PDA

View Full Version : KTVU will be doing a story on "Open Carry" tomorrow at 6pm


Pages : [1] 2

mecam
11-16-2009, 5:42 PM
Just saw a clip, not sure if this is a good thing or what. People were calling 911 reporting man with a gun and they were showing people going into restaurants with guns. Some detective they were interviewing did say it was legal but highly disapproves. Remember KTVU Ch-2 at 6pm on Tuesday 11/17/09 in the Bay Area.

Updated on 11/17/09 with Video

mKSPQlSFtZs

Timberline
11-16-2009, 5:48 PM
Thanks for the heads-up.

krzgoat
11-16-2009, 5:52 PM
Yeah I heard a small bit on the radio. Going to set the DVR.

mecam
11-16-2009, 5:52 PM
The story will repeat at the 10pm also.

pingpong
11-16-2009, 5:53 PM
Hopefully it's pro. KTVU is a Fox affiliate after all...

technique
11-16-2009, 5:55 PM
Can someone Youtube it after? I don't get local news any more but would like to see it! Maybe they will play it on their site...

bruceflinch
11-16-2009, 6:43 PM
OOOooo, local Detective disapproves. That's why he isn't a judge...

Hope it's a positive story!

Dr Rockso
11-16-2009, 6:49 PM
Ugh I hope this doesn't involve that idiot in front of Cisco a couple weeks back.

thedrickel
11-16-2009, 6:49 PM
Heard a couple spots on the radio. Didnt sound very good for our side, the way they described the issue.

Solidmch
11-16-2009, 7:35 PM
Hopefully it's pro. KTVU is a Fox affiliate after all...

KTVU is ultra liberal. They support and promote many gun buy backs. They should have their fox affiliation stripped.

Intimid8tor
11-16-2009, 7:39 PM
I heard it on the radio as well. I'm scared to see what it wil lreally be about.

ghost
11-16-2009, 7:43 PM
usually when ktvu-2 has segments about firearms nothing comes out positive.i wonder what kind of bs they`ll be saying about this subject.

CalNRA
11-16-2009, 7:49 PM
KTVU sucks.

That is all.

7x57
11-16-2009, 8:17 PM
KTVU is ultra liberal. They support and promote many gun buy backs. They should have their fox affiliation stripped.

Why? So we can have have as much fun censoring as the left does?

Besides, Fox is basically centrist, as their popularity shows, at least if "centrist" means something concrete. The "right-wing" label is one the left gave them as punishment for not being leftist and for making it harder to ignore the fact that the US is a center-right country.

Speaking of that popularity, my guess is that eventually Fox will own half the other networks thanks to a policy of treating news like a business instead of a social engineering endeavor and giving people what they want. Well...maybe KTVU is in the ideological sweet spot for its area.

7x57

bwiese
11-16-2009, 8:39 PM
KTVU2, in its Dennis Richmond days, did seem to sometimes give a fair shake to gunnies and at least often gave the pro-gun viewpoint equal time in various pieces.

Solidmch
11-16-2009, 8:41 PM
Why? So we can have have as much fun censoring as the left does?

Besides, Fox is basically centrist, as their popularity shows, at least if "centrist" means something concrete. The "right-wing" label is one the left gave them as punishment for not being leftist and for making it harder to ignore the fact that the US is a center-right country.

Speaking of that popularity, my guess is that eventually Fox will own half the other networks thanks to a policy of treating news like a business instead of a social engineering endeavor and giving people what they want. Well...maybe KTVU is in the ideological sweet spot for its area.

7x57

The probelm is FOX slogan is fair a balanced. They always bring on opposing views. This is not the case for KTVU...

Trendkill
11-16-2009, 8:43 PM
Anyone know what the story is about...is it a CG'r..???

Timberline
11-16-2009, 9:02 PM
KTVU sucks.

That is all.

Best quality news you'll find in the greater SF Bay Area, they've been doing a good job for several decades.

CalNRA
11-16-2009, 9:06 PM
Best quality news you'll find in the greater SF Bay Area, they've been doing a good job for several decades.

yarn.

Fantastic.

I care about what you think about a news station. Really, I do. See, I care *this* much.

Nah, not really.

Zhukov
11-16-2009, 9:12 PM
yarn.

Fantastic.

I care about what you think about a news station. Really, I do. See, I care *this* much.

Nah, not really.

Oh Calguns, how I love our member's level of maturity these days. We're such a classy bunch.

bigtoe416
11-16-2009, 11:12 PM
Anyone know what the story is about...is it a CG'r..???

It was arranged by bad_ace over at opencarry.org and was held two weeks ago. They spoke to bad_ace for an hour or so and then the news crew came to Starbucks in Cupertino where there were five OCers there, one non-OCer. One of the other members at opencarry was interviewed for a few minutes and the news crew stopped a few people walking by to ask them what their thoughts were. Funnily enough, the first two people they stopped were a couple that lived near bad_ace and knew him and about open carry.

My fingers are crossed. Preemptive apologies all around if it's bad.

CalNRA
11-17-2009, 12:09 AM
Oh Calguns, how I love our member's level of maturity these days. We're such a classy bunch.

yep, we sure are.

Have a good day now.

:)

nicki
11-17-2009, 2:50 AM
I really wish everyone would stand down till after we get incorporation and the green light from the right people first.

Incorporation will happen soon, then the various VD(Victim disarmament) laws will fall one by one.

If we get balanced coverage we will be very lucky.

Nicki

WokMaster1
11-17-2009, 7:51 AM
It's most likely the guy who UOC outside CISCO few weeks back.

MudCamper
11-17-2009, 8:09 AM
It's most likely the guy who UOC outside CISCO few weeks back.

No. It's not. Read Bigtoe's post above. Or read this: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/33170.html

And before everyone starts bashing all open carriers, stop. Most of us OCers here on CalGuns that have been asked to stop for now, have. But there are many over on OCDO who will never stop, ever. So don't focus your crap on those of us who are respecting the stand-down request, OK.

I really wish everyone would stand down till after we get incorporation and the green light from the right people first.

Wishing is about all anyone can do. Those that are still OCing have already decided to ignore any stand-down request, and all the berating and insulting that many hear heap upon them will only strengthen their resolve.

dfletcher
11-17-2009, 8:19 AM
Within a day or so of the fours Oakland PDs being killed KTVU aired a few segments covering community activist meetings about police violence against the community, including one ladies' comment that "now maybe Oakland PD knows what it's like" to lose some one. I don't hold out high hopes.

berg
11-17-2009, 9:52 AM
KTVU2, in its Dennis Richmond days, did seem to sometimes give a fair shake to gunnies and at least often gave the pro-gun viewpoint equal time in various pieces.

He was a shooter himself. I don't know in what capacity, either military or hobby. I remember watching footage long ago about law changes affecting the SKS rifle and he was at a range shooting an SKS with a drum magazine (not his).

dwtt
11-17-2009, 11:31 AM
Best quality news you'll find in the greater SF Bay Area, they've been doing a good job for several decades.

Yes, quality news on the same level as Dan Rather who showed faked Texas Air National Guard "documents" about George Bush. Where do these people come from? :rolleyes:

KTVU is a joke of a news station. Their specials are just sensationalized hit pieces with little connection to facts. Anyone remember how they had a special on Los Alamos claiming that if the lab were to be run by a private contractor the safety of the nuclear weapons program would be jeapordized? KTVU conveniently left out the fact that LANL was currently being run by a contractor, UC, and that under this contractor the Chinese were able to steal nuclear design secrets (Wen Ho Lee case). They also didn't mention why DOE put the contract up for bid. Unfortunately there were people stupid enough to believe the KTVU hit piece. This "special" on open carry will be of the same caliber.

MrSigmaDOT40
11-17-2009, 12:28 PM
I heard the advert in my car on the radio last night and almost crashed! I couldn ot believe what i was hearing lol. I was going to post up but i thought somebody had to have known and did so already. I hope CGF is in contact with KTVU on this one, just to show support since this could go wwaaayyyy wrong. i will set the DVR!

Roadrunner
11-17-2009, 12:37 PM
I really wish everyone would stand down till after we get incorporation and the green light from the right people first.

Incorporation will happen soon, then the various VD(Victim disarmament) laws will fall one by one.

If we get balanced coverage we will be very lucky.

Nicki

The day we do, and people start open carrying in droves, I'm wondering how L.E. will spin the propaganda to tell us how detrimental it is to public safety. I honestly don't see this coming from my part of California, but those of you who live in Urbania will see this kind of propaganda spinning like a top.

demnogis
11-17-2009, 1:01 PM
FAUX News (FOX) is owned by NEWS Corporation, the largest outlet and reporting agency in print, publications, online reporting and broadcast.

Don't expect anything specific or biased in the minority. Whatever ends up on FOX is whatever Rupert wants.

Super Spy
11-17-2009, 1:03 PM
I heard it on the Wolf this morning, the tone didn't sound Pro-Gun at all......more like I can't believe this is legal.....probably trying to go for the FUD shotgun approach...

gcvt
11-17-2009, 1:06 PM
Oh brother. I just heard the promo on the radio this afternoon. Ominous sounding voice saying things like "many more gun owners" and "packing heat". I'm guessing it's not going to be terribly fair and balanced, but I guess we will see tonight.

M1A Rifleman
11-17-2009, 1:46 PM
Just caught the commercial for it now for 10 pm tonight. I heard the part ..... has residents and local law enforcment up-in-arms... It does not sound like it will be an unbiased good thing for the 2nd amendment cause.

Prediction: There will be a front by the media & LEO's this next year to make UOC illegal. Pray for a good outcome in Chicago.

FreedomIsNotFree
11-17-2009, 1:56 PM
Just heard the radio tease as well. It is what it is. People are going to open carry, regardless of the possible legal ramifications for the state.

We have two choices at this point. Sit on the sidelines and let others "speak" for gun owners, or we can take the initiative and get our best and brightest out in front of this. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.

rkt88edmo
11-17-2009, 2:08 PM
Oh brother. I just heard the promo on the radio this afternoon. Ominous sounding voice saying things like "many more gun owners" and "packing heat". I'm guessing it's not going to be terribly fair and balanced, but I guess we will see tonight.

Deskreport: There's something hot going on at this starbucks and it isn't just coffee, right fieldreporter?

Thats right deskguy, when you come to the starbucks in cupertino, you might be surprised to see some customers packing heat along with their cup of java...

grunz
11-17-2009, 2:49 PM
Oh brother. I just heard the promo on the radio this afternoon. Ominous sounding voice saying things like "many more gun owners" and "packing heat". I'm guessing it's not going to be terribly fair and balanced, but I guess we will see tonight.

I haven't watched KTVU in years, but that's pretty typical for their hidden threat news segments like:

"Find.... out..... tonight..... what.... common household chemicals in your home may give your pet chihuahua rectal cancer!"

That said I'm still sure it will be a hatchet job.

Steyr_223
11-17-2009, 4:05 PM
KTVU2, in its Dennis Richmond days, did seem to sometimes give a fair shake to gunnies and at least often gave the pro-gun viewpoint equal time in various pieces.

I recall this as well.

Dr. Peter Venkman
11-17-2009, 4:53 PM
I'll only watch if Jade Hernandez or Gasia Mikaelian are in it.

pullnshoot25
11-17-2009, 5:23 PM
Just caught the commercial for it now for 10 pm tonight. I heard the part ..... has residents and local law enforcment up-in-arms... It does not sound like it will be an unbiased good thing for the 2nd amendment cause.

