost their current battle”, I am paraphrasing you on this.

You seem to not quite understand that the Pride parades in places like San Francisco, Seattle, and Portland have always been quite a bit “outrageous”. It has to do with local culture more so than just “the gays”. Do you really think that such activities is similar in Montgomery Alabama, Boise, St. Louis? NYC Pride is also positively subdued in comparison to San Fran Pride. It’s about the local culture.

As for gay kiss-ins, those are methods of political protest. Straight people (such as yourself) can at their own option take for granted the ability to have low-key public displays of affection without being spit on, challenged by security officers (who ignore opposite gendered couples doing the same thing), threatened with violence by third parties, etc.

It also doesn’t matter if you personally believe that PDA’s should not be shared at all in public no matter the genders of the couple. It doesn’t bolster your moral argument, and doesn’t cloak the fact that you’re not only bigoted against a constitutionally protected choice of open carry, you’re also bigoted against an aspect of mutual affection between consenting adults of the same gender.

The open carry movement in Washington State and in Oregon, which has grown in the last 4 years from my early efforts to educate the local law enforcement agencies on it’s legality, makes your entire argument essentially an utter falsehood. 3-4 years of open carry in Washington State has not resulted in open carry ban proposals by the State Legislature.

The only issue that we are really dealing with is Seattle asserting private ownership over public parks and banning gun owners via trespass. This was caused NOT by open carriers, but by a concealed carrier with a methadone habit, who was later convicted of a felony. SAF is going to be filing a legal challenge to that rule soon, and a coalition of gun owners and other groups in Seattle made Mayor Nickels a lame duck, getting him 3rd place in a primary. Seattle will likely pick Joe Mallahan for Mayor, who made it very clear that he doesn’t support what Mayor Nickels did, and will likely fold as soon he takes office. Though Mallahan is anti-gun, he at least understands that he must ask the State Legislature first, which is legally (though not constitutionally) correct.

Btw, I open carry in my credit union all of the time. They know me by my first name and I have good relations with them, and they actually tell other customers who may ask that I’m one of the good guys. They’re usually pretty relieved that they know me. It’s sort of an advantage of having a credit union based in a very pro-gun state.

imported post

I'm going to see how he responds to my post. If he pushes the issue and continues to be an ass, I am going to go all out and call him on the fact that he seems a little obsessive over certain subjects.

imported post

I'm kinda unhappy about this. I happen to have like CCs blog on self defense and always recommend it to people who ask why? or how?

i guess i should pay more attention. didn't know he was so anti-OC.

you cant cherry pick the rights, or parts of them, thatyou support. The Constitution i here for a reason.

imported post

Repeater wrote:

Cramer's Law:

Handgun = Penis

"Open Carry" = "Indecent Exposure"

"Condition 1" = "Lewd and Lascivious"

Click to expand...

STEVE'S LAW

Cramer = Trouble maker, with an unenlightened ego bigger than my penis & my gun together.

Open Carry = Not for everyone just for us Americans who don't don't care what the anti's & on line ka ka talkers like Cramer think.

Condition 1 = Peaceful & Dangerous

imported post

PrayingForWar wrote:

There was a day when the sight of two men showing excessive affection would have caused a riot and public lynching. We now regularly see such behavior on tv and in many city streets. It's a matter of getting people used to it. Not that I think that's a good thing, but killing queers just for being queer is primitive, and as Americans most of us are well above that mentality, though many of us wish they'd stay closer to the closet door.

Click to expand...

Is Open Carry shameful? That is the issue.

Should Americans who choose to carry openly feel ashamed? Should others make them feel ashamed?

Is exposing your self-defense indecent?

The answer to these questions should all be the same: No.

When our Republic was established, open carry was the norm. Those who carried concealed did so because they had something to hide. Perhaps they were up to no good. Later, states began to ban concealment. Then, states began to license privileged citizens who wished to carry concealed. One requirement was you had to be white. More recently, 'privileged' issue became 'Shall' issue, at least in most states.

Regrettably, the attitude towards carry has inverted. Now, those who carry openly do so because they have something to prove, like their manhood. What a terrible attitude for any American to have towards another.

All Americans who lawfully possess arms should have the unfettered freedom to decide for themselves how to carry.

imported post

Repeater wrote:

PrayingForWar wrote:

There was a day when the sight of two men showing excessive affection would have caused a riot and public lynching. We now regularly see such behavior on tv and in many city streets. It's a matter of getting people used to it. Not that I think that's a good thing, but killing queers just for being queer is primitive, and as Americans most of us are well above that mentality, though many of us wish they'd stay closer to the closet door.

Click to expand...

