Perhaps I should have used better language than “normal” which implies the converse as “abnormal” Better wording would be that it’s unusual, which means people have no context to understand it (speaking specifically here of open rifle carry).

To me it’s kind of like gays complaining that people think they are freaks and sexual deviants, and in order to get people to realize that being gay is perfectly normal, decide to get dressed up in leather, and lead their partner around the neighborhood by a dog leash.

Perfectly legal behavior, and I could give a rat’s ass if someone does that, personally, but it’s not doing anything to help the cause of people seeing gays as their friends, neighbors, and as normal, every day people that you know.

Let me relate a story of a church in a small community in the Midwest.— A bunch of the men, military, ex military, LEO’s and a few others, with the church as a sponsor, organized a youth shooting camp. Spend a day learning about firearm safety, basic marksmanship fundementals, and range time on .22 rifles and shotguns. This year, our third, we brought along the service rifles; AR’s M1A, M1 Garands. And everyone thought the old rifles were REALLY Cool!!

Educate em, take em to the range, shooting guns is FUN! And we will increase our numbers as a byproduct.

MisterLady17

I don’t know if that’s where we are in the debate (over-extended and reading our optimistic intel reports). In fact, I don’t think we are, acceptance of firearms for both “keep” and “bear” seems to be much wider and deeper than that for gay marriage (and much less partisan/polarized, FWIW); and the Thune amendment vote shows that, IMHO.

At the same time, there’s one, maybe 2 people we can’t scare at all – Justice Kennedy, and, to a lesser extent, Justice Scalia.

So, I’m going to hang out in the middle with the armadillo and watch the fireworks :)

I disagree. Over time, exposure to shocking but essentially (or at least immediately) harmless behaviour does wear down resistance.

Witness homosexuals being affectionate in public. Witness fashions such as tattoos, piercings, etc. Some people go to disgusting extremes, but less extreme fashions are very accepted these days. Witness clothing that exposes more skin. Witness vulgar language in public. Witness multi-racial couples.

All of these things would have gotten you a public ass-whipping in the 1940s. Some of them would have gotten you thrown in jail.

At any rate, what we have to worry about right now isn’t the White House (we know where the One stands); it’s Congress and the view of the public. The White House can try and shape the views of both, but it hasn’t been working out well for them.

So far, it seems to be working for us. It’s still a high-risk play; and I’m unclear if the rewards justify the risk. For those of you comparing it to the civil rights push, in particular the gay rights push; look at how pushing too hard on gay marriage got pushback in the form of state-level bans on marriage; and as Sebastian mentioned up-thread, what open-carry got CA under Reagan.

I think the guy in NH was just at the line; though I would have preferred he had not carried quite such an ambiguous slogan on his sign (the “rattlesnake” flag would have worked as well, IMHO). Carrying a longarm, especially an EBR, legal or not, is *just* over that line. It remains to be seen if the line moves, and which way.

Ideally, I think I’d like to see more legal open-carry of handguns at the protests until that’s “normal”. *Then* move on to long arms if it still seems appropriate. (It may not be necessary depending on the results of incorporation and the suit just brought about “bear”.) But I’m a walk-before-run and a suspender-and-belt kind of guy.

The White House would probably like this issue to go away, because it’s a distraction from their health care agenda. Whether that’s smart or not on their part is questionable, since the more people seem to learn about his plan, the more they hate it. They might have been smarter to let the distractions continue.