search
top

Rifle OC: Fostering Bipartisanship

How much of this will go on before there is a bill, you think?

“I’m gonna go inside the state Capitol and see if I can educate a few people,” the man says in the video, only identified by his YouTube account name of “martinrps13.”

He walked into the east entrance lobby of the Capitol with an AR 15 rifle strapped across his chest, a handgun and a camera. The man walked right up to the security desk and told guards what he was doing.

I guess they got an education all right, but what was really accomplished here? This is also New Mexico, where open carry of pistols is culturally normal and accepted. In fact, they note:

A handgun in a holster, not a problem, but the gun guy’s visit had lawmakers in both parties thinking about changing the rules.

But now we’re looking at bipartisan consensus:

“I’m a strong supporter of the second amendment. And I’m also a member of the NRA, but I tell you there’s many buildings that you should not be able to carry a firearm into and one of them is the state Capitol,” Republican Sen. Carroll Leavell said.

“Unquestionably, I think we need to ban guns from the state Capitol, and anywhere there’s large numbers of individuals that gather for a very specific purpose,” Democratic Sen. Carlos Cisneros said.

Yes, bringing both parties together to support gun control. That was quite an education! We have enough trouble to deal with on a regular basis without having to worry we’ll need to turn people out to fight a gun ban that didn’t need to happen.

UPDATE: Here’s the video.

 

67 Responses to “Rifle OC: Fostering Bipartisanship”

  1. mike says:

    The sooner this nonsense is outlawed, the better. Looking the other way isn’t enough to keep these clowns from destroying what gun rights we have left.

    • Sebastian says:

      I disagree. Why would you be willing to hand the other side an easy victory here? A victory they will no fundraise off of and build up for the next push which you probably won’t like. Additionally, I can promise you they will try to over reach on the definition of open carry, and restrict all manner of carrying firearms. I’m imagining fighting a bill that may let me expose a firearm while shooting, but where I could get in trouble carrying a rifle back to my car from the parking lot. Or fighting a bill that could earn me a criminal rap for the wind blowing a jacket open.

      The best way to deal with this behavior is to speak out against it publicly, so people know these clowns don’t represent ordinary gun owners, and so that gun owners who don’t approve of this stuff feel OK about bringing a little shame down on the worst kinds of this behavior.

      • Kenn says:

        Yeah, legislation isn’t the way to deal with this. But people who act like dumbasses should be treated like the dumbasses they are. Name and shame.

        • William O. B'Livion says:

          I think legislation is the answer.

          We need a law that says “Thou shall not be an asshat in pursuit of political activism”. That will, like all gun laws, IMMEDIATELY stop this sort of thing from happening.

      • Diane says:

        You really should look at more of that guy’s videos, particularly the ones at the border checkpoints. He really wants to educate people.

        • Matthew Carberry says:

          Great. But he should avoid the “What not to do” videos when they actively screw things up for everyone.

          • Diane says:

            The education I get from his videos is this: “We need more laws because, unless you spell it out completely, some people will not comply.”

  2. JC_VA says:

    When do these people realize that by doing this they’ll only end up getting it banned, which will make it twice as hard to get it back in the future.

    We started with CC, let’s get handgun OC more normalized before we start looking at widespread rifle OC.

    You’d have to wonder why the Rifle OC characters who are doing this stuff don’t simply start doing “Scabbard Carry”. That at least would scare fewer people.

    • Kenn says:

      Scaring people is their entire purpose. They are trying to provoke a negative reaction and then somehow claim the moral high ground when someone responds rationally to a person carrying around a battle rifle.

      A holstered pistol is one thing. They’re called sidearms for a reason. But sane, rational people don’t go about with loaded rifles under normal circumstances unless they think it’s likely they’ll have to use it.

      We don’t need any more graduates of the Leonard Embody school of How to Win Friends and Influence People trying to “help educate” people. Because the education uninterested parties got from this is “gun owners are nutjobs and idiots.”

