Dozen armed with guns protest Obama's speech

Status
Not open for further replies.
How about "Sometime it pays to keep your mouth shut" in that trying to force a point can end up backfiring on you.

I should've phrased it "Discretion is the better part of valor because you can win the battle but lose the war."
 
Last edited:
Nope 38/44,
The rules are absolutely NOT different for one side as opposed to the other. Just ask Bill and Bernadine!
Brilliant observation counselor...
Thanks, Spot. Seems pretty simple to me. Thread sure did decline after I posted, however. I note that adding to my "Ignore" list helps, though.
 
Grrr...

This is why I didn't think it wise to open carry near Presidential functions. As a result, new firearms restrictions are now being proposed.... I expect other gun-grabber to be lining up soon to co-sponsor this @*&%^ proposed ban...
-----------------------------

D.C. delegate calls for ban on guns
By Jordy Yager
Posted: 08/19/09 05:51 PM [ET]

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) called on the Homeland Security Department and the U.S. Secret Service on Wednesday to provide tighter restrictions on citizens carrying weapons, openly or concealed.

Norton, who sits on the Homeland Security Committee, made the request after numerous news reports have shown groups of people brandishing firearms while outside of events held by Obama over the past several weeks.

TheHill.com - D.C. delegate calls for ban on guns near Obama
 
Originally Posted by willy - (1)Yes I would open carry, infact there were times I did while working.
People in the area knew I was carrying large sums of money but they also could see that I was armed.(never a problem.)
This was before CCW was legal in my state.

Am I to understand then that the area you were walking in wasn’t considered off-limits to certain races? In other words, there wasn’t a problem walking there? Or are you saying that you didn’t have a problem walking there because you were openly armed? If that is so, you must have a milder sort of bad guy in your area than other places do. Most places, carrying a large sum of money and being armed just means that the bad guys have to change their tactics.


(2)If it's my right to do it and it offends anyone then they can leave or look the other way.
The same as me when I'm offended by rights that are extended to immoral and disgusting groups that try to force their agendas down our throats.
I have the option to leave or look the other way!

That’s nice, but it doesn’t address the original point being made, which is that lawmakers are responsible to all of their constituents and if you anger a group of them you have to expect the lawmaker to respond to their concerns also. If you anger enough of them, your voice gets drowned out and you have defeated your own purpose.

(3)No you are completely wrong.
You don't teach someone who is scared of the water how to swim by standing them in a bucket of water.
You put them in water up to their neck, where they can see there is no danger of drowning when all they have to do is stand up.
The same with guns.

You can’t teach someone to swim if they aren’t willing to learn. There’s a great deal of difference between overcoming a fear of water because you want to (or are being forced to) learn how to swim and overcoming a fear of guns. You’re not suggesting we force people to like guns, are you, or that we somehow convince them that they want to like guns by scaring them with guns?

When FL decided to issue CCW years back, people thought it was going to result in shootouts at high noon in the streets.
Didn't happen.
Now CCW is legal in most states because people seen it worked, and the public KNOWS the numbers of CCW's are growing.
I don't see mass demostrations calling for the banning of CCW.
People got use to it.

When you carry concealed no one sees it. When you carry openly, everyone does. There are still plenty of people who would like to see CCW laws overturned, but CCW doesn’t have the same emotional impact that open carry does so the reactions aren’t as focused. When you walk down the street with a gun in you pocket, the hoplophobes can’t see it so they can’t react to it. Their reactions to CCW are generalized and vague but their reactions to open carry are specific and precise. Again, this is about emotion, not logic.

(4)Sometimes it's eaiser to just drop a gun in a pocket when out and about, instead of putting on a belt and holster.

Except when you have to make a political statement….

David
 
(1)Am I to understand then that the area you were walking in wasn’t considered off-limits to certain races? In other words, there wasn’t a problem walking there? Or are you saying that you didn’t have a problem walking there because you were openly armed? If that is so, you must have a milder sort of bad guy in your area than other places do. Most places, carrying a large sum of money and being armed just means that the bad guys have to change their tactics.




(2)That’s nice, but it doesn’t address the original point being made, which is that lawmakers are responsible to all of their constituents and if you anger a group of them you have to expect the lawmaker to respond to their concerns also. If you anger enough of them, your voice gets drowned out and you have defeated your own purpose.



(3)You can’t teach someone to swim if they aren’t willing to learn. There’s a great deal of difference between overcoming a fear of water because you want to (or are being forced to) learn how to swim and overcoming a fear of guns. You’re not suggesting we force people to like guns, are you, or that we somehow convince them that they want to like guns by scaring them with guns?



(4)When you carry concealed no one sees it. When you carry openly, everyone does. There are still plenty of people who would like to see CCW laws overturned, but CCW doesn’t have the same emotional impact that open carry does so the reactions aren’t as focused. When you walk down the street with a gun in you pocket, the hoplophobes can’t see it so they can’t react to it. Their reactions to CCW are generalized and vague but their reactions to open carry are specific and precise. Again, this is about emotion, not logic.



(5)Except when you have to make a political statement….

David



(1)When I stated "off limits" I thought you would know it wasn't a state law!
It's whats considered street rules.
I was on a first name basis with the local drug dealers and their gangs plus the whores and all the neighbor hood kids.
Maybe they were a milder sort of bad guy compared to other parts of the country.
I don't know, I just thought they didn't cause much trouble for me because they didn't want a hole poked through their chest.

