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.

It’s got to be close to the end of times when a 2A blogger is worried about guns at political events and the…

White House Backs Right to Arms Outside Obama Events

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/18/AR2009081803416.html?hpid=topnews

{Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said people are entitled to carry weapons outside such events if local laws allow it. “There are laws that govern firearms that are done state or locally,” he said. “Those laws don’t change when the president comes to your state or locality.” }

Read it again, Sebastian. The White House backs our 2A rights – and in this case, you do not.

Well, I can guess the second one would come off as a “high-powered sniper rifle”

I do have to say that at least he looked and acted like a respectable person even in the act of something that I think a large portion of non-gun owners would look down upon.

The thing that bothers me most about this whole thing is how the media spun it, like they always do with anything gun-related, calling it an assault rifle which has the negative connotation that it’s only useful for killing people.

I believe his particular actions wouldn’t have been seen as negative had the media not frowned upon it like they did. But then it’s not like we can really do much about the media other than not over step our welcome as gun owners which in the end I believe he did.

But I don’t pretend to have a crystal ball. I suspect it will all turn out fine. But that’s not to say I don’t think this is tempting ruin.

Be interesting to see what’s next; both from the media and from the grassroots of both sides; as well as the hotheads.

You’ve failed to convince me with any sort of real facts that these types of events have had a negative impact on gun ownership. Gun ownership and acceptance is on the rise and it’s not because solely of the NRA or any narrative they manage.

The legacy media is going to portray us as crazy idiots regardless if we’re doing community service helping blind ladies do their grocery shopping. They are going to reprint the Brady’s talking points verbatim as news.

And yet with years of this going on, we’re still making headway, even with a few people who might veer off the narrative path you think is right for them.

You’re pulling the same tactics Helmke does. “This MIGHT happen” is his shtick. I realize you’d like the entire world to think that gun owners are 100% normal people, but that’s a lie. Many of us are nucking futs. Most of us not only don’t share the same views or values as the next guy, we can’t even get them straight in our own head.

The free market works by letting ALL the ideas come out, even the goofy ones. The MSM is quickly losing its monopoly on shaping public opinion. I’m not saying they’re not still effective, but that’s not going to remain so for very long. And when the tide turns, we need to be already having the conversation on OUR terms, not the terms which have been defined for us by people who want to see us fail.

This is not true for the Second Amendment. At least not yet. Maybe not ever if we let the lunatic fringe take control of the narrative.

When the movie “The Last Temptation of Christ” came out, who were the “First Amendment Activists” yelling that such a controversial display of First Amendment freedom was “too strong” and didn’t win over any allies, and was simply too shocking?

When the crucifix in the jar of urine known as “Piss Christ” came out, or when the Madonna smeared with elephant crap was shown, or when Mapplethorpe’s borderline kiddie porn photos were shown, or when the first XXX bookstore opened up in the little sleepy midwestern town, or when Larry Flynt went to trial on obscenity charges, where, exactly, were the First Amendment “activists” saying, “Hey, slow down! You’re scaring people! Yeah, you’ve got a “right” and all, but why be so in-your-face with it? You’re not winning over the other side at all. Back off!”

Who were the “First Amendment” activists talking like that in any of the above situations?

I mean, what about that movie that came out that showed the assassination of President Bush? Who were the “First Amendment” activists decrying that?

Just curious, is all.

But are they winning because of that? Or because through gays coming out of the closet everyone realized they knew a gay person?

Are they winning because of that? Or because gun owners came out of the closet, and everyone realized they knew a gun owner, and a shooter, and somebody who actually believed in his or her constitutionally-guaranteed rights?

The BMWAR was a good spokesman and was very nicley dressed which was very reassuring, Plus the rifle was slung over his side and unloaded.
The OCer’s anticipated a violent Acorn type to try to grab the rifle and prepared against that possibility. They also notified the police the night before for public safety concerns.

If we are free and have 2 A rights then OC at a political rally is Ok , appropiate ? Maybe.

The point of all these protests is that we object as free people to government asserting control over our bodies to deny them the authority to decide what can be done as medical care. No better assertion of our right to be free of government control of our persons is carry a gun openly.

In that the message is that the 2A will back up our other rights.

The real political result is not the immediate reaction but down the road and can not be determined this close to the event.

I think that the media and audience will start to get used to seeing people exercise their rights. When rights are exercised openly others often will be encouraged also to exercise their rights.

An old saying is that a right not exercised is a right denied. If we self censor as Sebastian suggests we have accepted the arguement that gun carry is a bad idea.

The BMWAR was an excellent spokesperson. Now did that push the comfort zone a little, yes. Too much, I do not think so.

As far as I could see the people were trying to get close to him as did the media . Did he scare the white people? As Says uncle would say. By the evidence of the videos of those around him, no they were not scared.