Prediction: There will be a front by the media & LEO's this next year to make UOC illegal. Pray for a good outcome in Chicago.

Your premonitions are correct.

These news stories are a double edged sword. I just hope our edge is sharper.

technique
11-17-2009, 5:25 PM
Guns are bad!!!!

"local residents and LEO's up in arms"....but guns are bad!!!!

Retarded!

mecam
11-17-2009, 5:38 PM
I'll only watch if Jade Hernandez or Gasia Mikaelian are in it.

Gasia Mikaelian is only reason I watch KTVU at 5pm and on the sister channel at 7pm. ;)

GrizzlyGuy
11-17-2009, 5:43 PM
I'll only watch if Jade Hernandez or Gasia Mikaelian are in it.

Gasia Mikaelian is only reason I watch KTVU at 5pm and on the sister channel at 7pm. ;)

Ha! Gasia is my wife's cousin. If she does the story and it's anti-gun, she's gonna have some 'splainin to do for sure. We'll have to invite her up for a little :83: action.

Oh, and she got married. So down boys, down. :D

IW378
11-17-2009, 5:45 PM
Gasia Mikaelian is only reason I watch KTVU at 5pm and on the sister channel at 7pm. ;)
What is the sister station ?? I missed it.
Luke

Dr. Peter Venkman
11-17-2009, 5:47 PM
Ha! Gasia is my wife's cousin. If she does the story and it's anti-gun, she's gonna have some 'splainin to do for sure. We'll have to invite her up for a little :83: action.

Oh, and she got married. So down boys, down. :D

What? Married? NO! :(

wilit
11-17-2009, 5:48 PM
What is the sister station ?? I missed it.
Luke

I watched the 6pm news cast. It wasn't on. I think it's only a 10pm story.

GrizzlyGuy
11-17-2009, 5:54 PM
What? Married? NO! :(

Yup, and it was one heck of a wedding. At least the parts I can remember. Like I said, it was one heck of a wedding... :D

Liberty1
11-17-2009, 6:05 PM
These news stories are a double edged sword. I just hope our edge is sharper.

Right now we're swinging iron age weapons and the enemy has steel...waiting for new technology to arrive post McDonald.

JUNGALIST
11-17-2009, 6:16 PM
Whatever ends up on FOX is whatever Rupert wants.

+1 Rupert Murdoch is GOD to that network.

mecam
11-17-2009, 6:20 PM
What is the sister station ?? I missed it.
Luke

TV36 on Ch6 at 7pm. Married or not, she's hot...

mecam
11-17-2009, 6:22 PM
I watched the 6pm news cast. It wasn't on. I think it's only a 10pm story.

I watched the 6pm news for whole half hour and nothing, then they showed the commercial about it and it's on at 10pm. Bastads wasted my time.

pullnshoot25
11-17-2009, 6:26 PM
I will be driving at the time so if anyone can capture and screwtube that would be sweet. A synopsis works as well :)

IW378
11-17-2009, 6:36 PM
I watched the 6pm news for whole half hour and nothing, then they showed the commercial about it and it's on at 10pm. Bastads wasted my time.
That's probably because they do not want to advertise in the primetime news that uoc is legal.:43:

mecam
11-17-2009, 7:20 PM
I will be driving at the time so if anyone can capture and screwtube that would be sweet. A synopsis works as well :)

I'll try to capture it.

jdberger
11-17-2009, 9:17 PM
FAUX News (FOX) is owned by NEWS Corporation, the largest outlet and reporting agency in print, publications, online reporting and broadcast.

Don't expect anything specific or biased in the minority. Whatever ends up on FOX is whatever Rupert wants.

Like totally, Dude. Rupert reviews every report by every television station, newspaper and magazine BEFORE it goes out.

He's also the Master of Time and Space.

:TFH:

Oh, "faux" is pronounced "FO". Just like "escargot". But I'm sure you know this and are just pretending to be ignorant...I'm sure....

bigtoe416
11-17-2009, 9:18 PM
The non-video story. Nothing too awful, nothing too great.

http://www.ktvu.com/news/21644403/detail.html

Vinz
11-17-2009, 9:23 PM
on next....

jdberger
11-17-2009, 9:24 PM
So far the tag line is:

"And a sense of security or recipe for disaster? The growing number of people who are carrying guns...."

jdberger
11-17-2009, 9:30 PM
And now

"but first an unusual gun rights movement that seems to be growing. It is making many people nervous......."

rrr70
11-17-2009, 9:35 PM
It wasn't bad.

Stormfeather
11-17-2009, 9:36 PM
Not bad, it went downhill after they talked about the Black Panthers with "automatic weapons" though. Amazingly enough, it wasnt as anti-2A as I thought it would be.

spddrcr
11-17-2009, 9:36 PM
garbage:rolleyes:

Steyr_223
11-17-2009, 9:36 PM
I thought it was pretty middle of the road. The OC guys were right on with the law.

jdberger
11-17-2009, 9:37 PM
for the most part - not bad.

Then they showed the memorial for police killed in the line of duty..."two by guns..." :rolleyes:

JDoe
11-17-2009, 9:38 PM
It was a better report than I expected. I liked when they showed a group of guys UOCing at the starbucks and the local PD just cruising on by with a could care less (about the group open carrying) attitude.

Real cops don't seem to care about law abiding citizens exercising their rights. PoliticoCops, well they are a different animal.

Trendkill
11-17-2009, 9:38 PM
Not too biased....amazing.

Not too happy about the whole..... "People might be less likely to taunt or yell obscenities..." comment.

Steyr_223
11-17-2009, 9:39 PM
for the most part - not bad.

Then they showed the memorial for police killed in the line of duty..."two by guns..." :rolleyes:

I like how they edit that in after the OC guy says the Police have no legal right to protect citizens..I wonder if the Sunnyvale cop was trying to counter that question.

rrr70
11-17-2009, 9:39 PM
Not too happy about the whole..... "People might be less likely to taunt or yell obscenities..." comment.

Yeah, that wasn't a very smart comment.

Stormfeather
11-17-2009, 9:39 PM
for the most part - not bad.

Then they showed the memorial for police killed in the line of duty..."two by guns..." :rolleyes:

I personally was pleasantly surprised, they did do some editing to sway it a little bit I think, but not as over the top anti-2A as I thought it would be.

Trendkill
11-17-2009, 9:39 PM
I didnt know the guy in Arizona at the protest had an "Automatic Weapon"....

oldrifle
11-17-2009, 9:40 PM
When the guy was saying that people are less likely to be rude to him because they think they might get shot... well, I guess that's OK... but I think maybe that scaring "respect" out of people isn't a very good reason to open carry.

pingpong
11-17-2009, 9:40 PM
One part I didn't like was mentioning "an armed society is a polite society" but taking polite to be "not yelling obscenities". Makes it sound kind of petty, rather than polite meaning "not committing violent crimes".

showerbabies
11-17-2009, 9:40 PM
So ... the LEOs were gunned down by law-abiding citizens? Or criminals who have no regards on human lives?

Agreed, shocking unbiased, heard both sides, and memos on exactly what we and they can do. But most importantly, its perfectly _legal_.

pingpong
11-17-2009, 9:42 PM
I've seen the guy's video on youtube before. Anyone know if he's on CG?

Steyr_223
11-17-2009, 9:42 PM
I wonder if any of those OC guys at the Cupertino Starbucks are Calgunners?

Come out, come out!

:)

Trendkill
11-17-2009, 9:42 PM
So ... the LEOs were gunned down by law-abiding citizens? Or criminals who have no regards on human lives?

Open Carriers of course.... ;)

sytfu_RR
11-17-2009, 9:42 PM
I like how they edit that in after the OC guy says the Police have no legal right to protect citizens..I wonder if the Sunnyvale cop was trying to counter that question.

yea the memorial was kinda random, like are they trying to imply that law abiding citizens that open carry killed those LEO's?

At least the OC guy got Lloyd about the police having to protect them. The explanation of the law and what an officer could do seemed to be right on.

Overall not too bad, not as biased as I thought it would be, although the part about the "AUTOMATIC" weapons was kinda stupid.:TFH: Guess he doesn't realize that just because it looks scary doesn't mean its some automatic high power assault rifle.

Target Plinker
11-17-2009, 9:42 PM
No disrespect to the fallen officers, but what about the hundreds of innocent fallen civilians that have been killed my guns??? Open carry is a good idea but useless if its unloaded. I only wish I lived in a "Shall issue" county.

Trendkill
11-17-2009, 9:43 PM
I wonder if any of those OC guys at the Cupertino Starbucks are Calgunners?

Come out, come out!

:)

The heat may be a little more than they could bear....

putput
11-17-2009, 9:43 PM
A quick recap.

Guy with gun.
Guys with guns in capitol building.
Guy with machine gun at Obama event.
Guys with guns want respect and live in fear.
Guns kill cops.

CitaDeL
11-17-2009, 9:43 PM
Reasonably balanced.

Those who oppose the 2nd are likely saying to themselves "There ought to be a law..."

Those who are neutral on the subject of the 2nd are better informed.

Gunnies will naturally be split between the 'concealed only' and the 'natural rights' camps.

There are a couple of unintended consequences to this airing; 1, those who see this and do none of the research required to be lawful will likely be fodder for the legal system. 2, anti's will make attempts to confront OC proponents when they encounter them...

It will be interesting to see whether there is an effect on membership on OCDO, in spite of the absence of a website mention.

Vinz
11-17-2009, 9:43 PM
I don't carry to command respect from others. That could be construde as a negative. Its seems Loyd was pretty biased.

I wish he would have mentioned the website for viewers to research whats legal. I can picture a bunch of light bulbs going off as it aired. Then a bunch of guys holstering up without fully knowing the laws.


vinz

Stormfeather
11-17-2009, 9:44 PM
I didnt know the guy in Arizona at the protest had an "Automatic Weapon"....

You know, it might not be a bad idea, but maybe to email KTVU and thank them for getting 95% of the facts straight! Its better than they usually do! Besides the normal non-distinction between semi-auto and "automatic", they didnt do half bad of a job! Maybe it may be a pleasant surprise for them to get some positive feedback from the gunnies for once!

RRangel
11-17-2009, 9:45 PM
And now

"but first an unusual gun rights movement that seems to be growing. It is making many people nervous......."

Yes, we all know them. The dreaded non-CCW issuing agencies and sheriffs with the longstanding records of cronyism. Lets not forget their like minded political class enablers who abhor liberty either.

Liberty1
11-17-2009, 9:45 PM
I wonder if any of those OC guys at the Cupertino Starbucks are Calgunners?

Come out, come out!

:)

They're here but as of late they tend to get slammed. Look'em up at OCDO.

fevillago
11-17-2009, 9:46 PM
So why does calguns recommend to not open carry. If someone organized an open carry event in San Jose I would participate.

rrr70
11-17-2009, 9:47 PM
"We have a difficult time understanding the point of this. What value does this bring to the community right now?" asked Capt. Doug Moretto.

Maybe it brings sense of not being dependent on police to protect themselves? Because in 99.99999% of cases police is not there when crime is being committed.

Trendkill
11-17-2009, 9:47 PM
You know, it might not be a bad idea, but maybe to email KTVU and thank them for getting 95% of the facts straight! Its better than they usually do! Besides the normal non-distinction between semi-auto and "automatic", they didnt do half bad of a job! Maybe it may be a pleasant surprise for them to get some positive feedback from the gunnies for once!

True...I did like how they laid out the whole "This is how to carry openly" list....that was actually kinda cool.

Im gonna email them....

Stormfeather
11-17-2009, 9:48 PM
A quick recap.

