NRA says Open Carry Texas demonstrations 'downright scary'

[Firefighterchen]

No, I don't honestly think guns are the cause of guns becoming negative. I'm saying that Moms Demand Nonsense are using this type of open carry demonstration to incite fear in the general population. And that it would be better to use a different tactic to raise awareness that doesn't give MDA a platform to incite this fear.

Yet in trying to get that point across, but I'm accused of not backing up open carriers and told to grow a pair. And I'm the one dividing gun owners? Whatever.

MDA has not even come close to inciting fear into the general population...They have succeeded in inciting fear in gun owners though.

Clarify for me, you are backing up open carriers but you don't want them to hold open carry demonstrations? You don't think guns are causing guns to become negative but MDA is using the sight of them to incite fear?

Yes, you and those that can't seem to find the support for OCT, are the ones dividing gun owners. While I never told you to grow a pair, what will it take for you support OCT instead of fearing MDA?

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[BC1]

It's only downright scary for the anti's.

I believe the lack of judgment to be astounding. Not much experience negotiating I suspect. You will never force your enemy into submission unless you actually use force. You will not win-over people who are gun-neutral through these acts. This behavior is exactly what the anti-gun movement wants. And though I wouldn't tell them they can't do this in public or by invitation as it's legal, I'm certainly going to look long and hard at them. I'm not anti-gun, I'm anti-people. If I don't know you personally I don't trust you.

 

[whodat2710]

I'm certainly going to look long and hard at them. I'm not anti-gun, I'm anti-people. If I don't know you personally I don't trust you.

This is the only "pro-mommie"comment I can sort of agree with. The difference would be that I would go up to them and ask what was up. Maybe the revolution has started and I need more ammo! I'm a pretty good judge of character, and if I didn't like the first impression I might just move along. I will NOT disparage them utilizing the only legal open carry option available to them; especially when they are actively protesting the fact that it is their only option.
-
My only problem with the whole situation is wondering how many of these people ONLY carry for protest.

 

[whodat2710]

Link Removed
Here's the interesting part:

Watts made this comment in response to a question from CNN host Victor Blackwell.

Blackwell said:


I want to challenge you on something Shannon. Wayne LaPierre, executive director of the NRA, after Sandy Hook, said the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. And I think, essentially [what guns rights proponents are saying] is [they] want their wives to be able to carry--to be the good person with the gun. Is there an example in school shootings or a mall shooting or these public facilities, where that has been wrong? Where a bad guy with a gun has been stopped in any other way or by a person other than a law enforcement officer with a gun or by killing himself?

Watts responded: "This has never happened. Data shows it doesn't happen."

 

[BC1]

This is the only "pro-mommie"comment I can sort of agree with. The difference would be that I would go up to them and ask what was up. Maybe the revolution has started and I need more ammo! I'm a pretty good judge of character, and if I didn't like the first impression I might just move along. I will NOT disparage them utilizing the only legal open carry option available to them; especially when they are actively protesting the fact that it is their only option.
-
My only problem with the whole situation is wondering how many of these people ONLY carry for protest.

It's not a pro-mommie comment. It's an "anti-people" comment. I have good reason not to trust strangers... they haven't yet earned it.

 

[whodat2710]

It's not a pro-mommie comment. It's an "anti-people" comment. I have good reason not to trust strangers... they haven't yet earned it.

Just meaning that it goes along with their point of view. Can't trust those strangers with guns...

 

[BC1]

Just meaning that it goes along with their point of view. Can't trust those strangers with guns...

Or without guns. Trust is something that's earned.

 

[Oldgrunt]

Link Removed

I definitely do not oppose open carry of weapons, even rifles, when one is out on the town. If you will notice, all of the people in this picture have their weapons slung over their shoulders, barrel down, which is not that intimidating. Given their location, I am surprised there weren't more armed people in the picture. In the case of the two at Chipotle's, the one little peckerwood is carrying his weapon in more of a ready position one would use when anticipating a firefight. That would be intimidating to me and I would definitely keep an eye on him. The other fellow looks as if he just stepped out of a "Deliverance" movie. His "Bubba" appearance would make one wonder what he was about. All in all, I would not deny them their rights but would suggest they at least improve their appearance and posturing when carrying.

Link Removed

 

[Firefighterchen]

I definitely do not oppose open carry of weapons, even rifles, when one is out on the town. If you will notice, all of the people in this picture have their weapons slung over their shoulders, barrel down, which is not that intimidating. Given their location, I am surprised there weren't more armed people in the picture. In the case of the two at Chipotle's, the one little peckerwood is carrying his weapon in more of a ready position one would use when anticipating a firefight. That would be intimidating to me and I would definitely keep an eye on him. The other fellow looks as if he just stepped out of a "Deliverance" movie. His "Bubba" appearance would make one wonder what he was about. All in all, I would not deny them their rights but would suggest they at least improve their appearance and posturing when carrying.