      • Matt says:

        I wish these folks would adhere more to the concept of the role of the pistol and the rifle. If you’re expecting trouble, bring a rifle. Otherwise, your pistol is fine and thing to use to fight your way to a rifle. They aren’t expecting trouble. Leave the long guns at home unless you’re going for a walk in the Alaskan bush (and then I’d carry a rifle always).

        But they sure are creating trouble. And I say this as someone who supports OC as a political statement (e.g. Northern Virginia) but I recognize an appropriate time or place to make that point.

        • 277Volt says:

          If you’re expecting trouble you should avoid the situation entirely. Knowingly showing up for a fight is foolish.

        • HSR47 says:

          “If you’re expecting trouble, bring a rifle. Otherwise, your pistol is fine and thing to use to fight your way to a rifle. They aren’t expecting trouble. Leave the long guns at home unless you’re going for a walk in the Alaskan bush”

          In short, it is really only socially acceptable to carry long guns when you are expecting trouble (and why would a rational person go looking for trouble?), or when you are going to be away from “civilized” areas.

          • HSR47 says:

            As a general rule of thumb: It might be appropriate to bring/carry a long gun at times when the police response time at, or on the way to, your destination is measured in hours.

          • Kenn says:

            Are you talking bring and have relatively handy in a vehicle, or bring and carry around cocked and locked? One of those s much more reasonable than the other.

            • HSR47 says:

              If you’ve driven several hours into the middle of nowhere, and intend on hiking in bear country, bringing a rifle along with you is not unreasonable.

              Realistically, what are your options if a bear decides to attack you? It’s not like you can get away from it by climbing a tree; bears can generally clime trees faster than people can, and it isn’t like you can get away from it on foot. Realistically, your only defense (apart from seeking to avoid confrontation in the first place) is a good offense.

              Then there’s the fact that you can use a rifle as a distress signaling device…

    • Merle says:

      They are not thinking it thru, is my most charitable answer. Some have even suggested that they are plants from the other side, who can say!

      Merle

    • Bob S. says:

      JC_VA,

      Open Carry of Pistols is normal in New Mexico — so how much more ‘normalized’ does it need to be?

      And what do you suggest for those of us stuck in Texas where Pistol OC is prohibited in public?

      • Matthew Carberry says:

        How -exactly- does this tool help you in that?

        In tne real world he just handed your local anti’s another brush to use to tar your activism for the more limited immediate goal of OC for pistol legalization.

        You talk about just wanting to be able to not worry about covering the pistol anyway and they start talking about the next step is “assault rifles everywhere!”

        Do you -really- believe the undecided voters are going to bother parsing out the truth, or will they respond with fear to tne media alarmism and make your job even harder?

        • Bob S. says:

          Matthew,

          First the statement was along the lines of let’s get handgun OC normalized; my response stands. It is completely normal there…so instead of going off tangent; how about answering my question; how much more normalized in NM does it need to be?

          Second, and this is what I talked about on my blog — every opportunity like this is a chance for us to point out the insane laws; like 18 to 20 year olds can’t get a CHL, like the fact is is legal to OC a rifle but not a pistol in Texas.

          We can also point out, while I don’t like what he did, he did nothing illegal and nothing that harmed anyone.
          We fail to take advantage of the media frenzy to shape the conversation. Instead of pointing out the bad laws; we get people like here sounding like anti-rights cultists.

          I don’t believe the undecided voters are going to bother parsing out the truth but their gun owning friends can help them, their gun owning friends can help shape their opinion — how about instead of the name calling we treat it as “kooky but ultimately harmless/legal/attention getting” — because that is exactly what it is.

          • HSR47 says:

            “every opportunity like this is a chance for us to point out the insane laws…like the fact is is legal to OC a rifle but not a pistol in Texas.”

            And what we’re saying is that those holding political office are inclined to believe that such laws ARE insane when people pull stunts like this.