Guy with gun.
Guys with guns in capitol building.
Guy with machine gun at Obama event.
Guys with guns want respect and live in fear.
Guns kill cops.

Really? Thats all you got out of this whole segment? Seriously? :mad:
They presented the facts, and in comparison to how they normally present them, this was by far a hell of a lot better than a hatchet job they could have done, like you are doing right now.

Trendkill
11-17-2009, 9:49 PM
So why does calguns recommend to not open carry. If someone organized an open carry event in San Jose I would participate.

We are waiting for incorporation....

Steyr_223
11-17-2009, 9:52 PM
So why does calguns recommend to not open carry. If someone organized an open carry event in San Jose I would participate.

IIRC, the Calguns Foundation told everyone to stand down from OC until some legal cases get addressed.

I am sure Gene, Bill or Oaklander will chime in soon..

iwn730
11-17-2009, 9:52 PM
Hahaha what ever happened to 1911s most of them are carrying glocks

Liberty1
11-17-2009, 9:53 PM
So why does calguns recommend to not open carry. If someone organized an open carry event in San Jose I would participate.

Because of the legal situation. It is not a "Right" protected by any fed or state court in Ca. at this time. The criminal and financial risk doesn't need to be taken by individuals yet. And because it is a highly visible exercise of a politically charged issue (self defense gun carry), which could and likely will produce more bad legislation which we can't at this time stop, it is more productive to "keep our powder dry" until the legal landscape is changed by up coming federal court cases.

Then all the "lost" time between now and then can be made up at what will be light speed in comparison to what UOCers are doing now without the potential backsliding as we are still very vulnerable legislatively speaking right now.

rrr70
11-17-2009, 9:54 PM
Hahaha what ever happened to 1911s most of them are carrying glocks

Cause they have a good taste in guns?:p

bigtoe416
11-17-2009, 9:55 PM
I wonder if any of those OC guys at the Cupertino Starbucks are Calgunners?

Come out, come out!

:)

As I stated before in a not-so-obvious way, I was there at the Cupertino Starbucks. Just so everybody knows, they spoke to bad_ace for an hour straight. I imagine talking for that long and keeping "on message" is kinda hard to do.

hoffmang
11-17-2009, 9:56 PM
To echo Liberty1, there are legal and political reasons to wait for the (almost certainly favorable) decision in McDonald v. Chicago which will return the 2A to California after it's 100 day Nordyke vacation was cut short. We should have that decision in late June 2010.

To the topic at hand - that was a surprisingly balanced piece. Hopefully someone can youtube it.

-Gene

Trendkill
11-17-2009, 9:56 PM
excuse my ignorance but what does that mean here?:confused:

The Heller vs DC case.....it was a local case in DC. But in order for it to be in effect for all of us..it must first be incorporated in Chicago with their nutty anti-gun case.


Atleast....Im kinda sure thats the jist of it...

iwn730
11-17-2009, 9:58 PM
Does that open carry of my "auto loading 223" I would love to have it with a one point sling

putput
11-17-2009, 9:58 PM
Yes, seriously. So they got a couple of facts, so what? That's a pretty low threshold considering they left out the CCW movement and that little thing called the 2A that guarantees the right to keep and bear arms without e checks or permission to keep it in your pocket or etc.


Really? Thats all you got out of this whole segment? Seriously? :mad:
They presented the facts, and in comparison to how they normally present them, this was by far a hell of a lot better than a hatchet job they could have done, like you are doing right now.

Stormfeather
11-17-2009, 9:59 PM
As I stated before in a not-so-obvious way, I was there at the Cupertino Starbucks. Just so everybody knows, they spoke to bad_ace for an hour straight. I imagine talking for that long and keeping "on message" is kinda hard to do.

Were you there for the most part of the interview? Im just curious if they "(the reporter) was fishing for the "crazy man with a gun" type of story, and ended up finding out that this wasnt the case? As others here have said, we are somewhat surprised the story wasnt a hatchet job we was expecting. Any other insites you can give us about the hour they spent with him?

Trendkill
11-17-2009, 9:59 PM
Hahaha what ever happened to 1911s most of them are carrying glocks

Who the hell wants to get their bad a** 1911 confiscated due to OC'ing...or God forbid..an actual self defense situation.

mecam
11-17-2009, 10:00 PM
Here's the video.

mKSPQlSFtZs

Stormfeather
11-17-2009, 10:01 PM
Yes, seriously. So they got a couple of facts, so what? That's a pretty low threshold considering they left out the CCW movement and that little thing called the 2A that guarantees the right to keep and bear arms without e checks or permission to keep it in your pocket or etc.

Maybe you should read up on this thread, and learn what the incorporation thing that we are talking about here. Yes, we all know about the 2nd Amendment, nobody here is stupid, its the incorporation we need in this state. Please read up on the above posts regarding it, then comment.

Trendkill
11-17-2009, 10:02 PM
Family duties kept me from catching the segment. I hope someone posts the video soon. :)

Look above you..... :)

putput
11-17-2009, 10:03 PM
Please read the TOS then comment.

Maybe you should read up on this thread, and learn what the incorporation thing that we are talking about here. Yes, we all know about the 2nd Amendment, nobody here is stupid, its the incorporation we need in this state. Please read up on the above posts regarding it, then comment.

iwn730
11-17-2009, 10:07 PM
Cause they have a good taste in guns?:p

naw 1911 over glock any day for 9mm I would go with a browning high power

Stormfeather
11-17-2009, 10:07 PM
After rewatching the video segment, it seems to me that the only real bad side to the whole article, was the Police Capt Moretto, he was the only one offering any negativity to the argument. Any one re-watch it and get that too?

FreedomIsNotFree
11-17-2009, 10:09 PM
Look above you..... :)

Look above what? HAHA. I was literally typing my post when mecam posted the vid. So I deleted it.

rrr70
11-17-2009, 10:09 PM
After rewatching the video segment, it seems to me that the only real bad side to the whole article, was the Police Capt Moretto, he was the only one offering any negativity to the argument. Any one re-watch it and get that too?

Yep.

putput
11-17-2009, 10:10 PM
Let me put it to you this way. A good piece in my mind would have talked about incorporation, ccw issuance, and etc. and not focused on the “automatic weapon”, living in fear, and dead cops.
Things have been so bad for so long here in CA that a hit piece ,thinly vieled, looks “fair and balanced”.
That, to me, is sad.

tonelar
11-17-2009, 10:10 PM
Ktvu did a decent job of it imho
I'm not saying Im for or against uoc
Im just glad they handledthe story like they did.

Trendkill
11-17-2009, 10:11 PM
After rewatching the video segment, it seems to me that the only real bad side to the whole article, was the Police Capt Moretto, he was the only one offering any negativity to the argument. Any one re-watch it and get that too?

Picked that vibe up from the get go

Trendkill
11-17-2009, 10:12 PM
Look above what? HAHA. I was literally typing my post when mecam posted the vid. So I deleted it.

Ahhh....very good grass hopper....you snatch post out of hand.

Stormfeather
11-17-2009, 10:15 PM
Please read the TOS then comment.

what does that have to do with our discussion? If you feel something is inappropriate, then please hit the red exclamation mark in the upper right hand corner of the comment box and report the post to administrators. What does that have to do with you not knowing about Incorporation of the Second Amendment in California? You posted. . . .

A quick recap.

Guy with gun.
Guys with guns in capitol building.
Guy with machine gun at Obama event.
Guys with guns want respect and live in fear.
Guns kill cops.

and in my opinion, I think you are the only one who got that out of the entire group who's weighed in here so far. If you feel that violates TOS, then please feel free to report it.

Telperion
11-17-2009, 10:16 PM
Justifying carrying a gun by saying that people would give him respect and be less likely to curse or be rude, was a mistake. They probably cherrypicked that statement out of the whole interview.

They missed out on an obvious opportunity to challenge Cpt. Moretto: if Sunnyvale PD doesn't like open carry, maybe they ought to start issuing CCWs.

Dr Rockso
11-17-2009, 10:17 PM
Interesting. Very much better than I expected...the only thing that concerned me was David's whole "carry a gun to get respect" thing. I doubt that's what he really meant to say, but it came out poorly. Even the police Captain was pretty civil; about the worst he said was "I don't see the point." Lots of people around here have said the same thing about UOC.

Steyr_223
11-17-2009, 10:18 PM
After rewatching the video segment, it seems to me that the only real bad side to the whole article, was the Police Capt Moretto, he was the only one offering any negativity to the argument. Any one re-watch it and get that too?

i got the segment recorded on the DVR. Watched it twice, the Captain is pretty much the only true anti gun owner..Lloyd seems fair and balanced except for automatic rifle comment, but that could be just ignorance...

Sutcliffe
11-17-2009, 10:19 PM
Wearing a gun and equating it with politeness sends a far different message than I want my ability to open carry conveying. You carry a gun to protect yourself from criminal behavior. Period.

I didn't like or even quite understand the angle on Sunnyvale cops killed with guns. So what? Will officer deaths go up astonomically if more people open carry? We all know the answer to that one.


Not as bad as a worst case scenario, but it could have been better. I just hate that heinlen quote is all.


I would have preferred them being so bold as to question the California State Lawmakers and their reasoning for outlawing loaded open carry with regards to the Black Panthers. To link gun control to horribly racist legislation certainly would open many more eyes around urban areas.

bigtoe416
11-17-2009, 10:19 PM
Were you there for the most part of the interview? Im just curious if they "(the reporter) was fishing for the "crazy man with a gun" type of story, and ended up finding out that this wasnt the case? As others here have said, we are somewhat surprised the story wasnt a hatchet job we was expecting. Any other insites you can give us about the hour they spent with him?

I was there when Greg was interviewed (not David), but everybody was talking when he was being asked questions. I know they asked him what he would do if Starbucks asked him to leave and he said he'd leave. Outside of that I don't know what they asked. The news crew asked three of us if we wanted to talk to them and Greg was the only one willing to. They interviewed him for probably 5-10 minutes.

themethod
11-17-2009, 10:20 PM
Saw this thread earlier today, then had a friend call to say he heard this was going to be on the news tonight. We'd discussed the topic before and he didn't believe that UOC would be possible (even though the law says it is)

Like most here, I expected more negative spin. It's amazing what editing and cherry picking clips can do. I didn't like the 'I UOC for respect' bit, and was yelling at the TV when I heard 'Automatic weapon'. I also don't get why the final clip was of the officers memorial... I guess they put that in to show that officers give their life in the line of duty.

Coming from a pro-2a perspective (obviously) I'd say overall it was positive... the more informed people are the better. Hopefully less "man with a gun" calls for UOC. Just concerned that any incident involving UOC could be very bad for 2a rights in California.

Stormfeather
11-17-2009, 10:21 PM
Let me put it to you this way. A good piece in my mind would have talked about incorporation, ccw issuance, and etc. and not focused on the “automatic weapon”, living in fear, and dead cops.
Things have been so bad for so long here in CA that a hit piece ,thinly vieled, looks “fair and balanced”.
That, to me, is sad.

Yes, they made a flub when they described the guy in Arizona as carrying an "automatic weapon". But then again, it very well may have been since Class III and NFA weapons are fully legal in Arizona, as well as is open carry. The main detractor of the segment was the police captain as I stated earlier. I dont consider this a "hit piece".

FreedomIsNotFree
11-17-2009, 10:21 PM
Yes, seriously. So they got a couple of facts, so what? That's a pretty low threshold considering they left out the CCW movement and that little thing called the 2A that guarantees the right to keep and bear arms without e checks or permission to keep it in your pocket or etc.

