How NOT to promote gun rights...

[voyager9 3,434]

Must have something to do with Cities named Portland (unless this is the same incident?):

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2012/12/28/maine-man-stroll-with-assault-weapon-sparks-ire/JkGjPrGneMot7bfFq4cQ2O/story.html

 

Portland police received more than 65 calls Monday reporting that a young man was walking through Parkside neighborhood and the Back Cove area with an AR-15-style assault weapon. Justin Dean, 24, insisted he was not making any sort of statement but rather had the loaded rifle for protection while exercising his Second Amendment rights.

 

Dean broke no laws, but advocates on both sides of the gun-control debate said he could have picked a better way to exert his rights than by carrying a weapon in a densely populated neighborhood and on a popular walking path.

 

First, I think the cops handled it well.. they received a lot of calls to 911.. they investigate and talk to him and then go along their way.

Second, I think it's a bit disingenuous to say he's not trying to "make a statement" by "exercising his 2nd Amendment rights".

Third: This is why that decision, while legal, was not smart:

Dean’s stroll underscores the need for municipalities to have the authority to pass their own local gun control laws, said Ed Suslovic, a Portland city councilor who hopes to introduce a proposal to the Legislature in the upcoming session that would allow just that. State law forbids towns and cities from passing local gun control ordinances.

[va_bank 0]

This is a truly sad commentary on the state of the Republic and the quality of the Citizenry.

 

If you're going to insult people, why do it in such an indirect, passive-aggressive way? Loses the whole point, in my opinion.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

I don't see any problem. If enough people do it, they won't be so quick to dial 911. It's about changing the mindset of people, not conforming to it. I'd also feel much safer with law abiding citizens armed it I wasn't.

 

Agreed

 

God bless'em

[Combat Auto 174]

I like it! It is legal there - so have at it...Come out of the closet to educate the Mob - think it is a good idea...Stop hiding in the shadows.

 

And guarentee, that was the safest steet in town while they were there,

[db1775 4]

If you're going to insult people, why do it in such an indirect, passive-aggressive way? Loses the whole point, in my opinion.

 

I don't post often, though I have been a member for a few years and read most threads. I've noticed a distinct coarsening of the commentary on this board in the past 6-12 months, as it has grown. I make it a point NOT to insult and call out people, unless directly addressed. I find no need to do so. My ego is not wrapped up in winning Internet confrontations.

 

Having said that . . .

 

If I was going to insult someone I would say that "they need to learn how to read". THAT is an insult. You might want to re-evaluate the meaning of the word. To say that we, as gun owners, must feel so ashamed as to hide ourselves (as Mr. Holder has suggested we should) IS INDEED a sad commentary on the state of our Republic and the quality of the modern Citizenry. This is an issue we should not even have to ponder.

[SgtToadette 59]

This is a truly sad commentary on the state of the Republic and the quality of the Citizenry.

 

By attempting to assuage the feelings of soccer moms and other associated hoplophobes we are playing to the lowest common denominator, a game that we can only lose. YOU WILL NEVER CONVINCE THE AVERAGE SUBURBAN MOM IN AMERICA THAT AR-15s ARE GOOD FOR THEIR CHILDREN. I think we have to recognize that no amount of education will shake these people from their fear.

 

They are not even cognizant enough of their own history and culture (excluding pop-culture) to understand that they are DUTY BOUND by their status as "Citizen" to fight for the God (or Nature if that offends)-given rights secured to us by others, whether they agree with it or not - the right of self-defense is non-negotiable. If they force the entire country to give that up because of their phobia, then so be it. But I would rather contest them and lose than cower in the closet, hoping that they are good and generous enough to let me keep a .22 bolt action or single shot rifle.

 

If you believe in the notion of Natural Rights and those being the foundation of the Republic, I don't see how you can support any kind of "strategic" accommodation or compromise based on the Antis' feelings and lack of education. This is a chance to show ourselves and the rest of the world what is distinctive about being American -- or that we've become just like the rest of them. This really is an Either/Or situation.

 

If we as a community subscribe to the idea of 'if you're not with us, you're against us' then we've effectively committed political suicide and we will lose. The notion that because some people can't be swayed means that we shouldn't even try is counter-productive to say the least.

 

There still exists group of people who can be swayed. If I recall my stats correctly, after Aurora, CO public opinion was still in our favor and simply because we've lost some of that percentage in the surge of negative emotions post-Newtown, doesn't meant that we can't get it back. If anything, we need to try our hardest to get those people on the fence over to our side. Emotions fade and nobody wants to be the enemy of reason.

 

I'm going to link a video of the author Sam Harris speaking because I think he raises an incredibly good point. Now please realize, and I'll only say this once, I am not linking this video to raise a religious point despite the specifics of the actual video. I am linking this video because the CONCEPT is analogous to how I believe we should proceed in the spectrum of guns. I am linking to a specific point in the video to avoid offending anyone.

 

[db1775 4]

Sgt - that is an excellent point, cogently argued. There are people that can be educated, but I do not believe they are people already predisposed to be Anti. There is always a mass of people in the middle. They can be swayed, but I do not believe that can be done by hiding the free, safe and mature exercise of our rights, which the article in question seems to indIcate. People on the fence seeing responsible gun owners out and about will do more to educate and win over than classes, i think.

[RS1200XL 4]

So it is NOT the USA...............and the point being...??? We as gun owners, some of whom are AFRAID to even let anyone KNOW we own guns.....WHY is that...I am not afraid.....**IF** more folks in the US saw the positive side of onwership and EXERCISE those rights...MAYBE just MAYBE we wouldnt be where we are at...

 

Bingo!

[EchoMirage 137]

My last words on this:

 

From a legal standpoint it was perfectly fine. From a strategic standpoint, piss poor. Much better strategy could have been employed.

 

uh huh. its perfectly legal to own an AR. but do you have to? its legal to own an M1A. but do you really have to?

 

http://njgunforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/45016-my-credit-card-just-melted/

 

i dont think you have to. just because you can, doesnt mean you should, right. what are you using them for. why do you need them. i think it puts a bad light on gun owners that you own an AR and socom. you dont need to.