            The problem though, is that it tends to galvanize them AGAINST us. Instead of doing what we really want them to do (read: easing restrictions on peaceable citizens) they tend to get together and pass MORE insane laws.

            Remember, a stunt very similar to this is what got loaded OC of firearms banned in CA.

  3. Dannytheman says:

    I stopped the video when he said, “I’m going in to educate a few people.” This is not education, this is fear mongering. No good comes from this.

  4. Bob S. says:

    When are we, as the gun owning community, going to call the legislators on the non-sense like “A handgun in a holster, not a problem”.

    So it is okay to carry a firearm that is capable of holding 15-19 rounds and accurate to 50 yards but not a firearm capable of holding 30 rounds and accurate to 300 yards?

    How does that make sense?

    And for the people not supporting this, I ask how is NOT carrying a rifle going to advance our rights?
    Yes, he carried this to make a statement. Yes, there is a chance that it could backfire. But that was the same argument the NRA made AGAINST the Heller case and look how that turned out?

    And how do we change back — and yes it used to be very common to Open Carry a rifle so it is change back — the perception that “ But sane, rational people don’t go about with loaded rifles under normal circumstances unless they think it’s likely they’ll have to use it.

    That is the same argument antis make against concealed carry of pistols isn’t it?

    • Peter O says:

      The problem is he wasn’t going about under normal circumstances, he was going about looking for a confrontation. A guy going to and from a range or hunting trip with a rifle on his back isn’t going to get too many looks, even if he stops for food or to pick something up. Heck I’m sure that if they have a hunter appreciation day, they see a bunch of weapons carried that day and most people don’t blink twice. But doing this is just making it harder for normal owners, because he went in looking for a confrontation.

      • Bob S. says:

        I’m not sure we — who aren’t him and haven’t spoken to him — can truly say he was looking for a confrontation.
        Looking to make a point; absolutely.

        But when do we start carrying rifles on a regular basis; I don’t hunt, most of the people living in the city and owning ‘tactical rifles’ don’t either.

        It is a conundrum — we can’t normalize carrying rifles until someone starts carrying rifles all the time but every time people carry rifles they get yelled at by the pro-rights community.

        And isn’t this the same language the antis use about Open Carrying of Pistols ? Even use about Concealed Carrying Pistols — “Anyone carrying a gun is just looking for a confrontation?”

        • Sebastian says:

          Why should normalizing open carry of rifles everywhere we go even be a goal? The reason it’s not normal is because carrying a rifle is a pain in the ass, so it’s completely out of proportion to the types of threats your average person is facing in a relatively peaceful and non-violent society like our own. I would argue that normalizing carrying of rifles should not even be a goal, and if it is a goal, we have reverse a lot of other cultural trends before we can get to that.

          • Bob S. says:

            Sebastian,

            Turn it around and ask why we shouldn’t normalize it?
            The fact that 18 year olds can’t carry a pistol in Texas is enough of a reason for me. Heck the fact that some want to carry a rifle is enough. The fact that if a society accepts carrying a rifle as normal means that getting rid of the right to carry a pistol is nearly impossible.

            Many people think that carrying a pistol is a pain — should we not normalize that?

            • Sebastian says:

              Yes, some people think that carrying a pistol is a pain in the ass and not worth the very small likelihood of ever needing one. But many people still choose to bear the burden, the vast majority choosing to carry concealed. The fact that you don’t routinely see people, even police officers, carrying long guns around as a matter of routine should give an indication that it’s likely an impossible hill the climb.

              The best way to normalize guns in society is to keep the shooting culture expanding, and bringing more people into the shooting sports, carry, and so forth. I actually don’t think open carrying pistols, if just done as a matter of routine without fuss, on the while has any detrimental affect on the movement. But nor do I think it’s tremendously helpful either. Carrying long guns I do believe is outright harmful because there’s no way to do it without causing alarm.