If you haven't noticed or done much reading around here, as far as the courts are concerned, we don't have 2A protections in the state of California.

Many people are working diligently to correct the problem.

putput
11-17-2009, 10:22 PM
I'm pretty sure there's something in there (TOS) about being respectful and I don't need to call for mommy when I feel a bully has shown up. I know about incorporation and etc even though you assume I don't. If I'm the only one who has an opinion, then I won't be belittled into going with the group think. Please tone it down or I simply will not play with you anymore. Oh we're on the same side here and I still think this was a hit piece.

what does that have to do with our discussion? If you feel something is inappropriate, then please hit the red exclamation mark in the upper right hand corner of the comment box and report the post to administrators. What does that have to do with you not knowing about Incorporation of the Second Amendment in California? You posted. . . .



and in my opinion, I think you are the only one who got that out of the entire group who's weighed in here so far. If you feel that violates TOS, then please feel free to report it.

berto
11-17-2009, 10:28 PM
Not as bad I as expected though the cop did us no favors with his scare the soccer moms nonsense.

ldivinag
11-17-2009, 10:31 PM
what i dont get is why bring up the dead cops due to guns?

the story was about open carry, not dead cops due to guns...

sometimes, news people will try to spin any story they could.

yes, the editor of that news piece could have left out that portion. but looks like lloyd wanted to keep it in...

Stormfeather
11-17-2009, 10:34 PM
I'm pretty sure there's something in there (TOS) about being respectful and I don't need to call for mommy when I feel a bully has shown up. I know about incorporation and etc even though you assume I don't. If I'm the only one who has an opinion, then I won't be belittled into going with the group think. Please tone it down or I simply will not play with you anymore. Oh we're on the same side here and I still think this was a hit piece.

Wow, Ive been called many things, "Bully" has never been one of them. If you know about Incorporation, then you know it has yet to be done here in California, hence your statement of . . . .

that little thing called the 2A that guarantees the right to keep and bear arms without e checks or permission to keep it in your pocket or etc.

doesnt make sense. You are contradicting your original statement. Incorporation of the Second Amendment in California means that the full strength of the Constitution comes to bear. As of now, we are not guaranteed those rights because the second amendment wasnt written into California's State Constitution. As far as trying to belittle you into group-thinking, you are way off base here. Im probably the last person who goes along with the flow of things, especially here on calguns. As far as toning it down, I havent even gotten started yet, trust me, I get loud and obnoxious, especially when I start talking about midgets and pistachio pudding. :rolleyes:

If you haven't noticed or done much reading around here, as far as the courts are concerned, we don't have 2A protections in the state of California.
Many people are working diligently to correct the problem.

He knows this apparently.

Add another to the list.

FreedomIsNotFree
11-17-2009, 10:35 PM
I thought they would blame George Bush...just sayin'.

FreedomIsNotFree
11-17-2009, 10:36 PM
Ahhh no...

When StormFeather starts talking about midgets and pistachio pudding, you know its on...

IPSICK
11-17-2009, 10:37 PM
Let me put it to you this way. A good piece in my mind would have talked about incorporation, ccw issuance, and etc. and not focused on the “automatic weapon”, living in fear, and dead cops.
Things have been so bad for so long here in CA that a hit piece ,thinly vieled, looks “fair and balanced”.
That, to me, is sad.

I agree. I wanted better. The part about respect and politeness is way on the backburner to me when discussing the more relevant issue of defense. I wouldn't carry a gun out of fear but because it is my natural right and common sense preference. The dead cops portion of the segment was unrelated and unnecessary IMO. Was Lloyd implying an OC'er was responsible for their death and not some crazy criminal?

caligundude
11-17-2009, 10:46 PM
i would still be worried about crossing legal issues with open carry

Stormfeather
11-17-2009, 10:49 PM
I agree. I wanted better. The part about respect and politeness is way on the backburner to me when discussing the more relevant issue of defense. I wouldn't carry a gun out of fear but because it is my natural right and common sense preference. The dead cops portion of the segment was unrelated and unnecessary IMO. Was Lloyd implying an OC'er was responsible for their death and not some crazy criminal?

I agree fully, we ALL wanted better, but as far as news segments go, it wasnt as bad as I expected, and yes, the Fallen Officers portion was totally non-relevant to the article. He may have tried to imply it, but normal reasonable people, shouldnt have any problem differentiating between the lack of connection between the UOC'ers and the fallen officers, hopefully.

putput
11-17-2009, 10:50 PM
There you have it. The 2A predates the 14A and that predates most of California's unconstitutional laws. You my friend (and I mean that, let's be friends) have missed the forest for the trees since the incorporation case before SCOTUS will only affirm what is, was, and always will be a natural right. Slaughterhouse didn't undo the constitution no matter how many CA politicians or judges want it that way. Anyway isn't it Article III that says that California is a part of the US? And, that was a hit piece since it didn't cover any of this, called it an automatic weapon, cops get shot, etc.

Double :rolleyes:

Wow, Ive been called many things, "Bully" has never been one of them. If you know about Incorporation, then you know it has yet to be done here in California, hence your statement of . . . .



doesnt make sense. You are contradicting your original statement. Incorporation of the Second Amendment in California means that the full strength of the Constitution comes to bear. As of now, we are not guaranteed those rights because the second amendment wasnt written into California's State Constitution. As far as trying to belittle you into group-thinking, you are way off base here. Im probably the last person who goes along with the flow of things, especially here on calguns. As far as toning it down, I havent even gotten started yet, trust me, I get loud and obnoxious, especially when I start talking about midgets and pistachio pudding. :rolleyes:



He knows this apparently.

Add another to the list.

Liberty1
11-17-2009, 11:00 PM
...the incorporation case before SCOTUS will only affirm what is, was, and always will be a natural right. Slaughterhouse didn't undo the constitution no matter how many CA politicians or judges want it that way.

Very nice in theory, but unhelpful for the millions without BOR protection since Barron v Baltimore (1833) and even less so for those wrongfully incarcerated for otherwise lawful possession. State action must be restricted and that has not been the reality.

putput
11-17-2009, 11:01 PM
Too true and I still think that was a hit piece.

Very nice in theory, but unhelpful for the millions without BOR protection since Barron v Baltimore (1833) and even less so for those wrongfully incarcerated for otherwise lawful possession. State action must be restricted and that has not been the reality.

Stormfeather
11-17-2009, 11:21 PM
There you have it. The 2A predates the 14A and that predates most of California's unconstitutional laws. You my friend (and I mean that, let's be friends) have missed the forest for the trees since the incorporation case before SCOTUS will only affirm what is, was, and always will be a natural right. Slaughterhouse didn't undo the constitution no matter how many CA politicians or judges want it that way. Anyway isn't it Article III that says that California is a part of the US? And, that was a hit piece since it didn't cover any of this, called it an automatic weapon, cops get shot, etc.

Double :rolleyes:

I fully agree with you on this! Except for the forest for the trees comment and they called the guy in Arizona carrying a AR the "automatic". While the 2nd does predate 14th, it still hasnt stopped the politicians from making these laws here in california. So if they are so unconstitutional, why did they pass? Because we didnt have the 2nd Incorporated here in California. Hopefully with McDonald v. Chicago, it will all come back around. Back in 1999, when the State of California enacted amendments to its gun-control laws, they significantly strengthened the state's restrictions on the possession, use, and transfer of guns. It was then that California residents who were into guns, brought this challenge to the gun-control statute, asserting that the law, as amended, violates the Second Amendment. As we all know the district court dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims.
You are right as well, Slaughterhouse didnt undo the Constitution, but it sure didnt stop California from passing a bunch of BS laws either. Thats where Incorporation comes in, with this we can repeal tons of these laws.

oh, and triple :rolleyes: back at ya! :p

RyanF
11-17-2009, 11:27 PM
Late to the party, but I think this is awesome. Can't believe people are open carrying in my hometown! :clap:

Steve O
11-17-2009, 11:42 PM
My question is...when can we organize a UOC in Sonoma county?

pullnshoot25
11-17-2009, 11:59 PM
Here's the video.

mKSPQlSFtZs

Wow, that story was absolutely incredible. Aside from the automatic reference being incorrect and the main cop being an utter tool (I will admit that I *may* be a bit biased), I would say this was a damn good success.

Good job to all those involved for keeping it real. Kudos to the news crew for not leading truth to the proverbial slaughterhouse.

pullnshoot25
11-18-2009, 12:06 AM
I agree fully, we ALL wanted better, but as far as news segments go, it wasnt as bad as I expected, and yes, the Fallen Officers portion was totally non-relevant to the article. He may have tried to imply it, but normal reasonable people, shouldnt have any problem differentiating between the lack of connection between the UOC'ers and the fallen officers, hopefully.

I love how they use the Fallen Officers excuse to say "No, really! We actually protect society! We don't have to but we may possibly do it on a trial basis as a financial favor!"

bad_ace
11-18-2009, 12:28 AM
I wanted to read the whole thread before I commented. You guys are way to fast for me :)

Justifying carrying a gun by saying that people would give him respect and be less likely to curse or be rude, was a mistake. They probably cherrypicked that statement out of the whole interview.
It was cherry picked. He kept going back to that question and the one time I put it in different words, that's the one they used. During an hour of questions I think it's the only "mistake" I made.

They missed out on an obvious opportunity to challenge Cpt. Moretto: if Sunnyvale PD doesn't like open carry, maybe they ought to start issuing CCWs. I mentioned this. I mentioned it would be my preferred method. And went into a brief explanation that I wasn't a "special" person and therefore was denied my application.

Wearing a gun and equating it with politeness sends a far different message than I want my ability to open carry conveying. You carry a gun to protect yourself from criminal behavior. Period. I echoed this for about 59 minutes :) I said it was simple I want to protect myself with the best tools available, none of that made it in. I also mentioned that the Black Panthers only entered the Capitol to protest the Mulford act (a racist law) after it was being drafted. I suggested we revisit that law because of the nature in which it was enacted. That didn't make it.

Apologizes if I don't respond to questions. Calguns has some long threads, I'll most likely stick to OpenCarry.org

Also if you want to PM me a long letter explaining why "now is not a good time to exercise your inalienable rights" in fear that the same right will be taken from us (and yes I know the 2nd isn't incorporated). Save it. I've got a few and you'll just get the cut & paste response I gave the others.

"I hope that Calguns and it's political agenda can move forward with an unknown variable open carrying in the SF bay area. I wish them all the luck in the world, but none of their efforts or opinions on the mater are going to keep me safe, today."

Thanks,
Bad_Ace

battleship
11-18-2009, 12:34 AM
I bet that cop and all cops carry a off duty gun, for there own protection and there familys. Its the same reason we should be able to open carry without a problem. Out side of work and a uniform they are the same as everyone else so why should cops be treated differently in that respect.

Sutcliffe
11-18-2009, 1:08 AM
I bet that cop and all cops carry a off duty gun, for there own protection and there familys. Its the same reason we should be able to open carry without a problem. Out side of work and a uniform they are the same as everyone else so why should cops be treated differently in that respect.

The justification for allowing this is cops are considered on duty 24/7 and may need to make arrests or protect themselves from felons that recognize them.
Cops get to protect themselves from felons that are allowed to prey upon the rest of us. That's the message their policy sends, anyway. I feel pretty confident calling it elitest.

bad_ace
11-18-2009, 1:13 AM
I bet that cop and all cops carry a off duty gun, for there own protection and there familys. Its the same reason we should be able to open carry without a problem. Out side of work and a uniform they are the same as everyone else so why should cops be treated differently in that respect.