Link Removed

This is what I mean when I say the fear being incited is in gun owners...whether it's MDA or just gun owners being more aware...no one at the restaurant complained that day or was in fear.

Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app

 

[Rhino]

I definitely do not oppose open carry of weapons, even rifles, when one is out on the town. If you will notice, all of the people in this picture have their weapons slung over their shoulders, barrel down, which is not that intimidating. Given their location, I am surprised there weren't more armed people in the picture. In the case of the two at Chipotle's, the one little peckerwood is carrying his weapon in more of a ready position one would use when anticipating a firefight. That would be intimidating to me and I would definitely keep an eye on him. The other fellow looks as if he just stepped out of a "Deliverance" movie. His "Bubba" appearance would make one wonder what he was about. All in all, I would not deny them their rights but would suggest they at least improve their appearance and posturing when carrying.

Or maybe ... possibly ... could be ... they're just posing for a picture. A picture the management asked them to pose for. The other, more candid shot I saw from that day showed them carrying the rifles slung over their backs, muzzles down. Had it been me, I would have been better dressed for the occasion, I'll grant that. But their attire is hardly menacing in daily life in Texas. It might be a different story in Manhattan, but they weren't in Manhattan. I think that's part of what concerns the NRA over this issue. I don't think they're all that bothered with the impression people got in the Chipotle when these guys were welcomed by the management and were interacting with them. I don't think they're worried either about the people in the parking lot of the Dallas Home Depot where those folks had gathered before with no problems whatsoever. I think what really bothered the NRA was that this was now being publicized nationwide and people far beyond Dallas Texas were seeing the pictures, and many of those people were getting a far more negative impression from it than the people in Dallas were. The NRA is worried about that fallout from places other than Dallas rather than from Dallas itself. So it wasn't what these guys were doing in Dallas that was really bothering the NRA. It was the fact that the nationwide publicity was getting negative reactions elsewhere that bothered them. Or at least that's what I think anyway.

 

[Bikenut]

I can't get over how many gun folks are spreading the same fear mongering that the anti's do.

Anti gunner says: "They are carrying guns in places I don't think they should."
Gun owning anti gunner lite says: "They are carrying rifles in places I don't think they should."

Anti gunner says: "They look scary with those guns! How do I know they won't just start shooting up the place?"
Gun owning anti gunner lite says: "They look scary dressed like that and holding those rifles like that. I'd be watching them because how do I know they won't just start shooting up the place?"

Anti gunner says: "We should ban guns everywhere so we won't be scared by seeing them and we will be safer because we won't get shot".
Gun owning anti gunner lite says: "We should be very careful not to carry guns in places where people will see them and get scared so they don't try to take away our right to carry guns."

I am extremely dismayed after seeing the stuff posted by folks who want people to believe they support the right to bear arms yet what they say is that they really support is people who bear arms while dressed "appropriately", and only bear arms in places that are "reasonable", and only bear arms in ways that are "acceptable"..... never understanding that the anti gunners also have an opinion about what is "appropriate", "reasonable", and "acceptable" and when we start thinking that the right to bear arms is subject to what someone thinks is "appropriate", "reasonable", and "acceptable" then we do not have the right but we do have folks constantly defining the meaning of....................

"appropriate", "reasonable", and "acceptable".

 

[whodat2710]

Anti gunner says: "We should ban guns everywhere so we won't be scared by seeing them and we will be safer because we won't get shot".
Gun owning anti gunner lite says: "We should be very careful not to carry guns in places where people will see them and get scared so they don't try to take away our right to carry guns."

Correction:
Gun owning anti gunner lite says: "We should only allow people to carry concealed (with the government making sure they are ok) so what the people don't see won't scare them and so they don't try to take away our right to carry guns."

 

[BC1]

I can't get over how many gun folks are spreading the same fear mongering that the anti's do.

Anti gunner says: "They are carrying guns in places I don't think they should."
Gun owning anti gunner lite says: "They are carrying rifles in places I don't think they should."

Anti gunner says: "They look scary with those guns! How do I know they won't just start shooting up the place?"
Gun owning anti gunner lite says: "They look scary dressed like that and holding those rifles like that. I'd be watching them because how do I know they won't just start shooting up the place?"

Anti gunner says: "We should ban guns everywhere so we won't be scared by seeing them and we will be safer because we won't get shot".
Gun owning anti gunner lite says: "We should be very careful not to carry guns in places where people will see them and get scared so they don't try to take away our right to carry guns."

