First off, I've lived in the south my entire life. Every state I've lived in has been a fairly open to firearms state: Louisiana, Texas, Arizona. Maine seems to be fairly open to gun rights at the moment.
Moving up here has been an eye-opening experience in how far the banners have come. My only real interaction with anti-gunners has been dealing with California and it's gun laws.
That said, is the 'in your face' open carry making head way into the general population? It seems to me that every story I've read on this issue in the press, in general, has been turned into a 'gun nut shows up at XXXX event'. I don't get local channels, so my interaction with local press is limited.
The Detective in the one post seemed to me to be very professional in how he was forced to deal with the issue. The situation was resolved in a peacefull manner and all parties went seperate ways. This does not seem to be the case in most instances and the press dumps on the pro-gun issue.
Long story short, is this working to forward the pro-gun agenda? Or is there a negative overall effect in regards to opening up gun laws in the restricted states?
If you feel the need to flame me, go ahead, but it's a serious question from an outside point of view. Hopefully, I gave enough backstory to tell you all where I'm coming from on this topic. It just seems counterproductive to me in general. I've posted pictures of my inventory, so I'm not a troll .
Moving up here has been an eye-opening experience in how far the banners have come. My only real interaction with anti-gunners has been dealing with California and it's gun laws.
That said, is the 'in your face' open carry making head way into the general population? It seems to me that every story I've read on this issue in the press, in general, has been turned into a 'gun nut shows up at XXXX event'. I don't get local channels, so my interaction with local press is limited.
The Detective in the one post seemed to me to be very professional in how he was forced to deal with the issue. The situation was resolved in a peacefull manner and all parties went seperate ways. This does not seem to be the case in most instances and the press dumps on the pro-gun issue.
Long story short, is this working to forward the pro-gun agenda? Or is there a negative overall effect in regards to opening up gun laws in the restricted states?
If you feel the need to flame me, go ahead, but it's a serious question from an outside point of view. Hopefully, I gave enough backstory to tell you all where I'm coming from on this topic. It just seems counterproductive to me in general. I've posted pictures of my inventory, so I'm not a troll .