I ran into an off duty San Jose officer at a restaurant while OCing. He asked if what I was carrying was unloaded, As I started to explain that it was and why (California's laws) he interrupted by lifting his shirt a bit, flashing the badge he had clipped to his belt and exposing the concealed piece he had, saying "I Know". We exchanged pleasantries and then went our separate ways.

FreedomIsNotFree
11-18-2009, 1:23 AM
I ran into an off duty San Jose officer at a restaurant while OCing. He asked if what I was carrying was unloaded, As I started to explain that it was and why (California's laws) he interrupted by lifting his shirt a bit, flashing the badge he had clipped to his belt and exposing the concealed piece he had, saying "I Know". We exchanged pleasantries and then went our separate ways.

Are you sure he was San Jose PD?

GrizzlyGuy
11-18-2009, 7:44 AM
It was cherry picked. He kept going back to that question and the one time I put it in different words, that's the one they used. During an hour of questions I think it's the only "mistake" I made.

Congratulations, you did an outstanding job of representing the the vast majority of California gun owners who are peaceful, respectful, law-abiding citizens. If that was your worst moment in an hour of questioning by a skeptical and seasoned media interviewer, then you ought to consider a career in politics. :D

What stood out for me was the contrast between your views and those of the police captain. At the end of the piece, he says "We have a difficult time understanding the point of this. What value does this bring to the community right now?". That shows the typical statist/progressive view: individuals are supposed to live their lives to benefit society and/or the state at all times. If they engage in behavior that does not clearly benefit society, they are looked down upon.

What the statists and progressives fail to understand is that in a free society like ours, society is made up of an aggregate of self-interested individuals. These individuals have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (among other rights). When these individuals enjoy their rights and pursue happiness in rational and peaceful ways, as you were doing, society as a whole automatically benefits.

This contrast in viewpoints was solidified at the very end when you comment that if your life was in danger, you would load up and protect yourself. It is very difficult for individuals to pursue happiness, or contribute to society, if they are no longer alive. By being a rational individual who is able to protect yourself and possibly other members of society, society receives maximum benefit without sacrificing anyone's liberty or preventing anyone from pursuing happiness. Thus, the carrying of firearms by peaceful, law-abiding citizens is in everyone's best interests, whether you consider them as individuals or members of a collective society.

If more OC outings and media interactions like yours occur, the hearts and minds of more citizens will be changed, and the already waning popular support for gun control laws and legislation will decrease at an even greater rate. In my opinion, that will have far greater positive implications than the limited protections provided by getting 2A incorporated to the states.

IPSICK
11-18-2009, 7:52 AM
I agree fully, we ALL wanted better, but as far as news segments go, it wasnt as bad as I expected, and yes, the Fallen Officers portion was totally non-relevant to the article. He may have tried to imply it, but normal reasonable people, shouldnt have any problem differentiating between the lack of connection between the UOC'ers and the fallen officers, hopefully.

I think we give the uninformed too much credit sometimes. Reasonable people may be able to make the differentiation but sometimes fear and misleading information can overcome reason.

bad_ace I do applaud you for your efforts and willingness to discuss the issue but one thing to be mindful of when you expose yourself to the media is that they may try to wear you down to hear the answers they want. Although your 'mistake' was minor I am very weary of giving anti's any fuel to their illogical fire.

dwtt
11-18-2009, 8:01 AM
I saw the report last night and it wasn't the nutcase hit piece I was expecting. Maybe it was because they didn't have interviewees who were nut cases, maybe their editor was trying to be balanced, I don't know. It was better than I expected.
For those saying the carrying gives respect phrase was bad, keep in mind that the reporters will ask a long list of questions and film every thing, then edit the video to send the story the reporter wants to send. This is one of the dangers of talking to the media because we have no control over what they do with the video when they get back to the studio. As for putput, I think he should get a job with a local news station so he can produce outstanding and informative news stories about the 2nd A, incorporation, CCW, California's castle doctrine laws, and people's right to self defense. Or, he'll learn how that's impossible in the mainstream media.

Pont
11-18-2009, 8:38 AM
Hahaha what ever happened to 1911s most of them are carrying glocks

1911s are expensive. If you're going to get your gun taken away from you by some bureaucrat while the legal process winds its way towards either A) giving you your gun back after months of legal hassle with no monetary compensation once they are finally ordered to give it back or B) they say, "oops, we put it in a big pile with other guns seized in crimes and melted them down". (and of course means they actually melted down the crap and sold the good ones out of the back of their personal pickup)

Glocks make good carry weapons, but are also easily replaceable.

RE: Respect

BAD ANSWER!

I would answer
1) Because it is our right (you can stop here if you wish)
2) Because self-defense is every person's right
3) Since concealed carry permits are not issued for self-defense, based on any objective criteria, or in a timely manner, open carry is the only option
4) Nobody but you has the right perspective to judge your personal need for self defense. You may not feel the need for strong personal protection at the moment, but situations change. You could have a used car sale go bad with someone who happens to be mentally ill. You could get in a fender bender with someone like a drug dealer or violent criminal who as a general rule cannot go through legal means for civil disputes and tend to resort to violence. When such situations arise and present a real and genuine threat to the safety of you and your family, the courts and the police are simply not capable of addressing your self-defense needs in a timely and pervasive manner.
5) Because of all of the above facts and the fact that the public at large and police departments in general do not recognize the right to armed self-defense, an overt public display of our 2nd amendment rights is necessary to raise public awareness.

Buying car insurance after an unforeseen accident is worthless. Likewise, asking for the right to self-defense capability only AFTER it's painfully obvious you need it would be too late. Luckily, we *have* the right to self-defense, inherent to all beings, and protected by the Bill of Rights.

...


Do *not* say any variation of "an armed society is a polite society." Do not say anything that could be construed as "I live in fear and honestly believe I may need to defend myself at any moment." Fence-sitting anti-gunners believe they live in a polite, safe society and will write you off as a nutjob. If you ham-handedly try and convince them that they do not live in a polite, safe society or that they need self-defense *RIGHT NOW*, they will write you off as a nutjob.

I think, strategicly, that "I need self-defense" is too easy to poke holes in with carefully chosen sound bites. "We're just raising awareness of our rights" is A) a good soundbite and B) the same soundbite all the other liberal causes use.

Being pro-gun in California is liberal, in the true sense of the word.

rkt88edmo
11-18-2009, 8:46 AM
Reasonable people may be able to make the differentiation but sometimes fear and misleading information can overcome reason.



Sometimes? I'd say the majority of the time, perhaps even the vast majority of the time.

Thanks bad_ace for commenting, dealing with the media is never straightforward. At least with video the snippets are still direct quotes instead of an article made up of the authors opinion/recollection based on their scribbled notes about a conversation.

ZRX61
11-18-2009, 9:39 AM
I sent a link of a video to a couple of cops I know in the UK...

First reply after i asked for opinions:

First cop:
Its there right to do so but i was suprised when the lad said the cops dont have to protect the public .Uk police have a duty to protect the public and property,
Id not like it over here as hand guns unerve me a bit.
I think he needs a trolley to carry the gun in as it must weigh a ton

2nd cop:
If ever there were proof required that scared people who want to feel big feel the need to carry guns, then those interviewees were the evidence..

I am pretty sure that some gang members will be cheering the easy availability of new weapons by mugging some soppy college boy with a holster...

I pointed out that you have to have some training to buy a handgun in Ca...

so what..they were all 'ivy league' poofters bigging themselves up by wearing a gun..any local gangbanger worth his colours could disarm them before they even unclipped the holster and voila ready source of (designer quality) handguns....I dont suppose gang members are that fussed about doing the training either

To which I replied:
"That bloke in the white shirt didn't look like some ivy league poofter to me. Did you catch the part about the cops having *no duty to protect the public"?"

& his reply:
Cant say I listened very carefully...just fascinated by how inadequate they all looked...

My reply:
"I was hoping for an opinion on what was said, not a fashion statement"

He didn't reply to that one....

Edit:
Have now sent the link to a 3rd cop I know back home.

jdberger
11-18-2009, 9:44 AM
Ah...Englishmen....:rolleyes:

oaklander
11-18-2009, 9:47 AM
LOL, now OC in Oakland, that would be newsworthy!

Tankhatch
11-18-2009, 9:51 AM
One could say to reporters, a reason for lawful OC is because the average citizen in Kalifornia, is denied getting a CCW permit for political reasons, and not because of safety concerns.

Liberty1
11-18-2009, 9:51 AM
LOL, now OC in Oakland, that would be newsworthy!

Don't help Oak. It is hard enough to keep my self from OCing let along the few over there who still consider my advice worth listening to. :p Still trying to get people to wait until McDonald at the least.

M1A Rifleman
11-18-2009, 9:54 AM
I tuned-in to watch last night and noted a few things:
It was funny my wife saw this and heard the commercial for the report and turns to me and asks "is that legal, can you do that" :rolleyes: :D

1) First, I noted It was biased against as I expected. I noted they did not show the supposed interview with a couple that apparently new the OP as was posted previously - probably because it was it was positive toward the OP. However, to credit the news they did not show an interview with some raving anti lefty either - only the PD captain

2) The PD captain was a jerk. His statement regarding "he does not see the reasons or benefits to the community ... was too much for me. Either he's is stupid, or he does not understand the part about not being able to obtain a CCW in these parts.

3) The UOC "Facts" that were reported that included "Felons and the Mentally ill, etc" was also a bit much as the reporter must have been living in a sealed cave to not already know these people are already prevented from even owning guns. :rolleyes:

4) The OP's interview was good, I can only be critical about the part when you went on about "when wearing a gun it makes society more polite..." I think old Loyd boxed you in a bit here. I was cringing a bit when I heard you trying to explain your way out. My suggestion would be do less explanation and more "Hey, this is my legal right under California law, and I carry openly becaused of the biased laws restricting concealed carry."

5) Just thought of anotherone. The statements about the fallen officers really was over the top. Enough said, I'm sure other think the same.

ZRX61
11-18-2009, 9:56 AM
Ah...Englishmen....:rolleyes:


LOL! Now engaged in a thread on the UK msg board where the 2nd cop can't accept that pretty much any bloody fool can be shown how to clear a gun & make sure it's safe in about 2 minutes or less...

He's adamant that it takes "loads of training"....

The thread in question is about that bloke facing 5 years for handing in a shotgun to the cops.

I should also point out the cop in question is former RN, altho probably not a Gunner...

Liberty1
11-18-2009, 9:57 AM
It was cherry picked. He kept going back to that question and the one time I put it in different words, that's the one they used. During an hour of questions I think it's the only "mistake" I made.

I mentioned this. I mentioned it would be my preferred method. And went into a brief explanation that I wasn't a "special" person and therefore was denied my application.

I echoed this for about 59 minutes :) I said it was simple I want to protect myself with the best tools available, none of that made it in. I also mentioned that the Black Panthers only entered the Capitol to protest the Mulford act (a racist law) after it was being drafted. I suggested we revisit that law because of the nature in which it was enacted. That didn't make it.



The media is not your (our) friend at this time. And as fun as UOCing is I don't know what this "news" article will accomplish other then possibly get some noobs arrested and keep OC in the face of the legislature. They are not bluffing and we really don't want new laws (which can't be stopped with injunctions yet).

Your time is coming. We will need energetic leaders like yourself and PnS25 who will lead from the front taking personal risks to advance understanding of the right. But that is not now. I know you have heard all the arguments so I won't expand on the theme. Buy what will it take? One of your team getting railroaded and then seeing us get everything anyway in the fed. civil court?

