Nuts, pushing the limit, or exercising 2A ?

[spcantwell]

You know, those big gay pride parade's where just attention whores who did harm to the lgbt movement. They should have all just stayed home and been been quiet. [\sarcasm off]

Every time this happens and there is no mass shooting it clues a few more people in that guns dosnt egual evil

 

[Chevy 2 65]

I'm all for push back, but I think it has to be far more strategic than this

Like a few hundred or thousands of open carry protesters. It's a good thing the LGBT community didn't openly protest, because, if they did women would be using mens restrooms, and men would be using womens restrooms. Next thing you know, weed will be legal.
Hide the scary firearms, keep them locked up in the dark, so no one sees them or those scary things will go off.

 

[browncoat]

Remember, open carry of long guns in CA was lost because it was exercised as a political statement. Ditto, years later, for open carry of unloaded handguns in CA.

If a right is lost for being exercised, was it ever really a right?

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[FatBastard]

...

 

[CrackPot]

Interesting self outting thread.

We should be careful to not offend the snowflakes because they will take our rights away. Did I summarize the position correctly?

I am sad.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

If a right is lost for being exercised, was it ever really a right?

When it comes to guns, very little is actually a "right" and even those things that are "rights" are often ignored by the courts, particularly in MA. For example, the MA courts have held that Heller does not protect access to an LTC since an LtC allows carry outside the home (ignoring the fact that the LTC is needed to exercise a protected right).

When it comes to open carry, the venue needs to be carefully selected. There are some places, like NH, where open carry serves to educate the police and public, and strengthen access to open carry. Ditto for some people in CT who litigated charges related to license holders carrying openly. But, there are other places where "open carry" will get the law changed. The long gun open carry was banned in CA when Black Panthers started carrying openly in the CA assembly. Google "Mulford Act" for details on how the state responded to that exercise of open carry rights.

A similar example is schools in MA. 269/10j requires the gun to be "on your person" to be subject to the school ban, but I am confident that any widespread attempt to openly exercise that right will result in a legislative change to remove this "limitation" (antis would call it a loophole) in the school ban.

 

[browncoat]

When it comes to guns, very little is actually a "right" and even those things that are "rights" are often ignored by the courts, particularly in MA. For example, the MA courts have held that Heller does not protect access to an LTC since an LtC allows carry outside the home (ignoring the fact that the LTC is needed to exercise a protected right).

When it comes to open carry, the venue needs to be carefully selected. There are some places, like NH, where open carry serves to educate the police and public, and strengthen access to open carry. Ditto for some people in CT who litigated charges related to license holders carrying openly. But, there are other places where "open carry" will get the law changed. The long gun open carry was banned in CA when Black Panthers started carrying openly in the CA assembly. Google "Mulford Act" for details on how the state responded to that exercise of open carry rights.

A similar example is schools in MA. 269/10j requires the gun to be "on your person" to be subject to the school ban, but I am confident that any widespread attempt to openly exercise that right will result in a legislative change to remove this "limitation" (antis would call it a loophole) in the school ban.

I know what happened in CA. People who worship Reagan should see what he had to say about it

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[FatBastard]

...

 

[ChevyGuy91]

“Didn’t feel like I was bothering anybody,” Kyle said. “I am a hunter, I do like to hunt and I just wanted to sit on my front porch with my gun, I didn’t think that was a big deal.”

MYOFB.

Some of you guys would shit a brick rolling through my neighborhood.

 

[MisterHappy]

The problem that I have with the "we need better strategic thinking" is that we're as organized as a Chinese Fire Drill.

First, we have the NRA (and others) at the National level; but they've more or less abandoned Mass.

Second, we have GOAL, but they only have ~10% of Mass gun owners, and a good %age of their Members are unhappy that GOAL can't get Bacon Hill to do what we want, and a bunch more are unhappy that they're not more militant. Also, they should be organizing more rallies, stand-outs and protests. So WHAT if they have a stall of four, and that memberships dropped after they did yeoman's work in pushing back against Linsky et al?

Then you have the gun owners that see a need for reasonable restrictions on whatever 2A activity that they personally don't engage in, be it EBRs, Glocks, or OC. I'd say that I won't even mention the old "Carry at a bar/after a beer" thing, but I just did.

Now, in a state that's not all crazy like Mass, NJ, NY or CA, what's normal to them is insanely edgy to us, here. Of course, if you tell a free stater that you need a license to possess a key chain with a cartridge, or an expended hull from the first claybird you broke, they'll think you're nuts, or pulling their leg.

This is why the Antis are so effective: they see a problem; they identify and define the problem in clear, simple terms (AR-15!!!!!!! AAAAHHHH!), and then propose a clear, simple solution: BAN THEM! Then, when they can't the the complete ban, they take the partial win (mag restriction, bullet button, whatever), count it as a win, then go back to their base and say, "Excellent first step - but we need MORE!"

