Task Force 16
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Crimefree,
It appears that you are suggesting that we use the media to get our message out. Do I have to remind you that the MSM IS NOT on our side. In fact it is as about as biased as it can get against gun owners and the 2A.
It doesn't matter how many letters we write to the media organization, most end up in file 13. Many online publications that allow comments to articles are monitor to delete pro-gun postings. I was banned from posting comments most likely because I presented too many facts and logical arguments in defense of gun ownership and carry for self defense, while the anti-gun crowd was allowed to keep posting their venomous tripe and vulgar name calling and insults.
Have you not seen how the National MSM have covered incidents that occur in this country? Every time a mass shooting happens it gets weeks of front line coverage. But do they cover any of the events where a Law abiding citizen is able to stop a violent crime with their own firearm? Hell no!!!! It barely gets local coverage.
A good example of this.
We saw weeks of coverage about the various mass shootings across the nation. Questions were raised as to why current gun control measures failed to prevent these incidents. The MSM gave the anti-gun groups plenty of platform to plead for MORE gun control
But when an off duty law enforcement officer (LEO) in Colorado stopped a shooter at his second target for the day, the MSM attempted to vilify HER, as ifSHE had done something wrong. They even questioned the church she defended concerning why they even had someone there, ARMED,for security.
Now, let's take a hypothetical look at how the MSM might cover an event. What if the Virginia Tech shooter had been stopped by armed staff or students before he could get off more than a few shots? Would the MSM praise the armed citizens for their prompt action to defend everyone from the crazy guy with intent to murder innocent people? Highly unlikely. In fact, I doubt that the MSM would even mention the event happened at all. I believe most everyone on this forum would agree.
And you think we should rely on the media for support? Wouldn't that be like the gazelle turning to apride of lions for help?
We, every last one of us gun owners/carriers,have to be our own media and messenger. We all have to be active in countering the anti-gun propaganda. The best way I see of getting the general public over it's nervousness at the sight of firearms is to carry our handguns openly on our hips so that they canSEE them. It's the only way that they can see that law abiding citizens CAN carry arms in public without shoot-outs in the streets occurring, as has been falsely prophesied by the anti-gun organizations.
Concealed carry does nothing in this respect. It doesn't help the cause if gun owners hide their guns from the eyes of the public. "Out of sight- out of mind" does not help in convincing the general public that having an armed society IS a benefit to public safety. Sure, CC in "Shall Issue" states does reduce crime as a collective, but the public doesn't always understand this. They don't see the guns that are around them, causing criminals toback off of some of their activities because they don't know whose armed,if they are concealed.
There is nothing in the Constitution that protects an individuals assumedright not to be nervous or uncomfortable. If we were to set outto ban everything that might cause somebody discomfort or uneasiness, there wouldn't be much left for people to do. There is no such thing as a perfectly safe world. Thatis an Utopian notion.
The US Supreme Court recently ruled that Law Enforcement is under no obligation to provide security foreach individual citizen. Recent events, in which LEO have been gunned down while on duty, suggests that they can't even provide for their own safety all the time.
Those of us that have chosen to be responsible for our own safety, carry a tool (a handgun) for that purpose. Those of us that carry openly are actively promoting personal self defense in a passive manner. Some of us have actually been thanked, by individuals that aremembers of the general public, for taking responsibility for arming ourselves.Some people do see it as a meansfor the betterment of public safety and not a threat to it.
Crimefree,
It appears that you are suggesting that we use the media to get our message out. Do I have to remind you that the MSM IS NOT on our side. In fact it is as about as biased as it can get against gun owners and the 2A.
It doesn't matter how many letters we write to the media organization, most end up in file 13. Many online publications that allow comments to articles are monitor to delete pro-gun postings. I was banned from posting comments most likely because I presented too many facts and logical arguments in defense of gun ownership and carry for self defense, while the anti-gun crowd was allowed to keep posting their venomous tripe and vulgar name calling and insults.
Have you not seen how the National MSM have covered incidents that occur in this country? Every time a mass shooting happens it gets weeks of front line coverage. But do they cover any of the events where a Law abiding citizen is able to stop a violent crime with their own firearm? Hell no!!!! It barely gets local coverage.
A good example of this.
We saw weeks of coverage about the various mass shootings across the nation. Questions were raised as to why current gun control measures failed to prevent these incidents. The MSM gave the anti-gun groups plenty of platform to plead for MORE gun control
But when an off duty law enforcement officer (LEO) in Colorado stopped a shooter at his second target for the day, the MSM attempted to vilify HER, as ifSHE had done something wrong. They even questioned the church she defended concerning why they even had someone there, ARMED,for security.
Now, let's take a hypothetical look at how the MSM might cover an event. What if the Virginia Tech shooter had been stopped by armed staff or students before he could get off more than a few shots? Would the MSM praise the armed citizens for their prompt action to defend everyone from the crazy guy with intent to murder innocent people? Highly unlikely. In fact, I doubt that the MSM would even mention the event happened at all. I believe most everyone on this forum would agree.
And you think we should rely on the media for support? Wouldn't that be like the gazelle turning to apride of lions for help?
We, every last one of us gun owners/carriers,have to be our own media and messenger. We all have to be active in countering the anti-gun propaganda. The best way I see of getting the general public over it's nervousness at the sight of firearms is to carry our handguns openly on our hips so that they canSEE them. It's the only way that they can see that law abiding citizens CAN carry arms in public without shoot-outs in the streets occurring, as has been falsely prophesied by the anti-gun organizations.
Concealed carry does nothing in this respect. It doesn't help the cause if gun owners hide their guns from the eyes of the public. "Out of sight- out of mind" does not help in convincing the general public that having an armed society IS a benefit to public safety. Sure, CC in "Shall Issue" states does reduce crime as a collective, but the public doesn't always understand this. They don't see the guns that are around them, causing criminals toback off of some of their activities because they don't know whose armed,if they are concealed.
There is nothing in the Constitution that protects an individuals assumedright not to be nervous or uncomfortable. If we were to set outto ban everything that might cause somebody discomfort or uneasiness, there wouldn't be much left for people to do. There is no such thing as a perfectly safe world. Thatis an Utopian notion.
The US Supreme Court recently ruled that Law Enforcement is under no obligation to provide security foreach individual citizen. Recent events, in which LEO have been gunned down while on duty, suggests that they can't even provide for their own safety all the time.
Those of us that have chosen to be responsible for our own safety, carry a tool (a handgun) for that purpose. Those of us that carry openly are actively promoting personal self defense in a passive manner. Some of us have actually been thanked, by individuals that aremembers of the general public, for taking responsibility for arming ourselves.Some people do see it as a meansfor the betterment of public safety and not a threat to it.