              It may be possible to normalize open transport of a long guns, but to do that you’d have to turn us back into a society where most schools had rifle or trap teams, and hunting was something almost everyone did. The cultural trend away from involving young people with shooting is the first thing you have to undo if you want to make progress on that front.

              If you wanted to normalize rifle carry for self-defense, we’d have to become a much more dangerous society, such that leaving the house was generally known to be risking a deadly force confrontation. If society were largely lawless, the risk would justify carrying a rifle and you’d have more people doing it. But I don’t think most people want to live in that kind of society.

              • Even people in Afghanistan don’t regularly carry a long gun. Even the Afghan Police cut down their AKs and remove the stocks frequently to make them more compact and convenient.

                I am positive on OC and even I think these stunts are not effective.

                It does seem like the common factor is that the idiot is flying solo. It seems like those who have the ability to have at least one other person with them on their open carry exploits are much more respectable.

                There’s a big difference between one guy with an OC AR-15 and a dozen guys doing a political rally, with ARs as a visual aide.

                • HSR47 says:

                  “There’s a big difference between one guy with an OC AR-15 and a dozen guys doing a political rally, with ARs as a visual aide.”

                  There’s a difference between one or two guys all dressed up tacticool-style carrying forward slung, evil-looking, modern long guns, and a group of relatively well dressed people (read: business casual or better) carrying older wooden-stocked firearms across their backs.

                  While I’m not entirely convinced that either is generally appropriate, it seems that the latter is far more likely to be.

                  Like it or not, but a M1903 or K98 rifle just doesn’t have that “scary and black” factor that the AR15 platform now typifies.

                  • Kenn says:

                    Yeah, that’s another point. Regardless of other factors, forward slung rifles scream “I’m ready to use this thing” to anyone who sees it, whereas a rifle slung across ones back has much more of a “I’m just carrying this thing somewhere” connotation.

                    • HSR47 says:

                      There’s that, and then there’s the whole driveby media spin around the AR15 platform. Like it or not, but the media has done a relatively thorough job of demonizing the AR15.

                      While normalizing “evil black rifles” is a good long-term goal, trying to reach for it in the short-term is probably a bit overly optimistic.

            • Matthew Carberry says:

              Describe how, using formal logic and the reactions of actual real people (who don’t really care about guns either way whose neutrality we -must have– on the issue ) does the path to getting pistol carry at 18 and open carry of pistols in places that currently bar it, essentially -erasing the CC/OC distinction in law-, go through “OC a loaded rifle to ‘send a message'” town?

              It is asinine on its face to think it does. It can -only- derail the damn train.

          • SPQR says:

            Bingo. That’s exactly it, Sebastian.

            We really must start working harder to suppress the ‘Tard Militia.

            • mike says:

              ‘Tard Militia. I like that, although it’s not PC enough to be used commonly without undermining yourself. Clown Militia might work though. But yeah, we need to out these idiots and label them something that makes it damned clear they’re not earning anyone’s respect. They seem a simple bunch, and “Unhelpful Open Carry Activists” is definitely too many syllables. I think I’ll try “Clown Militia” out for a while and kick the tires.

        • Matthew Carberry says:

          Carrying loaded rifles on your person for self-defense in towns hasn’t been in any way “normal” in this country since the early colonial era laws mandating taking your musket to church were actually enforced.

          There’s no “good ol’ days” to get back to.

          Even transporting unloaded, usually cased, long guns on one’s person was only ever “normal” in the modern era in as much as the person doing so was on their way to or from a legal activity that required a long gun and had no vehicle.

          It was never “normal” just “having it handy for self-defense, just in case.” That was the role of handguns in America since handguns got truly portable. The tradition for long guns was having it on your horse or, now, in your trunk.

          • Bob S. says:

            Matthew,

            I said OC of rifles and you want to limit it to OC of Rifles for Self Defense; doesn’t work.

