gollbladder13
Regular Member
imported post
I haven't been on OCDO for very long, so I admit I may be out of place posting this, and I know there will be those who will burn me for it, but I couldn't help but observe...
In recent events (not just Frank's), and in reading a lot of posts, I have began to wonder to what extent the "hardcore" fight is helping and to what point it is hurting.
This thought came to mind when a friend of mine (not anti, but not a gun-owner) and I were talking about the Racine news lately and he went to the site to check it out. He commented something along the lines of, "How does that make your group look?", referencing those that would rather not give their information simply because it is their right. It made me realize that, for the neutrals and antis, we can at times seem a little too hardcore. Not willing to negotiate could lead to not getting anywhere (in order to get to 2, you have to hit 1 first, etc).
Furthermore, I have seen a lot of cop-bashing going on in this thread. Regardless of your opinions of the police, or how they handle situations (even not professionally), it is not going to help our cause. If the general public sees gun owners associated as cop haters and law-testers, what kind of reaction do you think we will get?
I know that these are generalizations and do not apply to everybody (I know Frank was not setting up the cops, but what about Yates, who said he was carrying to make a political statement?), but just something I have noticed. There's nothing wrong with making a political statement, but it doesn't bode as well as saying you're carrying for protection (in the minds of antis and neutrals).
If we want others to change and compromise their beliefs, who are we to stand firm on everything, even the tiny little details? Yes, our rights are our rights, but to what cost? Is it worth the risk of getting arrested (even if wrongly) just so you don't have to give your name? Frank didn't give his name, and he was wrongly arrested, and they got his name afterwards, anyways.
I am not critisizing Frank's actions, or anybody else's, as that was their choice and fully within their rights, but I know for a fact that I will give my name when asked. I have a family to think about, and a future career to work towards, and an arrest (even if wrongly) is not something that will help.
I am working towards a career in law enforcement, so I have been seeing both sides of the story. I know how important people's rights are, and when I start working, I will do everything I can to make sure they are respected, but there is a huge difference between those who cooperate and those who are (even if rightly) beligerant. I don't agree with rights being compromised, but I also do beleive in cooperating, especially when you have nothing to hide.
Maybe that's just me...
Just my thoughts, lately. Let the firestorm against my post begin...
I haven't been on OCDO for very long, so I admit I may be out of place posting this, and I know there will be those who will burn me for it, but I couldn't help but observe...
In recent events (not just Frank's), and in reading a lot of posts, I have began to wonder to what extent the "hardcore" fight is helping and to what point it is hurting.
This thought came to mind when a friend of mine (not anti, but not a gun-owner) and I were talking about the Racine news lately and he went to the site to check it out. He commented something along the lines of, "How does that make your group look?", referencing those that would rather not give their information simply because it is their right. It made me realize that, for the neutrals and antis, we can at times seem a little too hardcore. Not willing to negotiate could lead to not getting anywhere (in order to get to 2, you have to hit 1 first, etc).
Furthermore, I have seen a lot of cop-bashing going on in this thread. Regardless of your opinions of the police, or how they handle situations (even not professionally), it is not going to help our cause. If the general public sees gun owners associated as cop haters and law-testers, what kind of reaction do you think we will get?
I know that these are generalizations and do not apply to everybody (I know Frank was not setting up the cops, but what about Yates, who said he was carrying to make a political statement?), but just something I have noticed. There's nothing wrong with making a political statement, but it doesn't bode as well as saying you're carrying for protection (in the minds of antis and neutrals).
If we want others to change and compromise their beliefs, who are we to stand firm on everything, even the tiny little details? Yes, our rights are our rights, but to what cost? Is it worth the risk of getting arrested (even if wrongly) just so you don't have to give your name? Frank didn't give his name, and he was wrongly arrested, and they got his name afterwards, anyways.
I am not critisizing Frank's actions, or anybody else's, as that was their choice and fully within their rights, but I know for a fact that I will give my name when asked. I have a family to think about, and a future career to work towards, and an arrest (even if wrongly) is not something that will help.
I am working towards a career in law enforcement, so I have been seeing both sides of the story. I know how important people's rights are, and when I start working, I will do everything I can to make sure they are respected, but there is a huge difference between those who cooperate and those who are (even if rightly) beligerant. I don't agree with rights being compromised, but I also do beleive in cooperating, especially when you have nothing to hide.
Maybe that's just me...
Just my thoughts, lately. Let the firestorm against my post begin...