M1A Rifleman
11-18-2009, 10:09 AM
The I don't know what this "news" article will accomplish other then possibly get some noobs arrested and keep OC in the face of the legislature.


I agree, this wont' be good since they already tried and failed last year to curb carry even within the NF.

a1c
11-18-2009, 10:14 AM
2) The PD captain was a jerk. His statement regarding "he does not see the reasons or benefits to the community ... was too much for me. Either he's is stupid, or he does not understand the part about not being able to obtain a CCW in these parts.

Wait. I'm willing to give the guy some credit.

First of all, his PD doesn't arrest or detain OCing citizens. I know, I know, why would they anyway, right? But we all know it's been seen all over the country. The iPod recording we see also demonstrates their officer (or is it a Santa Clara SO? The piece says the guy also carries in Cupertino, and Cupertino contracted with the county sheriff's office) doesn't harrass the citizen, and only asks to inspect it. He is polite. I don't see a problem there.

Then you're forgetting a crucial part of his sentence when you quoted him. He said:

"I do not see the reasons or benefits to the community right now."

See where I'm going with this?


3) The UOC "Facts" that were reported that included "Felons and the Mentally ill, etc" was also a bit much as the reporter must have been living in a sealed cave to not already know these people are already prevented from even owning guns. :rolleyes:

True, but it doesn't hurt to make the non-initiated public aware of those facts. A lot of anti-gun or unconcerned folks don't know it.

4) The OP's interview was good, I can only be critical about the part when you went on about "when wearing a gun it makes society more polite..." I think old Loyd boxed you in a bit here. I was cringing a bit when I heard you trying to explain your way out. My suggestion would be do less explanation and more "Hey, this is my legal right under California law, and I carry openly becaused of the biased laws restricting concealed carry."

5) Just thought of anotherone. The statements about the fallen officers really was over the top. Enough said, I'm sure other think the same.

Agreed. That part was irrelevant. Cheap shot. I'm going to email KTVU's newsroom about this - not that it's going to make a difference, but as a former journalist it just annoyed the crap out of me.

M1A Rifleman
11-18-2009, 10:36 AM
Not sure I get what where your going.

Then you're forgetting a crucial part of his sentence when you quoted him. He said:

"I do not see the reasons or benefits to the community right now."

See where I'm going with this?

I interpret the "right now" that he is just talking. I bet he would say the same thing if you asked if if you should have a CCW.

Steyr_223
11-18-2009, 10:40 AM
hmm..

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/scavenger/detail?entry_id=51902&tsp=1

Liberty1
11-18-2009, 11:13 AM
hmm..

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/scavenger/detail?entry_id=51902&tsp=1

Thats a lot of comments...

M1A Rifleman
11-18-2009, 11:24 AM
Thats a lot of comments...

And I love it, the anti's and the lib's are going ape #@$% over the issue :D. Many of their comments are just nasty, naturally since they generally are nasty people, but still it is fun reading.

GuyW
11-18-2009, 11:33 AM
I wish SF wasn't even in CA....
.

bigtoe416
11-18-2009, 12:19 PM
Wait. I'm willing to give the guy some credit.

First of all, his PD doesn't arrest or detain OCing citizens. I know, I know, why would they anyway, right? But we all know it's been seen all over the country. The iPod recording we see also demonstrates their officer (or is it a Santa Clara SO? The piece says the guy also carries in Cupertino, and Cupertino contracted with the county sheriff's office) doesn't harrass the citizen, and only asks to inspect it. He is polite. I don't see a problem there.


Sunnyvale has detained OCers in the past (and made various violations of our constitutionally protected rights), see: http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum12/34078.html

They may be singing a different tune these days because of the strongly worded complaint which was sent off. The Santa Clara Sheriff's Department has been exemplary in their dealing with OCers thus far. They really know their stuff and they have taken it upon themselves to learn the idiosyncrasies of the law.

GrizzlyGuy
11-18-2009, 12:31 PM
Now that the show has aired and is getting additional publicity at SFGate.com, it might be worthwhile to reflect on FreedomIsNotFree's post:

Just heard the radio tease as well. It is what it is. People are going to open carry, regardless of the possible legal ramifications for the state.

We have two choices at this point. Sit on the sidelines and let others "speak" for gun owners, or we can take the initiative and get our best and brightest out in front of this. You can't put the genie back in the bottle.

The genie is out of the bottle. The bell has been rung, right there in the liberal Bay Area (vs. the more conservative San Diego area), on a left-leaning TV station... and the bell cannot be un-rung. Or in the words of Sun Tzu (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Tzu), the "highest pitch" is no longer possible:

--> "In making tactical dispositions, the highest pitch you can attain is to conceal them." - Sun Tzu

Sun Tzu would probably have been in favor of getting the best and brightest out in front of this, vs. people who are unknown and might be unpredictable:

--> "If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle. - Sun Tzu

Given this new situation where concealment of his forces is no longer possible, I'd think that Sun Tzu might re-evaluate his prior plan to wait for incorporation before beginning battle:

--> "Whoever is first in the field and awaits the coming of the enemy, will be fresh for the fight; whoever is second in the field and has to hasten to battle will arrive exhausted." - Sun Tzu

A lot of UOC action is not necessarily harder to manage than a little, if someone capable is in command:

--> "Fighting with a large army under your command is nowise different from fighting with a small one: it is merely a question of instituting signs and signals." - Sun Tzu

I'm not advocating, just pointing out some modern wisdom from FreedomIsNotFree, and some ancient wisdom from the master of war. :cool:

Liberty1
11-18-2009, 12:59 PM
I'm not advocating, just pointing out some modern wisdom from FreedomIsNotFree, and some ancient wisdom from the master of war. :cool:

I agree with your assessment generally. And if we were not expecting a trump constitutional card that will change the entire battlefield soon I would agree more.

I can't. The less UOC is encouraged at this time the better.

We can not gain ground under the current system. And now matter how much good Bad Ace does in spreading the word and educating the public and patrolmen the only thing that matters is the opinion of LE bosses and the legislature. The latter we will not influence positively except post McDonald and via 1983 suits.

YZINGERR
11-18-2009, 8:48 PM
I found it to be anti-gun typical media BS.
"They were assembling with machine guns outside of the capitol building and 2 caops were killed by armed citizens."

The rifle was an AR platform weapon, not likely from the M16 family.
And im willing to bet the people that shot the two cops were killed by felons or people who didnt have any legal right to own the firearm they shot the cop with.

FreedomIsNotFree
11-19-2009, 12:14 AM
I agree with your assessment generally. And if we were not expecting a trump constitutional card that will change the entire battlefield soon I would agree more.

I can't. The less UOC is encouraged at this time the better.

We can not gain ground under the current system. And now matter how much good Bad Ace does in spreading the word and educating the public and patrolmen the only thing that matters is the opinion of LE bosses and the legislature. The latter we will not influence positively except post McDonald and via 1983 suits.

Federal 1983 suits could win under current law. Not because of the 2nd Amendment, but because of the 4th...which we already know IS incorporated. Repeated Constitutional violations are prime.

Now don't get me wrong. I believe our efforts should be as they are...focused like a laser on the largest benefit for the most people over the long term.

MAGSLUG
11-19-2009, 9:06 PM
How do you hand the gun to the cop for a check? You pulling it out to give him, or him coming up close to take it got to make him nervous?

IsaacGlass
11-20-2009, 11:18 AM
I agree with your assessment generally. And if we were not expecting a trump constitutional card that will change the entire battlefield soon I would agree more.

I can't. The less UOC is encouraged at this time the better.

We can not gain ground under the current system. And now matter how much good Bad Ace does in spreading the word and educating the public and patrolmen the only thing that matters is the opinion of LE bosses and the legislature. The latter we will not influence positively except post McDonald and via 1983 suits.

I agreed +1000

inbox485
11-20-2009, 11:32 AM
How do you hand the gun to the cop for a check? You pulling it out to give him, or him coming up close to take it got to make him nervous?

If the cop is nervous about doing an (e) check, he could always respect his oath to the constitution rather than enforcing one of this nation's last surviving Jim Crow laws and just leave you alone.

But typically, you will be told to turn around (and sometimes put your hands on your head) while the officer pulls the gun out of your holster, checks it and returns it to the holster. As a general rule, never put your hand on a gun in public (officer present or not) unless it is to defend life.

inbox485
11-20-2009, 11:37 AM
I agree with your assessment generally. And if we were not expecting a trump constitutional card that will change the entire battlefield soon I would agree more.

I can't. The less UOC is encouraged at this time the better.

We can not gain ground under the current system. And now matter how much good Bad Ace does in spreading the word and educating the public and patrolmen the only thing that matters is the opinion of LE bosses and the legislature. The latter we will not influence positively except post McDonald and via 1983 suits.

The issue I continue to see is that the legislature physically can't ban UOC before the incorporation ruling is due, incorporation won't prevent them from passing a ban after, UOC in CA will have absolutely zero influence on incorporation at the national level since the majority of states already LOC.

On the public support front however, an opportunity to be at the front of this is being missed.

Liberty1
11-20-2009, 12:37 PM
The issue I continue to see is that the legislature physically can't ban UOC before the incorporation ruling is due, incorporation won't prevent them from passing a ban after, UOC in CA will have absolutely zero influence on incorporation at the national level since the majority of states already LOC.

On the public support front however, an opportunity to be at the front of this is being missed.

That is a fair assessment. But avoiding UOC also includes avoiding criminal liabilities for individuals and staying out of the news as judges could also be influenced by a negative UOC/police encounter while not inspiring antis to rally to their cause. Yes, I don't like the "what if" fear mongering that accompanies those concerns but not UOCing until a right is established still appears to make discretion the better part of valor.

Any "lost" PR issues will be retaken quickly when Bear is established and even then "We're here, we're armed, get used to it" might be a tactic (albeit an abrasive one). There are untold thousands waiting in the wings to act when the time is right who's combined efforts (OCers too) will dwarf all that UOC has done in the last years. OC will have it's proper place in the battle plan and that is just not now (I wish it were otherwise personally).

Liberty1
11-20-2009, 12:44 PM
Federal 1983 suits could win under current law. Not because of the 2nd Amendment, but because of the 4th...which we already know IS incorporated. Repeated Constitutional violations are prime.

Be assured that has not been over looked.

Liberty1
11-20-2009, 12:48 PM
How do you hand the gun to the cop for a check? You pulling it out to give him, or him coming up close to take it got to make him nervous?

I'd leave it up to the officer. Don't UOC now but if you like to read: californiaopencarry.org (http://californiaopencarry.org)

inbox485
11-20-2009, 1:22 PM
I'd leave it up to the officer. Don't UOC now but if you like to read: californiaopencarry.org (http://californiaopencarry.org)

Good advise, especially given the question asked. In any case take the time to know every single relevant law and every single relevant case and of course consider waiting for the incorporation ruling since Cal Guns has asked so nicely.

inbox485
11-20-2009, 1:56 PM
That is a fair assessment. But avoiding UOC also includes avoiding criminal liabilities for individuals and staying out of the news as judges could also be influenced by a negative UOC/police encounter while not inspiring antis to rally to their cause. Yes, I don't like the "what if" fear mongering that accompanies those concerns but not UOCing until a right is established still appears to make discretion the better part of valor.