            I agree but I also remember growing up seeing kids walking around with rifles going to the woods, I remember seeing pick up cars and trucks with rifles openly displayed in the back. I remember when someone walking around with a rifle was consider to be carrying it to or from something instead of about to shoot up the town.

            • Kenn says:

              Wandering around the woods with a slung and loaded rifle is certainly a different circumstance than wandering around the state capitol building with a slung and loaded rifle.

            • Matthew Carberry says:

              Bob,

              Context is key, you keep ignoring that.

              The contexts of the “back in the day” carry you keep bringing up don’t exist anymore. You can’t normalize kids carrying .22s to plink at the dump if plinking at the dump is illegal. You can’t normalize taking a shotgun to school to hunt on the way home if there is nowhere to hunt between home and school. You can’t normalize taking a rifle on the subway for school rifle team practice if there isn’t a school rifle team.

              You have to first re-establish the context of the carry to make the carry normal again. And, that carry was always unloaded transport, never loaded for self-defense.

              That’s why I made that distinction, the -only- context these idiots are working within is loaded rifle carry for self-defense, it is puerile to claim otherwise based on their own statements.

              The problem is, loaded rifle carry, in town, for self-defense (the -only- reason to load a rifle when not actively hunting or target shooting, safe transport is -always- unloaded) hasn’t been normal anywhere in this country for well over a century.

              Trying to create a new paradigm, that no one outside of a bunch of assclowns accepts as rational, much less necessary, in modern society is a fool’s errand and actively works against the overall gun rights struggle.
              Carry in the woods is not at issue and not what the Starbucks / capital building crowd are doing.

              • craig says:

                +100. Context, people.

                Open carrying a pistol (in a holster, not brandishing) is presumed by most people to be mere preparedness. Open carrying a rifle goes far beyond that in terms of potential firepower. In bear country, it’s mere preparedness; if you walk into a store with one on, people will presume that you’re on the way to or from the woods. At the local mall, where you had to drive there and thus had to deliberately get out the AR and put it on before going inside, ordinary folks are going to have the impression that either (a) there’s an incident in progress, or (b) you’re about to instigate one.

                Pistol OC needs to become normal first. Long gun OC in odd contexts Does. Not. Help.

  5. skidmark says:

    Everybody is focusing on the impoact this may have had/might have on the RKBA issue. As far as I can see, not the first person has said anything about the attitude of the legislators (and others) about the citizens being prohibited from carrying arms into the place where their elected officials meet.

    Thos elected officials may “feel” intimidated or threatened or even distraught that their masters (those who they serve at their pleasure) might come to see them while carrying firearms (or slingshots, or pitchforks, for all the difference there is between any of those). The truth is that until those citizens act with their firearms in a way that specifically threatens someone, they have committed no malum se offense.

    The State house is “the people’s house” – not the home of the elected officials. They should be in awe of those that have elected them, and those that elected them should be able to remind them that when all else fails the poweer is within the people to take back a government that rufuses to abide by the contract it had made with The People.

    Do feel free to discuss if the point can be made as well, better, or more or less effectively with handguns as with long guns,

    stay safe.

    • Bob S. says:

      Skidmark,

      That is a great point. Not only is it the legislators who have no complaint, but the other people in the building or where -ever a firearm may be carried.

      Do feel free to discuss if the point can be made as well, better, or more or less effectively with handguns as with long guns,

      I think the majority of the “handgun v long gun” mentality is coming from the pro-rights community who proudly proclaim “a pistol is what you use to fight to your rifle”. I wonder if the majority of the people see the difference in such terms.

      • Sebastian says:

        I think the majority of the “handgun v long gun” mentality is coming from the pro-rights community who proudly proclaim “a pistol is what you use to fight to your rifle”. I wonder if the majority of the people see the difference in such terms.

        Try this thought experiment. Go around for a day on your normal routine with a holstered pistol, and think how people will react. Chances are most people won’t notice, and those that do either “get it” or think you’re a cop or someone otherwise “allowed” to carry a firearm. Now do the same routine the next day with an AR-15 on a chest sling. Think the reaction will be the same?