FFS, in Mass, there's a retroactive law passed, affecting tens of thousands of owners, and people bitch that the state house is too far away and that the time of the rally is not convenient. Oh, and that the message is poorly phrased, and we need to have more militant (and LESS militant) signage. And that GOAL should have known, and that they should have told more people. When only 10% of gun owners in the PRM belong to GOAL

And, when a guy in Kansas breaks no law (and is threatened with physical injury for doing so), people here say that he's not doing the right thing.

 

[usp45ct]

While I don't think it very smart of him to sit on the porch with an AK, it is his gun and his house and is not breaking laws. Me, I'd never do it, but who am I to judge?

To answe Greg's question, yeah, I'd be pissed off if they burned their own American flag at a soldiers funeral, but it is still their right.

As for for the anti, if a tire pops outside a train station in DC and some snowflake tweets out "Ban Guns Now" do you really think this guy antics are the straw that broke the camels back? Seriously?

These antis are not just Antiguan. They are truly anti right so they really are worrying about bigger things now like stopping DJT.

My daughter had her last class in English at UMASS on Friday. Her teacher has a presentation on why they need to stop Trump to include open revolt. My daughter mentioned i was retired military and that I probably owned some guns, though she has never seen them. (Just role with me here, she has seen them and shot most) as well as how I voted. She went on to state we as a country have the most experience as a military in the history of the world, and most of the guns are in the hands of people on the right. How do you think an open revolt would go?

Pretty sad you get graded by your political party.

so you really think a guy sitting on his porch is giving us a bad name as compared to what IS going on in schools?

 

[Oldarmy]

The bigger question is, why are some people always sooooo worried about what "the antis" will think? In my estimation antis DON'T think they emote so who gives a rats azz what they think F them is my sentiment. You should never drive fast or do burnouts either you know, it makes us drivers look bad. Lets get off this crap about what the antis think. Why do you let these panty wastes make you feel like a second class citizen? Sheep are always going to bahhhhh so let them wet their drawers and cry themselves to sleep, again WGAF.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

Interesting self outting thread.

We should be careful to not offend the snowflakes because they will take our rights away. Did I summarize the position correctly?

I am sad.

If you think it's about not offending "the snowflakes" and can't go deeper with you're thinking, then yeah, it's an out yourself thread, but not the kind YOU were thinking it was....

 

[crazymjb]

Not sure how legally carrying a firearm is irresponsible behavior or him looking for his 15 minutes. Sheep report every little thing that scares them. This country is already in FR mode. If more people like this guy carry then maybe everyone will start to get used to it and report it less. Why should we have to hide? Makes no sense.

Of course it is, and it's validated with him going on TV with his stupid GF mouth-breathing along side him. It's called posturing. Sitting across the street from a school with a rifle in your lap during pick-up/drop-off, and getting into it with people over parking, is being an epic douche. It shouldn't be illegal, but the guys an *******. No need to make excuses for him.

Mike

 

[CrackPot]

If you think it's about not offending "the snowflakes" and can't go deeper with you're thinking, then yeah, it's an out yourself thread, but not the kind YOU were thinking it was....

It is definitely just what i thought it was. I guess it is also about not offending the fake libertarians either...

 

[ThePreBanMan]

Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you should. When you want to convince others to see things your way and/or respect your point of view - the quickest way to make that not happen is to disrespect theirs. Openly carrying an AR near a school.... yea that will go a long way to convince those less comfortable around firearms that they belong in our open and free society. And lets be honest - even as gun owners if we were dropping our kids off and saw that we would all be like WTF.... Not like - oh cool - look there's a guy with an AR on his lap across the street from my kids school... Yep let me just drop off little Johnny and be on my way...

The first rule of the gun debate should be the same as the Hippocratic Oath... DO NO HARM to the cause!

 

[ThePreBanMan]

The bigger question is, why are some people always sooooo worried about what "the antis" will think? In my estimation antis DON'T think they emote so who gives a rats azz what they think F them is my sentiment. You should never drive fast or do burnouts either you know, it makes us drivers look bad. Lets get off this crap about what the antis think. Why do you let these panty wastes make you feel like a second class citizen? Sheep are always going to bahhhhh so let them wet their drawers and cry themselves to sleep, again WGAF.

Because for better or worse, like them or not, we all are collectively part of society. Sometimes a litle respect for their point of view is better than pissing on it. When someone has a fear of something you don't get them over it by forceully exposing them to it in the worst possible context - IE: AR at a school.


They're fear may be largely irrational in our eyes. But actions like this just justify it in theirs and are more harmful to our side in the debate than helpful.

 

[GM-GUY]

This type of thing will push it to it's logical conclusion. Either they get rid of the 2nd or it goes back to being as intended.