I am extremely dismayed after seeing the stuff posted by folks who want people to believe they support the right to bear arms yet what they say is that they really support is people who bear arms while dressed "appropriately", and only bear arms in places that are "reasonable", and only bear arms in ways that are "acceptable"..... never understanding that the anti gunners also have an opinion about what is "appropriate", "reasonable", and "acceptable" and when we start thinking that the right to bear arms is subject to what someone thinks is "appropriate", "reasonable", and "acceptable" then we do not have the right but we do have folks constantly defining the meaning of....................

"appropriate", "reasonable", and "acceptable".

Property owner says GTF out! Everyone! :jester:

 

[Oldgrunt]

Or maybe ... possibly ... could be ... they're just posing for a picture. A picture the management asked them to pose for. The other, more candid shot I saw from that day showed them carrying the rifles slung over their backs, muzzles down. Had it been me, I would have been better dressed for the occasion, I'll grant that. But their attire is hardly menacing in daily life in Texas. It might be a different story in Manhattan, but they weren't in Manhattan. I think that's part of what concerns the NRA over this issue. I don't think they're all that bothered with the impression people got in the Chipotle when these guys were welcomed by the management and were interacting with them. I don't think they're worried either about the people in the parking lot of the Dallas Home Depot where those folks had gathered before with no problems whatsoever. I think what really bothered the NRA was that this was now being publicized nationwide and people far beyond Dallas Texas were seeing the pictures, and many of those people were getting a far more negative impression from it than the people in Dallas were. The NRA is worried about that fallout from places other than Dallas rather than from Dallas itself. So it wasn't what these guys were doing in Dallas that was really bothering the NRA. It was the fact that the nationwide publicity was getting negative reactions elsewhere that bothered them. Or at least that's what I think anyway.

As I have read in previous posts, these fellows were invited to the place which is all well and good. As you said, I would have been better dressed and have tried to present a positive image as a member of the gun crowd. I am not anti-gun lite by any means nor am I trying to impose dress regulations on anyone but their appearance will definitely have a bearing on how they (we) are thought of. The only thing I would caution people about is that how we present ourselves can determine just how much latitude we are or will be allowed. I am all for our "rights" under the 2d Amendment and will stand up for them with everyone else. However, I am not going to fool myself into thinking that the "anti" groups won't make hay of any opportunity to make us look bad and restrict our activities. I, at least, do not want to provide them with the ammunition to use against us.

 

[BluesStringer]

However, I am not going to fool myself into thinking that the "anti" groups won't make hay of any opportunity to make us look bad and restrict our activities. I, at least, do not want to provide them with the ammunition to use against us.

Brother, the only thing needed for antis to "make hay" with, is the existence of the 2nd Amendment. Nothing we could ever do short of no one using its protections and acknowledgements of our natural rights will ever appease them.

While I have never been as big as the bigger guy in that pic, there have been times in both my personal and working life when I would've looked a lot more scruffy than that guy. Try being covered in smoke and residue from welding rod burned into galvanized steel for 8 or 10 hours a day. After taking off my respirator (galvanized steel is toxic when burned) and welding hood, I'd look like a raccoon with smoke covering every part of my face where the respirator wasn't, and clean as a whistle where it covered my skin. Back when I drank socially (waaaaay back), that's exactly how I'd look when the crew went to have a beer after work, only most of the time I was on my bike and was wearing full leathers besides.

You described a guy who was doing something to stand up for everybody's rights as a "Bubba" and like he was from "Deliverance." You are promulgating negative stereotypes of gun owners and gun rights activists by saying things like that, which means you're doing the anti's job for them. That's the point. It's one thing to suggest an alternative strategy without being insulting or calling them "idiots" and any number of other pejoratives that have found their way on this gun rights forum against gun rights activists, but I'm here to tell you that some of the smartest, most conscientious, most dedicated constitutional advocates are such, whether or not they happen to also be fat asses with boonie caps and scruffy beards.

I've said more than once that I wouldn't necessarily choose to do what those guys are doing or where they've been doing it, but I have never once criticized them for doing it. Isn't it enough to just say, "I wouldn't do that, but more power to 'em if it works for them," rather than comparing them to backwoods rapists from Deliverance? I mean, who's hurting "our" image worse, those standing for their rights, or those putting them down for standing for their rights? "We" can do better.

Blues

 

[Rhino]

As I have read in previous posts, these fellows were invited to the place which is all well and good. As you said, I would have been better dressed and have tried to present a positive image as a member of the gun crowd. I am not anti-gun lite by any means nor am I trying to impose dress regulations on anyone but their appearance will definitely have a bearing on how they (we) are thought of. The only thing I would caution people about is that how we present ourselves can determine just how much latitude we are or will be allowed. I am all for our "rights" under the 2d Amendment and will stand up for them with everyone else. However, I am not going to fool myself into thinking that the "anti" groups won't make hay of any opportunity to make us look bad and restrict our activities. I, at least, do not want to provide them with the ammunition to use against us.