        • Bob S. says:

          Sebastian,

          Couple of problems with your idea. The first is it is illegal to OF a pistol in Texas. The second is I am not denying there is a difference in perception.

          What I AM saying is pro rights people are contributing to that perception. Try this experiment; walk around your local mall with a sign just a sign that says you are armed. Tell me people wouldn’t treat you differently.
          We are fighting a battle against the inanimate object being vilified – we say people should be allowed to walk around armed, right?
          Yet what I see here is “people shouldn’t be armed with that” be it a rifle or shotgun. That is the same argument we are having with the anti right cultists regarding carrying pistols.

          The type of gun should not matter, it is about the exercise of outer rights, isn’t it? Otherwise it seems that magazine capacity or caliber limit restrictions are also back on the table – if carrying a 30 round .223 shouldn’t be done why should carrying a 19 round 9 mil?

          • The Jack says:

            The sad truth is that in political activism optics matter.

            That optics matter is the whole reason this guy is going with a rifle, instead of a pistol, which as the report noted isn’t a big deal.

            So when one discusses the optics of political activism how your, for want of a better word, props are perceived is legitimate.

            And since by this guy’s own admission he is picking his accoutrements for a political effect is is perfectly find to talk about if what he thinks he will accomplish is what will really be accomplished.

          • mike says:

            Yet what I see here is “people shouldn’t be armed with that”

            You miss the point. There’s a difference between two gay dudes walking down the street with each other, and two gay dudes wearing dresses and 9″ heels walking down the street with each other while stopping to make out every few feet. Most people wouldn’t be bothered by the former, but the latter is gonna get lots of negative attention, and will make even other gay people cringe and wish they’d stop. Which is where we are with these idiots and their gun “education”.

            BTW – trying to defend them is called “enabling” and when they read these comments, they filter out all the rational ones and focus on the other Clown Militia members egging them on.

          • Sebastian says:

            walk around your local mall with a sign just a sign that says you are armed. Tell me people wouldn’t treat you differently.

            Yes, because walking around a mall holding up a sign announcing you’re armed is unusual, weird behavior, which is why it would raise alarm. This really, when you boil it down, not even about guns. It’s about whether being weird is the best way to promote a cause politically. You could pick any cause.

            Today I saw a guy out at a Denny’s dressed like a cat. He had on cat ears, a tail, and even a bell around his neck. Maybe he wanted to educate people about cats, or was a furry, or what have you. One thing I’m pretty sure everyone thought was that he was a weirdo. The problem is when you combine weird behavior with dangerous objects, like weapons, people naturally start to become a bit concerned.

            If I see a guy in work clothes outside of a Denny’s, looking well tanned and carrying a can of gasoline, I’m betting that’s a landscaper and it doesn’t raise alarm because the context makes sense. If I saw cat man doing the same thing, I’m going to be a lot more worried. Why? Because dressing up like a cat is not behavior well-adjusted, normal people engage in and he’s holding something potentially very hazardous.

            I agree the type of gun shouldn’t matter, but this isn’t about theoretical, this is how real people, real people who vote, I might add, react to unusual and in their mind potentially worrisome behavior. And in truth, I can’t blame them, because if cat man had walked into Denny’s with an AR-15, or anyone had walked into Denny’s with an AR-15, even with a uniform and a badge, my alert level is going to go way way up, and I’m going to start planning for having to shoot someone.

          • Matthew Carberry says:

            Except in New Mexico they aren’t having those arguments. The arguments only got started by people like this assclown picking fights that only exist in their mind.

            What, exactly, is his educational goal? He has the right to OC in the capital and no one was talking about taking it away. He and his ilk are attention-whores and cowardly ones at that as they choose to do their attention-whoring in places where they know there will not be any legal repercussions.