Is Open Carry shameful? That is the issue.

Should Americans who choose to carry openly feel ashamed? Should others make them feel ashamed?

Is exposing your self-defense indecent?

The answer to these questions should all be the same: No.

When our Republic was established, open carry was the norm. Those who carried concealed did so because they had something to hide. Perhaps they were up to no good. Later, states began to ban concealment. Then, states began to license privileged citizens who wished to carry concealed. One requirement was you had to be white. More recently, 'privileged' issue became 'Shall' issue, at least in most states.

Regrettably, the attitude towards carry has inverted. Now, those who carry openly do so because they have something to prove, like their manhood. What a terrible attitude for any American to have towards another.

All Americans who lawfully possess arms should have the unfettered freedom to decide for themselves how to carry.

Click to expand...

That's what we need to convince guys like Clayton, and the thousands of other influential people in the RKBA community not yet onboard.I guess weshould have some consideration for location or appropriate behavior while OC'ing. Since I live in TX, I don't have the freedom to exersize that right. So I really don't know if there is any place or circumstance people shouldn't OC. I really can't think of any. I really don't care if some bed wetting fascists are offended.

Clayton has a point though, even if I don't agree. It's a sensitive issue, and I think too much callousness to the sensitivity of people would be negative. I just don't want all the sheep to start clamoring for laws against OC'ing. At the same time I've adamantly argued that the sheep NEED to see ordinary folks OC, and become acclimated too it. I think the frog in the pot of slowly heated water analogy sort of applies.


ixtow wrote:

Perhaps not hate mail, but someone has to call the spade a spade...

Click to expand...

Won't argue with you there ixtow. I just hope people are being rational and not emotional.

imported post

Did the gay community make more progress towards equal rights by being in the closet, or by being out, loud, and proud?

Did the civil rights struggle for black Americans achieve more by crossing the street and keeping heads down, or by being visible and vocal?

Did women gain suffrage by trying to quietly persuade their husbands, or by taking to the streets in protest?

imported post

KBCraig wrote:

Did the gay community make more progress towards equal rights by being in the closet, or by being out, loud, and proud?

Did the civil rights struggle for black Americans achieve more by crossing the street and keeping heads down, or by being visible and vocal?

Did women gain suffrage by trying to quietly persuade their husbands, or by taking to the streets in protest?

Click to expand...

This.

Well-behaved gun-owners rarely make history...

imported post

ixtow wrote:

KBCraig wrote:

Did the gay community make more progress towards equal rights by being in the closet, or by being out, loud, and proud?

Did the civil rights struggle for black Americans achieve more by crossing the street and keeping heads down, or by being visible and vocal?

Did women gain suffrage by trying to quietly persuade their husbands, or by taking to the streets in protest?

Click to expand...

This.

Well-behaved gun-owners rarely make history...

Click to expand...

How many history makers can you name who were described as "well behaved", sheep are "well behaved".

imported post

KBCraig wrote:

Did the gay community make more progress towards equal rights by being in the closet, or by being out, loud, and proud?

Did the civil rights struggle for black Americans achieve more by crossing the street and keeping heads down, or by being visible and vocal?

Did women gain suffrage by trying to quietly persuade their husbands, or by taking to the streets in protest?

Click to expand...

Indeed you're correct. However, perhaps it's my own impression, but the gay community is pushing the envelope too far and alienating itself with it's increasingly beligerant demands for special treatment.

People in the street protesting and getting their way isn't always a good thing either. That's how we ended up with Prohibition, and it took twice as many in the streets, rampant crime, corruption and combat in the streets to reverse it.

This is different however. It isn't a movement to restrict other people's behavior. Though it would certainly undermine criminal behavior. Nor is it a movement to change the morality of a nation. It's merely a movement to convine people they have the freedom to resist criminal dominance.

imported post

PrayingForWar wrote:

KBCraig wrote:

Did the gay community make more progress towards equal rights by being in the closet, or by being out, loud, and proud?

Did the civil rights struggle for black Americans achieve more by crossing the street and keeping heads down, or by being visible and vocal?

Did women gain suffrage by trying to quietly persuade their husbands, or by taking to the streets in protest?

Click to expand...

Indeed you're correct. However, perhaps it's my own impression, but the gay community is pushing the envelope too far and alienating itself with it's increasingly beligerant demands for special treatment.

People in the street protesting and getting their way isn't always a good thing either. That's how we ended up with Prohibition, and it took twice as many in the streets, rampant crime, corruption and combat in the streets to reverse it.

Click to expand...

