But it wasn't other individuals involved in this it was specifically Bess, who was specifically asked(likely due to his specific reputation), not to cause any negative attention in this specific town.
Last year it was Bret Darrow, this year it was Bess. Who will you blame next year?
Of course these efforts sat upon shaky ground, this is a pretty shaky movement and subject even among 2A supporters. But how can you claim it was not worth it? If it took time and effort of more dedicated members to gain support and there was even a narrow opportunity for success, no matter how shaky, it was worth it.
I think whether or not it was "worth it" this year, is actually up to the folks who spent the time and money pushing it all session long. Marc, Rich, and others who were involved deserve our respect and gratitude for the time, effort, and money they spent, regardless. That said, that is time, effort, and money they will never get back, and it appears to have been for naught.
Not necessarily true/ assumption / hypothetical - take your pick.
Sure it is an assumption, but it is an assumption that is being made based off of the statements of Marc, Rich, and (apparently), Mr. Nieves. They have come out and said that any negative press will pretty much kill any chance of getting an OC preemption bill passed. If that is the case, as they have said, then odds are pretty good that this issue is DOA each year. The anti-gun press can ALWAYS gin up some kind of negative spin to this issue.
If we know politicians are willing to look for any reason they can not to support it then it IS the fault of trouble makers and negative attention getters, especially if WHILE knowing this, and having had been ASKED SPECIFICALLY not to make waves, they did the exact opposite leading to subsequent negative repercussions. You are right though, it is not the problem of Bess or others like him; their problem is over after the incident. It does, however, become the problem of people like Brian Nieves and Marc. It is hard to have any progress in a political movement when your best supporters are constantly playing damage control because of your dumbest members.
So you will let those politicians off the hook that easy? You will allow them to ignore the State Constitution and the oath they took to uphold it because somebody did something (something legal I might add) that caused a bit of negative press? Talk about a convoluted way of thinking. Those folks should be expected to support this legislation because it is right, and it is just, and it is congruent with our Constitution, and they should be expected to do that DESPITE any negative press that comes around. What you seem to want to do is provide them with excuses for not doing their jobs.
OC in an unpopular movement. We don't even have much support from the other 2A groups, we don't have the numbers to impress anyone, let alone scare them (or make a dent) in voting numbers. Don't kid yourself. This is what the more politically savvy members of our movement have already figured out, that is why it is necessary to function in a more "backroom" sort of manner. That is also why it is important not to get negative press as it stirs up anti-gun and anti-oc response (and they out number us).
You might be surprised just how much "noise" a small handful of vocal, determined, well-educated activists can make. However, if those activists really aren't very determined, vocal, or well-educated, then they sound like nothing more than a whimper.
OC is not a secured right folks. It can still be restricted into non-existence. Bad PR especially during legislative sessions does hurt the movement. No matter how "legal" it was. Also this adherence to "if its legal he is never to fault" mentality is a bit childish, there is such thing as professional or at the minimum adult-like conduct. It may not be technically illegal to do the kinds of things the Bess does, but they are pretty childish and stupid (pulling over to video tape cops during a traffic stop on the highway while OCing). Also, that is not just my opinion that is the general opinion, on that subject, of the larger voting populace.
I can't argue with the fact that perception is a large part of politicking. Popular opinion is shaped by popular, and not so popular, ideas and actions. That opinion in turn fuels the rhetoric of those seeking office, or already holding office. With that said, a very big part of freedom and liberty is in having the restraint to allow others to do things which you might not agree with. There is a very fine line between respectfully asking for restraint in how someone lawfully exercises his/her rights, and getting downright dictatorial in demanding restraint in how someone lawfully exercises his/her rights; a line that freedom-loving people shouldn't cross. Coming here and with the intent to belittle and malign a specific person because of a specific lawful action sure seems to place some folks mighty close to that line (if not over it).