            At least Kokesh did his AW-ing in a place where he actually had some skin in the game, not somewhere he could only possibly make things worse for everyone else due to his onanistic display.

          • Kenn says:

            You’re totally missing the point. Maybe in Texas his stunt would have had a point, considering the ban on OC there. However, this guy did it in a State where OC is already mostly unregulated. We have literally nothing to gain from this behavior.

            You are correct about the perception that exists, but the militant gay-rights analogy regarding public displays of affection is particularly apt. There’s a big difference between PDA where it is appropriate and where it is not, regardless of sexual orientation.

            Legal or not, rifle open carry in malls and state capiol buildings is not appropriate unless armed insurrection or gross civil unrest is happening. The fact that you have a right to do it is not relevant. People are going to (correctly) perceive a person armed for serious trouble in a place where normal people would not expect a significant risk of trouble that would require a rifle for defense.

            I work at a small airport that is also home to a skydiving operation, and one of the unspoken rules at the dropzone is “don’t annoy the ‘Whaffos’,” referring to the common pilot-type who asks “Whaffo you jump out of that perfectly good airplane?” Gun owners can learn from this. Yes, it’s a good thing to educate non gun owners and encourage people to exercise their rights. But you can’t educate anyone when they feel threatened. Once you have provoked a fear response, a frightened person rapidly goes beyond reason, and any opportunity for “education” is lost. That’s the “perception” we have to work with, and in the battle for gun rights, public perception is 99% of the fight.

          • craig says:

            There’s a progression of perceived threat depending upon how the firepower is carried and displayed.

            An AR in the original box with Colt’s logo prominently displayed but the actual firearm invisible: very low. The same AR fully visible but in parts: still low.

            Once it starts to give off the scary vibe to an untrained eye, the perceived threat ramps up quickly. An assembled but unloaded AR slung on the back of a man walking into a gun show: moderate. An assembled but unloaded AR slung on the back on the back of a man walking into the mall: high. A loaded AR in the hands: very high. An AR in the hands of someone decked out in MOLLE vest with a dozen loaded 30-round mags: off the scale.

    • Sebastian says:

      As far as I can see, not the first person has said anything about the attitude of the legislators (and others) about the citizens being prohibited from carrying arms into the place where their elected officials meet.

      Because their reaction was entirely predictable, even if one does not agree with it.

      Thos elected officials may “feel” intimidated or threatened or even distraught that their masters (those who they serve at their pleasure) might come to see them while carrying firearms (or slingshots, or pitchforks, for all the difference there is between any of those).

      Or they don’t want to see their constituents ventilated by the Capitol Police, possibly along with bystanders, because somebody decided the guy with an AR hanging off his chest was interested in something other than “educating” them. Given the hysteria about mass shootings, this kind of fear doesn’t seem that off base to me.

  6. Beatbox says:

    I don’t know how to say this without it being insulting, but I really question the intelligence of anyone who does this, supports this. I mean, you have a goal…open carry. So you partake in an activity that obviously (to anyone with and IQ over 100) works against that goal AND will result with you having less rights than before you pulled this stunt.

    We’ve seen it at Starbucks, California, etc. What is so difficult to comprehend here?

  7. Jacob says:

    It’s good to see coverage of these idiots. This needs to stop.

  8. The Jack says:

    Not only is this poorly thought out in terms of goals but it gives politicians an easy goal.

    If you give them an activity that they can ban to make them look “tough on crime” they’ll do it.

    It’s not just an own-goal but its also handing them the ball (to mix metaphors).

    This is especially boggling when even the news report goes “Yeah, OC with a pistol wouldn’t have been a thing.”

    I’m still arguing from a tactical standpoint. If activity X does not help you reach goal Y then you need to rethink doing X.

