We are so fighting now, I’m posting on my LiveJournal that we’re having a blood feud until you decide if it’s lowercase “a” or uppercase “A”.

It is obvious and beyond any reasonable doubt that the egg came first. The egg, however, did not cause the chicken.

Meanwhile VA has proven beyond a doubt that open carry activism works.

Who’s side are you on Sebastian?

Locally we’ve had a the local high school agree to create an air gun range at the school. That opens up the possibility of having a shooting team at a school that probably hasn’t had one for a generation.

I’m not disagreeing that people need to be exposed more to guns and shooting, that’s how you’re going to affect cultural change, the question is whether open carry an effective, or even if one concedes it’s effective, is it the most effective means to accomplish that, and I don’t think it is.

The original frustration expressed in my post is that a lot of people want to put time and energy into open carry activism, and I have to applaud them for doing something at least, but I question whether the energy wouldn’t be better invested in something else. You should know by now I’m not a cheerleader for our side. I think any movement needs to be constantly questioning what it’s doing. We don’t have enough people willing to get involved to spend a lot of time and energy over something that’s not remarkably important or effective. I think we can disagree on whether it’s effective, but the process of questioning is something that needs to happen.

Like what?

I don’t think it’s really a chicken and egg problem a whole. The problem with open carry is that it has the chicken and egg problem.

If you can make the public more accepting of guns as part of the culture you might be able to change some of those fundamentals. What I was originally arguing in comment 52 is there are other ways to get the topic into the popular culture that don’t have the same problem.

Likewise, I hear people constantly berate the NRA. I’ve long held the viewpoint that there are different type of military units. Furthermore, any war involves two elements “strategy” and “tactics”.

The one is more over-reaching upon an entire campaign and the logistics involved. The other is more in the dirt. A failure to have a good quality on either will lose one the war.

Without a good strategy, your soldiers will win small battles but the war will be lost. If you’ve got a good strategy, but your soldiers are untrained in tactics. They will lose the key battles that must be won.

I look at the NRA akin to the Army. It’s big, it’s a bit slower than other branches. The NRA focuses on strategic relationships. Working politicians, not burning bridges. Being able to keep the soldiers fed and supplied.

GOA, should be akin to the Marines. Smaller, faster, and a bit more gutsy. Instead of wasting words attacking the NRA. GOA should be noting where the NRA can’t attack for fear of burning what may be a weak bridge, but a bridge none-the-less. And they should put the pressure. (Good cop/Bad cop tactic.)

While I support Open Carry, and do believe it is our right. I am also aware that it can stir up a hornets nest. Often such stirring results in a) 2nd Amendment supporters becoming more active b) hoplophobia.

Their are advantages and disadvantages to be weighed and considered. For example, I think the case of the AR worked to our advantage. One, it put the media in a bind, showed them as deceitful, etc. Two it showed that this is an issue that affects all demographics. Other times it’s going to give the left the sound bites they want. Hoplophobes are going to jump on it.

It’s tough, we’re forced to play a bitter chess game, where the other side doesn’t have to abide by the rules. Ain’t an easy game to win, and often we’re fighting for a draw.

But I think all sides need to be cautious about tearing down each other.