Which prohibition? Crack, speed, and weed? Guns? Being Offensive? Looks like both prohibitions are still in full effect, and being used as the counter-excuse for keeping each alive...

imported post

ixtow wrote:

PrayingForWar wrote:

KBCraig wrote:

Did the gay community make more progress towards equal rights by being in the closet, or by being out, loud, and proud?

Did the civil rights struggle for black Americans achieve more by crossing the street and keeping heads down, or by being visible and vocal?

Did women gain suffrage by trying to quietly persuade their husbands, or by taking to the streets in protest?

Click to expand...

Indeed you're correct. However, perhaps it's my own impression, but the gay community is pushing the envelope too far and alienating itself with it's increasingly beligerant demands for special treatment.

People in the street protesting and getting their way isn't always a good thing either. That's how we ended up with Prohibition, and it took twice as many in the streets, rampant crime, corruption and combat in the streets to reverse it.

Click to expand...

Which prohibition? Crack, speed, and weed? Guns? Being Offensive? Looks like both prohibitions are still in full effect, and being used as the counter-excuse for keeping each alive...

Click to expand...

I see your point. I was refering to the Alcohol Prohibition. People demanded it, and the problem got worse. Similarly with drugs, although I don't think the uninhibited sale and usage of crack will make anything better. Just as people protesting and raising hell until OC is made illegal nationwide will not benefit anyone besides the tyrants.

imported post

PrayingForWar wrote:

KBCraig wrote:

Did the gay community make more progress towards equal rights by being in the closet, or by being out, loud, and proud?

Did the civil rights struggle for black Americans achieve more by crossing the street and keeping heads down, or by being visible and vocal?

Did women gain suffrage by trying to quietly persuade their husbands, or by taking to the streets in protest?

Click to expand...

Indeed you're correct. However, perhaps it's my own impression, but the gay community is pushing the envelope too far and alienating itself with it's increasingly beligerant demands for special treatment.

People in the street protesting and getting their way isn't always a good thing either. That's how we ended up with Prohibition, and it took twice as many in the streets, rampant crime, corruption and combat in the streets to reverse it.

This is different however. It isn't a movement to restrict other people's behavior. Though it would certainly undermine criminal behavior. Nor is it a movement to change the morality of a nation. It's merely a movement to convine people they have the freedom to resist criminal dominance.

Click to expand...

I don't see it as demanding "special" treatment, I think they merely want equal treatment and are asking for it. If they are asking for something over and above equal, it's probably to establish a bargaining position that will be finalized closer to "equal" than if they use "equal" as a starting point. This is a sound strategy in all bargaining situations....

imported post

Yup, "compromise is failure on the installment plan." All your opponent has to do is establish a more extreme position than yours. If each position's side is halved at each round, (1/2)^n, guess who gets the short end of the stick?

imported post

Oleg Volk posted a link to a blog directly addressing the subject matter of this thread. Very insightful.

See the original blog for all the original embedded content.

TFred

Open Carry. Good for the Cause

Clayton E. Cramer makes the case (again) against open carry and he does have a few salient points. It makes some people nervous being the most powerful. I'm sure he is correct.

I'm tempted to point out that there was a time when bringing your differently colored friends to a party, restaurant or church made not differently colored people nervous. Even though it was perfectly legal.

Or how in the 1970's blatantly discriminating against motorcyclists was, if not common, at least widespread. I was denied service many times for wearing a vest (without any colors or MC insignia). I was denied entry to facilities because I came by motorcycle. I found motorcycle parking prohibited all over the place. Random, no cause stops by the police we very common. All of which was illegal, but I guess bikers made people nervous. *

What I would like to hear from Mr. Cramer and others who support not openly carrying, is just how do we acclimate people to open carry without actually open carrying? Or is Mr. Cramer advocating we give up on open carry altogether? I can't support that and never will.

Our mission is to get people to understand that "keep and bear arms" means carrying a gun. Concealed, open, in a case or on handlebar mounts. It doesn't matter so much how, just that you do.

Maybe it's the three-percenter in me and maybe [probably] it's more the coldly logical engineer and libertarian technologist, but either way I don't support giving up any rights or privileges on bearing arms. The goal is to restore all rights and privileges, everywhere and all the time.

There is another interesting corollary to scooters. Today, motorcycles have been rehabilitated in the American culture. At one time, most people only noticed two types of riders. The police and outlaw type motorcycle clubs. Interestingly, most of those so called outlaws were not one-percenters at all. But the media said they all were, and the media only showed one-percenters. Sound familiar?

So what changed? Honda. Honda put on a media campaign to combat the stigma of bikers. Remember the catch line "You meet the nicest people on a Honda." This advertising adventure was widely popular and very profitable to Honda. People began to notice not all bikes are Harleys and not all motorcyclists are bikers. People began to discover they actually knew people who rode. Another coincidental familiarity?