If they get rid of it - they will have more to worry about that a guy sitting on his porch.

If it goes back to being as intended - I bet the guy wouldn't be on his porch.


The gay folks used the same method - get in everyone's faces and now they have more rights than straight folks. I can't make a baker make me a cake if they don't want to - but they can, or get them fined and put out business.

At this point, I see no problem using the methods of the left against them. I wouldn't break the law like blocking highways - but making a general nuisance of ourselves is fine.


If you think you can make peace with the anti's......

They have called for semi-auto bans, sniper rifle bans, bullet bans, large caliber and handgun bans and many times over the years. If you get to keep anything it will be a single shot 30-30 with jhp (no solid copper or bonding).

Semi-Auto bans : 1994 started out as an outright ban on everything (Diane Feinstein)
Sniper and Bullet bans as far back as Ted Kennedy.
Large Caliber (50 cal) bans: Already done in California, failed in DC (begot the 416)
Handgun bans: The 60's and 70's were huge on this - Bartley-Fox was part of it.

The only type of gun I have gotten every anti to agree that is okay is a musket.

 

[Oldarmy]

Because for better or worse, like them or not, we all are collectively part of society. Sometimes a litle respect for their point of view is better than pissing on it. When someone has a fear of something you don't get them over it by forceully exposing them to it in the worst possible context - IE: AR at a school.


They're fear may be largely irrational in our eyes. But actions like this just justify it in theirs and are more harmful to our side in the debate than helpful.

They do NOTHING BUT SHIT on our point of view. So I DGAF what they think and never will.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

They do NOTHING BUT SHIT on our point of view. So I DGAF what they think and never will.

Debates are never won by those racing to the bottom. We don't have to convince THEM - and we never will. We have to convince those others of reasonable minds who are watching the behavior of both sides. This does not help.. So let the rabid anti's act like loons doing things like suspending kids who make pew pew finger guns at recess, playing cowboys and Indians, etc.... the only thing that establishes is that they don't trust themselves with firearms - and that mistrust is well placed. But so long as we rise above - then to an outsider looking in - it appears as though the anti's are just trying to project the mistrust they have in themselves onto others who are of a more sound mind.... and that's a debate they will lose..

 

[42!]

The bigger question is, why are some people always sooooo worried about what "the antis" will think? In my estimation antis DON'T think they emote so who gives a rats azz what they think F them is my sentiment. You should never drive fast or do burnouts either you know, it makes us drivers look bad. Lets get off this crap about what the antis think. Why do you let these panty wastes make you feel like a second class citizen? Sheep are always going to bahhhhh so let them wet their drawers and cry themselves to sleep, again WGAF.

This goes beyond guns. When you're working against a group that is MUCH larger than your own you have to care what they think. They have the votes. You need their support, or at least their apathy. In MA that means no stirring up their fear unduly. It sucks but it's true. In other states a well organized OC event, or just OC, may be helpful. But even there, as it's been said, if I saw a guy across the street from my kid's school I would not be thinking "he's just exercising his right". I'd be thinking "there is something wrong here that need to be looked into and dealt with".

For those comparing this with LBGT marches that eventually lead to laws supporting/protecting that cause, the comparison is invalid. In that situation the majority simply didn't care. It was/is a small minority that was in fear and opposed their cause. The marches had the effect of calling attention to the cause resulting in the apathetic saying "sure why not" and supporting the cause. While at the same time stirring up the opposition into action and statements, which only helped the cause as they came across, to the majority, as fearful and hateful. By comparison, in MA, if every owner of a "scary black rifle" was to open carry it would not educate anyone or normalize OC. It would result in the antis and the apathetic calling for, and getting, changes to the law that would be far worse than what we have.

Ultimately there is no OC is good, OC is bad. Time, place, manner, intent, and due consideration of impact, matter.

In this case the guy is trying to stir things up, get attention, and possibly intimidate. Basically he's an A-Hole. And I'm generally opposed to A-Holes, and that has nothing to do with OC.

 

[FrugalFannie]

Yeah but 2A, he's just exercising his rights!

Agreed- we don't need that type of publicity. I thought some of the OC Texas boobs were doing harm to the cause as well. Idiots walking around carrying AR's and AK's, with poor trigger discipline.

- - - Updated - - -



Yep!

Those "boobs" are the reason TX now has OC for handguns. Every time I saw any pictures or video of them, they all had good trigger discipline and had the firearm pointed in a "safe" direction. Most of them had them sung across their backs.

But hey, don't exercise what small portions of your rights you are still allowed to possess and they'll decide to just take the rest of them away.

 

[bostonasphalt2]

Those "boobs" are the reason TX now has OC for handguns. Every time I saw any pictures or video of them, they all had good trigger discipline and had the firearm pointed in a "safe" direction. Most of them had them sung across their backs.