  9. Jeremiah says:

    Beating a dead horse, but I didn’t see this called out. It was foolish, but not because it was illegal or a dumb idea, at least in his mind. It was because he failed to understand his opponent. See Starbucks. We need to stop beating each other up over the results of any given action and start instructing how to argue, debate, and/or educate properly. If I want to OC a pistol or rifle, I don’t need a “threat appointment” to do it. (who needs a rifle in a mall in Kenya for example…) Bringing “too much gun” isn’t the discussion we should have because it is the wrong one.

    Understand your opponent. Walk them through their logic slowly. Let them beat themselves. When they change their mind (assuming they do), welcome them slowly into the mix. Its slow, it works, and if everyone does that, and teaching their kids to do it, it causes a cardinal shift in about 10-20 years. Demeaning people, their choices, and their actions, especially without providing useful solutions or techniques, is counter productive. It isn’t the weapon they are carrying, it is the one they aren’t using. And if all we see is the physical weapon, we are as wrong as our opponents. Off the soap-box, but this endless OC/weapon/whatever discussion is almost worse than walking anywhere with a rifle on your back.

  10. Tom RKBA says:

    I feel at this time America is not ready for long gun OC and we should discourage the practice among our own POLITELY. I see far too much negativity in forums and in comments. This behavior will only cause the “clown OCer” to emotionally dig in and refuse to budge on his or her position. I have seen people respond with more OC. This accomplishes nothing for our side and makes policing our own impossible. The end result could be bad laws, especially if gun owners are perceived as supoorting such legislation. I would much rather people convince the OCer not to do it by showing them the strategy rather than through verbal bludgeoning. Do not get angry; get logical. They are on our side after all. There is nothing we can do to stop them from OCing if they refuse to talk with us.

  11. Ron says:

    It’ is sad to watch us gun owners self destruct. We gun owners constantly complain about the laws politicians pass on us,,,, yet we remain our own biggest enemy.

    • Merle says:

      As previously mentioned, let’s try to get these guys to see reason. We certainly don’t need any infighting!

      Merle

  12. Arnie says:

    Hey, did I hear the lady behind the counter right? Did she say she had two sons in Iraq both carrying AR-15s? Wouldn’t they have been issued M-16s, or a similar full auto rifle?

    Secondly, from what the OC videographer was reading in his State’s Constitution, I don’t think a simple bill could prevent rifle OC in the Capitol. It sounded to me like it would require a State constitutional amendment. It may be harder than we think for the anti-gunners to make hay out of this. Just a thought.

    Respectfully, Arnie

    • Bitter says:

      Do you really want to write off any potential fall out because it would be harder to push a Constitutional amendment than a straight up bill? I know I would be completely unwilling to risk it.

      • Arnie says:

        Oh no ma’am, I wouldn’t either. I apologize for giving you that impression.

        I was just trying to find some positive hope that this gentleman actions would not perpetrate as much damage as quickly or severely as we might fear.

        My thinking was a constitutional amendment by the people would be a much harder avenue through which to push a knee-jerk anti-gun reaction than a mere bill passed by politicians whose immediate space was invaded by this fellow’s demonstration.

        But, no, like you, I still wouldn’t want to risk it. I prefer he hadn’t brought his weapons with him. I really think he could have educated those folks as well or better if he had brought their State’s Constitution with him alone. They seemed teachable and somewhat sympathetic when he read it to them. They just couldn’t overlook that big, “bad” rifle hanging of his chest. I thought he was fairly cordial, as were the cops and people behind the counter. I really think this could’ve been a profitable “teachable moment” for those officials, but it was clear their mental attention was on a dreaded “mass killing machine” in the possession of a stranger, and understandably so.

        Thank you, ma’am!

        With greatest respect, Arnie

    • Merle says:

      That just goes to show you that to many people there is NO DIFFERENCE between an AR-15 & an M16 since they look alike & are “scary”. That’s how the anti’s get away with all the “assault rifle” crap.

      Merle

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Just because it is legal… | - [...] From http://www.pagunblog.com/2013/09/28/rifle-oc-fostering-bipartisanship/#comments [...]
top