Today, actual bikers are even acceptable. Witness American Chopper. Hell, even the one-percenters have Sons of Anarchy, a TeeVee show and Wikipedia page. I was standing in line somewhere a few years ago and a sweet, little old lady eying my leathers, boots and helmet smiled and asked me if I rode a Hog! That was an example of real progress.

When we reach the point where it is common for people to inquire about the make and model of the sidearm we're open carrying, just as they ask people like me about the bike I'm riding, you'll know we're reaching the masses.

*Note: I rode a Kawasaki H1 triple then. Three cylinders, two-stroke, smoke breathing, green rocket. I wasn't so much a biker but a kamikaze impersonator.

Update: Spelling errors corrected. Sorry about that.

Posted by Ride Fast at 10/26/2009 09:09:00 AM

imported post

PavePusher wrote:

PrayingForWar wrote:

KBCraig wrote:

Did the gay community make more progress towards equal rights by being in the closet, or by being out, loud, and proud?

Did the civil rights struggle for black Americans achieve more by crossing the street and keeping heads down, or by being visible and vocal?

Did women gain suffrage by trying to quietly persuade their husbands, or by taking to the streets in protest?

Click to expand...

Indeed you're correct. However, perhaps it's my own impression, but the gay community is pushing the envelope too far and alienating itself with it's increasingly beligerant demands for special treatment.

People in the street protesting and getting their way isn't always a good thing either. That's how we ended up with Prohibition, and it took twice as many in the streets, rampant crime, corruption and combat in the streets to reverse it.

This is different however. It isn't a movement to restrict other people's behavior. Though it would certainly undermine criminal behavior. Nor is it a movement to change the morality of a nation. It's merely a movement to convine people they have the freedom to resist criminal dominance.

Click to expand...

I don't see it as demanding "special" treatment, I think they merely want equal treatment and are asking for it. If they are asking for something over and above equal, it's probably to establish a bargaining position that will be finalized closer to "equal" than if they use "equal" as a starting point. This is a sound strategy in all bargaining situations....

Click to expand...

I find it difficult to respect a person who is out for everything s/he can get, but is willing to 'settle for equality.'

It is dishonest. Those who seek equity without compromise, they get my respect and support.

"We're here, and we're queer." I could get behind that. They did what they wanted to, didn't hurt anyone, devil may care. They seized equality by force or ignoring what would encumber them if they were fool enough to obey it. Religious Fundamentalists may disagree, but 20-30 years ago, I don't think there was anything more American than Homosexuals flying in the face of tyranny, even if it cost them their lives. I've never seen anyone else in this country, individual or group, take a stand like that.

Since then, they've been shackled by 'interest group' and 'partisan.' They've lost their fire, their Americanism. Just another loud, obnoxious, tasteless tool in a broken machine.

Upon what are so-called Civil Rights founded? Compromise, "Being reasonable," is choosing to fail in advance. History shows us that the subjugated do not become free or equal by quietly tugging at the shirt-sleeves of their oppressors and asking nicely. Homos still piss people off. I don't particularly care how many turn their nose up at my gun. If the devil curses your name, you're doing something right!

imported post

While I am not a big supporter of gay rights, I do agree they have them. Since it isn't my lifestyle, I chose to stay clear of places where it is "flaunted" or advertised. I do the same thing with regard to advertisements for porn movies and explicit discussions in restaurants, stores, malls, etc.where these things occur as well. On a still more emotional personal note, it saddens me when I encounter Pro Choice people or pass a clinic advertising abortions.

Yet, I don't demand the manager expel them nor do I make panicked "man-with-a-boyfriend" calls to 9-1-1. I simply take my business elsewhere if it bothers me that much.The reason of course, being that I respect their right(s)whichpresent noimminent danger to my family, friends or fellow citizens.

It's the right of others to support same-sex relationships, abortions, Obama and other legal yet offensive (to me) social activities. Carrying my gun, be it open or concealed, is also a right. A right that I would like to see become more and more accepted, just as same sex activity has become more and more commonly accepted over the last few decades DUE TO PEOPLEPARTICIPATING IN LEGAL ACTIVITIES WITHOUT FEAR OF REPRISAL OR HARASSMENT DESPITE SOME IRRATIONAL REACTIONS OF OTHER CITIZENS .

Mr. Cramer's use of gay rightsactually proves the point of why Open Carry is important to the long-term strategy of acceptance, understanding and education of those within our population who have an unreasoned fear of those who exercise their Second Amendment rights.