(2)Exactly!! Finally we agree on something.
If the law makers see how many people are armed maybe they will listen more to our side instead of the smaller faction of anti gunners.

(3)No we can't force people to like guns.
No more than we can force people to like alternative life styles.
But we can't push these people back into the closet.
So why should gun owners hide in the closet??
WE have rights (for now!)
And I'm not going to be one of those to scared to use them!

(4)Yes , they may not see them.
But they can see the rise in permits issued.
They don't know who has a gun ,but they know they are out there.
When people see a (gang banger) with baggy cloths I bet alot of them think he is armed.
Why not let them see normal, everyday working men and women open carry?
It might change their perception of guns and gun owners.

(5)Because it's my right!


BTW- Why do you question every post I make in this thread?
I feel like I'm on the stand here.
You seem to pick at anything I say.
Are you really this concerned on what I think?
Or you just trying to prove me wrong in SOMETHING ,ANYTHING ?
If I say the grass is green you are going to come back with "No the grass isn't green! It's just a mixture of blue and yellow ,so there is no such thing as green! If there is such a thing as green please explain how it is not just a mixture of blue and yellow! blah ,blah ,blah!"
Really this is getting quite boring.
If you have any more questions just ask them so I can enlighten you.
Then we can end this constant drivel.
 
How about "Sometime it pays to keep your mouth shut" in that trying to force a point can end up backfiring on you.

I should've phrased it "Discretion is the better part of valor because you can win the battle but lose the war."

Ah, now that makes more sense (to me anyway). Since I wasn't trying to force a point I assume you meant no offense and none taken. The word "sometimes" should always preceed discretion (as it did in my original post). The other side of that old expression might be something along the lines of choosing your battles wisely or living to fight another day...but, I digress. (o;
 
...BTW- Why do you question every post I make in this thread?
I feel like I'm on the stand here....

I question your posts because I am curious to see if you can understand why a lot of pro-2A people believe that open carry at a political event is not a good idea. If you cannot convince me that it's a good idea then you surely cannot convince an anti-gunner.

And you are on the stand - the stand of public opinion. Either you can articulate your position clearly and convincingly or you cannot.

David
 
FWIW, I think they were 'plants'.......but,
While within the letter of the law, I think it was poor judgement, and not totally within the spirit of the law given the circumstances. It was mis-construed by some as brandishing even though what was done was entirely legal.
The old saying that 'discretion is the better part of valor' comes to mind.
Even though I could do this, I don't think I would ever consider doing so given the occasion and possible volatility.
YMMV.
clipper
 
IAnd you are on the stand - the stand of public opinion. Either you can articulate your position clearly and convincingly or you cannot.

David



Well are you convinced that I'm right yet?

Or are we going to have to settle this down by the oak tree?
10 paces- My gun will be carried in the open with a tie down.
You have to carry yours concealed --under a coat--with the coat zipped up--and you have to wear mittens!
Or I guess we could just disagree and drop it.
 
You'd expect PMSNBC to do any less?
That's what I meant when I said there's plenty of organizations out there licking their chops at the prospect of being able to twist something to their advantage. Considering what their finding themselves up against, this is a rather benign form of creative editing. But illustrative.
 
And once again, this comes as a surprise?
A Tiger is a Tiger, after all!
(EDIT)
I've taken to avoiding any news entity foolish enough to still use the NBC logo.
The prospect of Olbermann peeing down his own leg during programming isn't enough to keep me riveted somehow?
 
Last edited:
Well are you convinced that I'm right yet?

Or are we going to have to settle this down by the oak tree?
10 paces- My gun will be carried in the open with a tie down.
You have to carry yours concealed --under a coat--with the coat zipped up--and you have to wear mittens!
Or I guess we could just disagree and drop it.

Tell you what, willy. Instead of trying to convince me, how's about you go try to convince all those people that S'dog's MSNBC posted video was aimed at? Think that'll work? It better, because they're your enemy. They aren't going away, they aren't going to change their minds, and they aren't going to be swayed by chestbeating logic.

Listen now, one last time: the 2A, the Bill of Rights, the entire Constitution...they're just words. Words that express high ideals and the finest articulation of human liberty that has ever been written, but just words nonetheless, and words mean whatever people say they mean. The words don't mean anything unless the principles that they express are upheld. You live in the midst of a society that has been dumbed down and that neither believes in its past nor in its future. The country is being run by a group of unethical, unprinicipled, and greedy politicians who have long since discovered that they can use your money to buy votes from a populace that is just as unethical, unprinicipled, and greedy as they are. That populace is now in the voting majority, and has proven it by electing the most un-American President that we have ever had.

These are the people who can and will change the meaning of the words we all hold dear; who will make the Constitution mean whatever they think it should mean; and who already regard your rights as mere words on a piece of paper. They care not for ideals or liberty but only for what they can get for nothing. They are Eloi and don't mind being so.

Now, if you think that going out of your way to offend these people who outnumber you (and yes, making a political statement out of open carry is going out of your way to offend them) is the best way to preserve the concepts behind the words in the Bill of Rights, then have at it - cast your fate to whatever winds may suit you. Do not be surprised, though, when your essentially emotional action turns around to bite you at the hands of all those people who will forever negatively react to firearms and all that firearms represent.

As to the oak tree...come however you wish, but don't look for me there. I will be the guy behind the other tree, the one that you won't see.

David
 
Last edited:
"The old saying that 'discretion is the better part of valor' comes to mind."

Clipper1, +1 I could not have said it better....right Barb??? LMAO!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top