Any "lost" PR issues will be retaken quickly when Bear is established and even then "We're here, we're armed, get used to it" might be a tactic (albeit an abrasive one). There are untold thousands waiting in the wings to act when the time is right who's combined efforts (OCers too) will dwarf all that UOC has done in the last years. OC will have it's proper place in the battle plan and that is just not now (I wish it were otherwise personally).

The criminal liability aspect is definitely a valid risk. And knowing that even in the event of blatantly bogus charges there isn't some bottomless fund to help with legal expenses amplifies this risk.

IMO, any judge willing to turn a blind eye to the law to push an agenda is a lost cause that won't be swayed any further by UOC/police encounters.

Individual UOC on a day to day basis exceeds the amount of risk I can afford financially, but I think group UOC meetings in pre-planned areas should be put back on the table. I prefer the public ally approach to the lobby congress to add "gun owner" to the protected classes in the hate crime bill approach. The voting public has been scared into believing that guns jump out of civilian holsters and go on rampages as the misguided owner struggles behind to regain control of the run away gun. OC teaches the public that carrying a gun is far less dangerous to the public than driving a car.

wildhawker
11-20-2009, 2:00 PM
If an educational tool, would it not be prudent to secure the right to that tool (OC) before placing it dead center of the court of public opinion in a hostile state?

The criminal liability aspect is definitely a valid risk. And knowing that even in the event of blatantly bogus charges there isn't some bottomless fund to help with legal expenses amplifies this risk.

IMO, any judge willing to turn a blind eye to the law to push an agenda is a lost cause that won't be swayed any further by UOC/police encounters.

Individual UOC on a day to day basis exceeds the amount of risk I can afford financially, but I think group UOC meetings in pre-planned areas should be put back on the table. I prefer the public ally approach to the lobby congress to add "gun owner" to the protected classes in the hate crime bill approach. The voting public has been scared into believing that guns jump out of civilian holsters and go on rampages as the misguided owner struggles behind to regain control of the run away gun. OC teaches the public that carrying a gun is far less dangerous to the public than driving a car.

Liberty1
11-20-2009, 2:11 PM
OC teaches the public that carrying a gun is far less dangerous to the public than driving a car.

I agree, this is one of the reasons I support OC over CC, but I still think waiting is prudent until possession is a right enforceable against state law for all of my above reasons.

There are individuals who do not agree and are group UOCing. To do so doesn't require my permission :p :) (but I'll e stop ya and run your serial number ;) JK)

inbox485
11-20-2009, 2:27 PM
If an educational tool, would it not be prudent to secure the right to that tool (OC) before placing it dead center of the court of public opinion in a hostile state?

UOC is currently secure (secure being the very relative term that it often is) in that it can't be banned before the incorporation ruling is due. And while the majority of politicians are hostile, the overwhelming majority of the public don't seem to be. So your options are to introduce it to the public and ram it down the politician's throats with the public's support or ignore the public and ram it down the politician's throats as they cry "but the children" to the public. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

wildhawker
11-20-2009, 2:43 PM
Incorporation does not magically save and/or secure OC. It has been noted on numerous occasions that 'Bear' will be fleshed out in follow-up cases to McDonald, which leaves plenty of time for the CA Leg to move against U/OC.

The only comment I will make on your presupposition is that I disagree with your confidence in (and reliance upon) the vocal and voting constituency to positively advance what is (in California) a fairly sensational concept. Unemployment is trending towards new highs, water has severely impacted the agricultural products of the state and people are generally concerned about being able to pay their mortgage, car and utility bills. I'm not sure where you see them somehow rallying around U/OC in such a fashion as to make political action against U/OC a political liability.

inbox485
11-20-2009, 3:02 PM
Incorporation does not magically save and/or secure OC. It has been noted on numerous occasions that 'Bear' will be fleshed out in follow-up cases to McDonald, which leaves plenty of time for the CA Leg to move against U/OC.

The only comment I will make on your presupposition is that I disagree with your confidence in (and reliance upon) the vocal and voting constituency to positively advance what is (in California) a fairly sensational concept. Unemployment is trending towards new highs, water has severely impacted the agricultural products of the state and people are generally concerned about being able to pay their mortgage, car and utility bills. I'm not sure where you see them somehow rallying around U/OC in such a fashion as to make political action against U/OC a political liability.

I wasn't talking about the public rallying. I was talking about the public supporting. When politicians can't cry "but the children" and get anything other than eye rolls from the public, they will have lost the last leg they would be standing on. Those same members of the public facing unemployment and worried about rising crime and falling police presence may find OC very intriguing even if they don't participate (and I doubt many would).

I also wasn't relying on public opinion, I was making a "you can have nothing or a shot at something" argument. If somebody says behind one door there is a million dollars and behind the other door there is nothing, I wouldn't walk away just because it wasn't guaranteed.

There are individuals who do not agree and are group UOCing. To do so doesn't require my permission :p :) (but I'll e stop ya and run your serial number ;) JK)

Wasn't asking permission. Just commenting. ;)

Liberty1
11-20-2009, 3:08 PM
I wasn't talking about the public rallying. I was talking about the public supporting.

I think the law will change faster then public opinion in CA. And the former will facilitate the latter. When the antis cries of "there should be a law" are met "can't do it" we'll be educating the public and LE from a position of strength we don't have right now (as we only have logic and that doesn't work on segments of the population or elected individuals).

inbox485
11-20-2009, 3:14 PM
I think the law will change faster then public opinion in CA. And the former will facilitate the latter. When the antis cries of "there should be a law" are met "can't do it" we'll be educating the public and LE from a position of strength we don't have right now (as we only have logic and that doesn't work on segments of the population or elected individuals).

I understand your point which is why the only group UOC I've done was in Old Town Temecula where guns are already normal (albeit usually part of a costume and non functional). But I still think it is a something or nothing with nothing to loose at this point.

Liberty1
11-20-2009, 3:22 PM
truce? :surrender:

ipser
11-20-2009, 3:25 PM
UOC is currently secure (secure being the very relative term that it often is) in that it can't be banned before the incorporation ruling is due. And while the majority of politicians are hostile, the overwhelming majority of the public don't seem to be. So your options are to introduce it to the public and ram it down the politician's throats with the public's support or ignore the public and ram it down the politician's throats as they cry "but the children" to the public. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Vs.

I think the law will change faster then public opinion in CA. And the former will facilitate the latter. When the antis cries of "there should be a law" are met "can't do it" we'll be educating the public and LE from a position of strength we don't have right now (as we only have logic and that doesn't work on segments of the population or elected individuals).

This really is the crux of the issue. Calguns seems to be dominated by gunowners who have lost confidence in the CA public and who have more confidence in politicians, lawyers, and judges to turn things around.

Or, to be more direct: Calguns is counting on non-Californians to rescue California from Californians. Calguners are waiting, quietly, to be rescued like a damsel in distress.

While recent supreme court rulings give some hope for this view, it is truly pathetic and spineless.

inbox485
11-20-2009, 3:37 PM
Calguns seems to be dominated by gunowners who have lost confidence in the CA public and who have more confidence in politicians, lawyers, and judges to turn things around.

Or, to be more direct: Calguns is counting on non-Californians to rescue California from Californians. Calguners are waiting, quietly, to be rescued like a damsel in distress.

While recent supreme court rulings give some hope for this view, it is truly pathetic and spineless.

I would have to strongly disagree with your assertion and your tone.

Cal Guns has done more for CA than any other gun org. They have pledged support to all gun liberties and have backed those words with action.

The only disagreements I've ever had with Cal Guns' official positions and actions is the degree of UOC that is currently appropriate. I think a smidgen is right and they think none is right. There are valid arguments for both sides. I don't always agree with Cal Guns positions, but I respect and admire the leaders for accomplishing far more than I ever would have.

If you think Cal Guns has done something wrong or should be doing something else, feel free to speak up. But making baseless inflammatory insults like that helps nothing.

So feel free to check your gender-bending, spine-questioning remarks at the door.

Dr. Peter Venkman
11-20-2009, 3:39 PM
I would have to strongly disagree with your assertion and your tone.

Cal Guns has done more for CA than any other gun org. They have pledged support to all gun liberties and have backed those words with action.

The only disagreements I've ever had with Cal Guns' official positions and actions is the degree of UOC that is currently appropriate. I think a smidgen is right and they think none is right. There are valid arguments for both sides. I don't always agree with Cal Guns positions, but I respect and admire the leaders for accomplishing far more than I ever would have.

If you think Cal Guns has done something wrong or should be doing something else, feel free to speak up. But making baseless inflammatory insults like that helps nothing.

So feel free to check your gender-bending, spine-questioning remarks at the door.

Winner.

wildhawker
11-20-2009, 4:16 PM
That's funny. I can think of a few folks that might disagree with you:

* "Spineless" California gunowner volunteers who produced, printed, packaged, shipped, distributed and networked almost 100,000 pieces of information to gunnies and shops from Chula Vista to Oregon in the span of 2 weeks.

* "Pathetic" volunteers who regularly dedicate days of their precious free time to promote the dissemination of truthful info on CA gun laws and current events.

* "Apathetic" gun owners who leveraged the combined strength of this community to pigeonhole DOJ, the AG and the anti-gun legislature to make legal guns we'd never thought we'd see in CA again a reality for over 200,000 OLL-based firearm owners.

* "Lazy" gunowner businessmen and professionals who formed the most focused and effective pro-gun legal action organization (a (c)3 foundation, no less) in California history.

* "Ignorant" Calgunners who tirelessly work to provide quality information to those who seek it (for example, flowcharts, OLL books, Wiki/FAQ, tri-fold brochures).

* "Uninterested" people who make all of this happen almost entirely at their own expense.

Calguns is dominated by movers and shakers. Is it possible that is why we haven't seen you show up to help?

Vs.

This really is the crux of the issue. Calguns seems to be dominated by gunowners who have lost confidence in the CA public and who have more confidence in politicians, lawyers, and judges to turn things around.

Or, to be more direct: Calguns is counting on non-Californians to rescue California from Californians. Calguners are waiting, quietly, to be rescued like a damsel in distress.

While recent supreme court rulings give some hope for this view, it is truly pathetic and spineless.

ipser
11-20-2009, 4:32 PM
The only disagreements I've ever had with Cal Guns' official positions and actions is the degree of UOC that is currently appropriate. I think a smidgen is right and they think none is right. There are valid arguments for both sides. I don't always agree with Cal Guns positions, but I respect and admire the leaders for accomplishing far more than I ever would have.
While I think UOC is an interesting tactic and the official Calguns caution is certainly worth serious consideration, this is, unfortunately, a symptom of a deeper problem.

I call it Battered Gunowner Syndrome (BGS).

I'm not saying that the legal approach won't bear fruit, just pointing out the obvious, that there is a bias here against influencing public opinion.

wildhawker
11-20-2009, 4:36 PM
I think this is a misrepresentation of what has been proffered as the [unofficial] (as CGN, Inc. has yet to take a formal position on the matter) "Calguns position", inasmuch that this assertion ignores the element of timing many have offered as central to their reservations.

While I think UOC is an interesting tactic and the official Calguns caution is certainly worth serious consideration, this is, unfortunately, a symptom of a deeper problem.

I call it Battered Gunowner Syndrome (BGS).

I'm not saying that the legal approach won't bear fruit, just pointing out the obvious, that there is a bias here against influencing public opinion.

ipser
11-20-2009, 4:45 PM
I think this is a misrepresentation of what has been proffered as the [unofficial] (as CGN, Inc. has yet to take a formal position on the matter) "Calguns position", inasmuch that this assertion ignores the element of timing many have offered as central to their reservations.