I don't question your motives at all. I know you only want to prevent negative images that you think could harm our cause. There's absolutely no fault in that. Blues makes an excellent point that the anti-gunners will make hay of any image we project, and they do so repeatedly. I think it's to be expected that people will have differing opinions on when we get to the point that we're providing too many of those images or not. What I was trying to point out is my post was not that broader point though. All I was trying to point out was that the observations you made were negative assumptions that weren't really true, much like the claims the anti-gunners made. But I was not in any attempting to equate you with them, and I would never accuse you of being anti-gun. I know you want the same things we want, and that your intentions are entirely honorable.

 

[telpinaro]

...
Blues makes an excellent point that the anti-gunners will make hay of any image we project, and they do so repeatedly.
...

No kidding! Miss Nevada doesn't even mention guns, and she still gets slammed: Link Removed

Because God Forbid we promote rape culture by daring to suggest women have the ability to learn to defend themselves. (The point that we shouldn't have to is valid... but we do have to, and we can learn to! Makes me head hurt.)

 

[Oldgrunt]

Brother, the only thing needed for antis to "make hay" with, is the existence of the 2nd Amendment. Nothing we could ever do short of no one using its protections and acknowledgements of our natural rights will ever appease them.

While I have never been as big as the bigger guy in that pic, there have been times in both my personal and working life when I would've looked a lot more scruffy than that guy. Try being covered in smoke and residue from welding rod burned into galvanized steel for 8 or 10 hours a day. After taking off my respirator (galvanized steel is toxic when burned) and welding hood, I'd look like a raccoon with smoke covering every part of my face where the respirator wasn't, and clean as a whistle where it covered my skin. Back when I drank socially (waaaaay back), that's exactly how I'd look when the crew went to have a beer after work, only most of the time I was on my bike and was wearing full leathers besides.

You described a guy who was doing something to stand up for everybody's rights as a "Bubba" and like he was from "Deliverance." You are promulgating negative stereotypes of gun owners and gun rights activists by saying things like that, which means you're doing the anti's job for them. That's the point. It's one thing to suggest an alternative strategy without being insulting or calling them "idiots" and any number of other pejoratives that have found their way on this gun rights forum against gun rights activists, but I'm here to tell you that some of the smartest, most conscientious, most dedicated constitutional advocates are such, whether or not they happen to also be fat asses with boonie caps and scruffy beards.

I've said more than once that I wouldn't necessarily choose to do what those guys are doing or where they've been doing it, but I have never once criticized them for doing it. Isn't it enough to just say, "I wouldn't do that, but more power to 'em if it works for them," rather than comparing them to backwoods rapists from Deliverance? I mean, who's hurting "our" image worse, those standing for their rights, or those putting them down for standing for their rights? "We" can do better.

Blues

Blues: Contrary to what you might think, I will give the guys credit for carrying their weapons in public. Did you notice the difference in how the Israelis were carrying their weapons? All slung over their shoulders, muzzle down, no threatening posture. It is only when a weapon is "brandished" like the little guy was doing that I would get upset. No need for bravado and giving the appearance of a possible threat. And, let's face it, in this day and age, what they (or at least the little fellow) were doing could be perceived as a threat because of the shootings of late. Supposedly these guys were invited to the store open carrying which was fine if it had stopped there. Since it was an eating establishment, I would have personally tried to dress somewhat better and show a more positive side of open carry. I know what you mean about dress. I have come in from hunting before, dirty, and possibly somewhat aromatic, yet stopped at a store in such condition for a few necessities before going home. That, however, was not then, nor would be now, my normal dress when out. I realize there are exceptions to every rule and normally do not get bent out of shape by much. I care as much about open carry as the next person but I think, if we are going to open carry, we should not leave the general public with a less than positive experience. Trying to be positive does not demean us in the slightest. As for offending the fellows, I will offer my apologies for the descriptive terms. Mea Culpa.

 

[whodat2710]

Blues: Contrary to what you might think, I will give the guys credit for carrying their weapons in public. Did you notice the difference in how the Israelis were carrying their weapons? All slung over their shoulders, muzzle down, no threatening posture. It is only when a weapon is "brandished" like the little guy was doing that I would get upset.

Did you happen to notice that this was a posed picture? This was not how the guy was walking around the whole day I'm sure. Also, if it were under any other context people would be saying things like "see how his finger is indexed outside the trigger guard" if they said anything at all. If it was a candid photo, then I agree I might consider the guy a little iffy walking around like he's clearing a room. Rumor has it that it was one of the establishments employees that took the picture because they thought it was cool what the guys were doing.

 

[whodat2710]

Link Removed