But hey, don't exercise what small portions of your rights you are still allowed to possess and they'll decide to just take the rest of them away.

however, there have been negative results from doing the same exact kinds of things (see: California). Hence, my "actions don't exist in a vacuum" holds true, and you HAVE to pay attention to every other input and factor around (aka, being 'strategic').

But, no one on this forum ever wants to think past the walls that contain their individual brain, and think that just going full speed into a wall all the time will always end up with a positive result

(Not directed at you specifically, PennyPincher)

 

[FrugalFannie]

When it comes to guns, very little is actually a "right" and even those things that are "rights" are often ignored by the courts, particularly in MA. For example, the MA courts have held that Heller does not protect access to an LTC since an LtC allows carry outside the home (ignoring the fact that the LTC is needed to exercise a protected right).

When it comes to open carry, the venue needs to be carefully selected. There are some places, like NH, where open carry serves to educate the police and public, and strengthen access to open carry. Ditto for some people in CT who litigated charges related to license holders carrying openly. But, there are other places where "open carry" will get the law changed. The long gun open carry was banned in CA when Black Panthers started carrying openly in the CA assembly. Google "Mulford Act" for details on how the state responded to that exercise of open carry rights.

A similar example is schools in MA. 269/10j requires the gun to be "on your person" to be subject to the school ban, but I am confident that any widespread attempt to openly exercise that right will result in a legislative change to remove this "limitation" (antis would call it a loophole) in the school ban.

Rob is correct when it comes to MA. I think it would be suicidal in MA to attempt something like this where it is filled with Nannies like Healey and others who think you have no rights. This makes it even more important in places where rights still exist to exercise them and to even push the envelope to help expand the rights of all. Look at how the Left has pushed the extremes to accomplish their changes. It's a valid tactic. What this man did was nothing. He was actually threatened when he was sitting on his own property. Can you imagine the headline if one of us threatened someone who was flying a rainbow flag on their property? And no, I don't care what's between your legs or who you share your bed with. Why do these nuts think they have the right to get in our faces? Because they get away with it and we just cower in our corners and hope that no one comes and takes our guns or more of our "rights."

 

[browncoat]

Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you should. When you want to convince others to see things your way and/or respect your point of view - the quickest way to make that not happen is to disrespect theirs. Openly carrying an AR near a school.... yea that will go a long way to convince those less comfortable around firearms that they belong in our open and free society. And lets be honest - even as gun owners if we were dropping our kids off and saw that we would all be like WTF.... Not like - oh cool - look there's a guy with an AR on his lap across the street from my kids school... Yep let me just drop off little Johnny and be on my way...

The first rule of the gun debate should be the same as the Hippocratic Oath... DO NO HARM to the cause!

Maybe you would be unnerved. I am not disturbed by people with guns unless they appear actively aggressive. I actually do think "oh cool" when I see people with guns

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[FrugalFannie]

however, there have been negative results from doing the same exact kinds of things (see: California). Hence, my "actions don't exist in a vacuum" holds true, and you HAVE to pay attention to every other input and factor around (aka, being 'strategic').

But, no one on this forum ever wants to think past the walls that contain their individual brain, and think that just going full speed into a wall all the time will always end up with a positive result

(Not directed at you specifically, PennyPincher)

Being strategic means exercising these rights where it isn't likely to carry negative repercussions aka KS, TX, et all. To do this in MA would be folly. Not the place to "push the envelope." That's why it's even more important to fully exercise the rights in areas where you can. In MA, I would say the best thing you can do is get more people to get their LTCs and exercise that right and to vote in ways that support it. If gun owners in MA were a large enough block, politicians would stop shitting all over them in MA.

 

[ThePreBanMan]

Maybe you would be unnerved. I am not disturbed by people with guns unless they appear actively aggressive. I actually do think "oh cool" when I see people with guns

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

Ok fine - but you represent about 2% of the population.... and we don't win debates by only accommodating what pleases your point of view.

 

[Tim L]

He broke no laws. I won't tell him how to exercise his rights and I will ignore anyone who wants to tell me the "right " way to exercise mine.

 

[browncoat]

Ok fine - but you represent about 2% of the population.... and we don't win debates by only accommodating what pleases your point of view.

Lots of legal, rightful things don't please me. That's the point of rights.

Also, we are mostly losing because fewer and fewer people believe in rights at all, on either side. Conservatives and liberals both want to use government to regulate behavior.

Sent from my LGLS991 using Tapatalk

 

[bostonasphalt2]

He broke no laws. I won't tell him how to exercise his rights and I will ignore anyone who wants to tell me the "right " way to exercise mine.

Then fire up your (royal you) brain and think about your actions.

Everyone complains about the firearms community being severely disjointed. This highlights it perfectly. We need to push as a community and be smart, but instead everyone reverts to "me me me".......can't have it both ways.