I wish I shared your confidence. I'm not convinced, myself, on UOC as a tactic but from what I've seen on this and other issues, it is the larger legal strategy which is driving the debate, not simply a question of timing or effectiveness.

What UOC offers is the possibility of directly influencing popular opinion. Perhaps it will work, perhaps it will backfire, but there seems to be no discussion of an alternative other than relying on the federal courts to rescue California.

As I said, it goes deeper than UOC.

inbox485
11-20-2009, 6:36 PM
I wish I shared your confidence. I'm not convinced, myself, on UOC as a tactic but from what I've seen on this and other issues, it is the larger legal strategy which is driving the debate, not simply a question of timing or effectiveness.

What UOC offers is the possibility of directly influencing popular opinion. Perhaps it will work, perhaps it will backfire, but there seems to be no discussion of an alternative other than relying on the federal courts to rescue California.

As I said, it goes deeper than UOC.

Other than continuing the active legal action that was punted to SCOTUS by the courts not Cal Guns, what exactly did you have in mind?

7x57
11-20-2009, 8:33 PM
I
What UOC offers is the possibility of directly influencing popular opinion. Perhaps it will work, perhaps it will backfire, but there seems to be no discussion of an alternative other than relying on the federal courts to rescue California.


Because those other options are legally stupid, perhaps? There is a strong inverse correlation between legal knowledge and opinions of open carry. (ETA: that is, UOC in California. Ya wanna LOC in Wyoming, knock yourself out.)

In any case, you won't get the chance to influence public opinion until CGF can put a lawyer on your shoulder, and make sure each police officer knows there is a lawyer on your shoulder. Having a practical legal right to OC will make a world of difference.

And it won't be UOC either, it will be real OC.

7x57

heyjak
11-20-2009, 8:39 PM
Just exactly who's side are you on? Just wondering...

hoffmang
11-20-2009, 9:10 PM
UOC is currently secure (secure being the very relative term that it often is) in that it can't be banned before the incorporation ruling is due.

UOC can be banned by Valentines day 2010 and I'm quite worried it will be.

It's cute when people attempt to tar and feather CGF for simply trying to keep people from loosing ground in the fight for gun rights faster than we can win.

-Gene

Turbinator
11-20-2009, 10:25 PM
Interesting, I know exactly where that Starbucks is. That corner has a lot of great visibilty if you want to be seen OC'ing - corner of De Anza and Bollinger. Lots of passing traffic.

Turby

7x57
11-20-2009, 10:35 PM
UOC can be banned by Valentines day 2010 and I'm quite worried it will be.


St. Valentine's day massacre? :p

7x57

5150bronco
11-21-2009, 12:14 AM
I just saw this clip on my team site and really tripped about that. I think it is a good thing to bring attention to our rights, but....,

ipser
11-21-2009, 10:19 AM
Other than continuing the active legal action that was punted to SCOTUS by the courts not Cal Guns, what exactly did you have in mind?

What UOC uniquely offers is an opportunity for California gun owners to directly affect public opinion on the issue of guns. I have seen nothing else that comes close to it's potential.

Now it is a fair question whether or not it is a net benefit to 2A rights. But those who shut down UOC and point to SCOTUS as savior are not simply prefering one tactic over another but missing the more fundamental issue.

While a positive SCOTUS opinion might sway public opinion it can never have the same impact as UOC.

What the Calgus strategy is lacking, given it's hostility to UOC, is anything remotely similar in it's potential impact on public opinion.

Instead, Calgunners seem inclined to dismiss public opionion altogether. That is simply crazy.

wildhawker
11-21-2009, 10:28 AM
Ipser, again, you fail to understand the request (and basis for such) to stand down UOC temporarily. It's duly frustrating that you ignore the broad approach to outreach that we're taking and the ongoing efforts related thereto.

ipser
11-21-2009, 10:32 AM
Ipser, again, you fail to understand the request (and basis for such) to stand down UOC temporarily. It's duly frustrating that you ignore the broad approach to outreach that we're taking and the ongoing efforts related thereto.

Time will tell.

wildhawker
11-21-2009, 11:41 AM
Time will tell what?

ipser
11-21-2009, 12:04 PM
Time will tell what?

Whether the Calguns preference for rescue from the federal courts, and its relative skepticism towards UOC, is merely temporary or reflects a more fundamental bias.

I'll wait and see what Calguns members propose to do assuming that a favorable ruling comes from SCOTUS.

In the mean time, it would seem that, according Calguns own strategy, the best organization is not Calguns but the NRA and the Gura legal time since Calguns' strategy rests on their success at the Supreme Court.

Python2
11-21-2009, 7:27 PM
Whether the Calguns preference for rescue from the federal courts, and its relative skepticism towards UOC, is merely temporary or reflects a more fundamental bias.

I'll wait and see what Calguns members propose to do assuming that a favorable ruling comes from SCOTUS.

In the mean time, it would seem that, according Calguns own strategy, the best organization is not Calguns but the NRA and the Gura legal time since Calguns' strategy rests on their success at the Supreme Court.

Thinking of the right word.......tunnel vision maybe?:rolleyes:

7x57
11-21-2009, 7:54 PM
What UOC uniquely offers is an opportunity for California gun owners to directly affect public opinion on the issue of guns. I have seen nothing else that comes close to it's potential.


Nonsense. Climbing up in a bell tower and thinning out the neighborhood has far greater potential to directly affect public opinion on the issue of guns. Is the magnitude of the effect all you care about, or is the sign important in some way?

7x57

Plisk
11-21-2009, 7:55 PM
I saw nothing wrong in the video, except for the use of "automatic weapons." It seems the media can comprehend the correct vocabulary for open carry, but we still gotta break down the walls for the proper terms for AW-types.

hoffmang
11-21-2009, 7:58 PM
In the mean time, it would seem that, according Calguns own strategy, the best organization is not Calguns but the NRA and the Gura legal time since Calguns' strategy rests on their success at the Supreme Court.

I apologize, but I can't be evenhanded here.

UOC will be destroyed in California if we all fail in the Supreme Court.

Are you seriously so naive as to not understand that there are plenty of votes to ban carry of all unlocked firearms entirely in California and if there is not a Federally enforced right to bear arms, that there will be no check on the fear of suburban utopians to make it impossible to carry a gun in public absent an extortionate campaign contribution to your local sheriff or a move to a shall issue county?

-Gene

jdberger
11-21-2009, 8:28 PM
I apologize, but I can't be evenhanded here.

UOC will be destroyed in California if we all fail in the Supreme Court.

Are you seriously so naive as to not understand that there are plenty of votes to ban carry of all unlocked firearms entirely in California and if there is not a Federally enforced right to bear arms, that there will be no check on the fear of suburban utopians to make it impossible to carry a gun in public absent an extortionate campaign contribution to your local sheriff or a move to a shall issue county?

-Gene

Exactly.

It's an unfortunate myopic perspective of the UOC militants in that they somehow don't realize that not everyone sees guns the same way that they do. They see them as an explicit threat.

No amount of "desensitizing" is going to change that. It will simply make their voices louder. And squeaky wheels....

We have a bunch of determined UOCers who get it. They may not like it, but they're willing to stand down (for now) based upon the proven guidance we've received from the CGF Board. Why not follow their lead?

bwiese
11-21-2009, 8:32 PM
I notice the latest round of UOCers in Sunnyvale on KTVU seem to not be connected with the 'gun community'.

And I'm all about preparation, but Starbucks in Sunnyvale at noon is about the safest place to be anywhere.

Vinz
11-21-2009, 8:42 PM
Exactly.

It's an unfortunate myopic perspective of the UOC militants in that they somehow don't realize that not everyone sees guns the same way that they do. They see them as an explicit threat.

No amount of "desensitizing" is going to change that. It will simply make their voices louder. And squeaky wheels....

We have a bunch of determined UOCers who get it. They may not like it, but they're willing to stand down (for now) based upon the proven guidance we've received from the CGF Board. Why not follow their lead?

I didn't like it until it was finally spelled out for me. I believed it was a typical hypocratic back talk that we always hear. I was wrong.

You guys have to look at the big picture and try to understand that we are making creating own failure. Every negative situation created undermines the foundation already laid. Every positive situation encounters gives them fuel for a hidden ordinance that can be created.

Let the legal aspect of the situation run is course then we can finally have a leg to stand on.

Vinz

oaklander
11-21-2009, 9:24 PM
Are you new to the the gun rights community?

"Calguns" (if you are referring to the 501(c)(3)) is not some vast monolithic organization that gets its marching orders from some shadowy hidden agenda.

In reality, Calguns is just a handful of unpaid volunteers, supported by another core group of unpaid volunteers.

However, among those volunteers are some of the smartest pro-guns folks in California. I'm not saying that CGF is above criticism, but exactly what is your pedigree and/or agenda? Do you even understand the relationship between the NRA and CGF?

;)

Whether the Calguns preference for rescue from the federal courts, and its relative skepticism towards UOC, is merely temporary or reflects a more fundamental bias.

I'll wait and see what Calguns members propose to do assuming that a favorable ruling comes from SCOTUS.

In the mean time, it would seem that, according Calguns own strategy, the best organization is not Calguns but the NRA and the Gura legal time since Calguns' strategy rests on their success at the Supreme Court.

vladbutsky
11-21-2009, 9:49 PM
My coworkers watched this UOC video at lunch and their reaction was mostly negative. Their understanding was like "he said taht if somebody will not be polite with him, he will shoot". I tried to explain that this is now what was meant, but it was clearly a loosing argument for me.
Nobody believed that UOC gives a protection and nobody believed that it was needed in Palo Alto. No amount of rethoric would change that for now. Even I do not believe it :(
Now I am convinced that UOC can be very damaging to our image.

ipser
11-22-2009, 6:17 AM
I apologize, but I can't be evenhanded here. UOC will be destroyed in California if we all fail in the Supreme Court. Are you seriously so naive as to not understand that there are plenty of votes to ban carry of all unlocked firearms entirely in California and if there is not a Federally enforced right to bear arms, that there will be no check on the fear of suburban utopians to make it impossible to carry a gun in public absent an extortionate campaign contribution to your local sheriff or a move to a shall issue county?

Uh, that was my point. If Calguns is resting it's strategy on a federal rescue then the fight is there, first.

On the other hand, UOC represents an entirely different approach, one focused on changing California opinion, itself and relieving the pressure at the source.

There are many potential pitfalls to the UOC strategy, easily banned, might actually backfire, though we have yet to see any evidence of either, but I have noticed in all the "official" ranting against it a consistent dismissal of its core advantage over the legal strategy.

Calgunners consistently treat UOC as if it were a fringe exhibtionism and not a potential game-changing strategy that leverages a unique advantage that gunowners possess, really cool guns.

ipser
11-22-2009, 6:21 AM
It's an unfortunate myopic perspective of the UOC militants in that they somehow don't realize that not everyone sees guns the same way that they do. They see them as an explicit threat. No amount of "desensitizing" is going to change that. It will simply make their voices louder. And squeaky wheels....
This is certainly an interesting and reasonable hypothesis. I haven't seen any evidence for it yet, though.

We have a bunch of determined UOCers who get it. They may not like it, but they're willing to stand down (for now) based upon the proven guidance we've received from the CGF Board. Why not follow their lead?
Proven? How has it been proven that UOCing dimineshes public support for the RKBA? Why is this proof begin withheld from the discssion?

ipser
11-22-2009, 6:31 AM
Are you new to the the gun rights community?
I drift in and out as time permits. I've been around long enough to see the longer trends.

"Calguns" (if you are referring to the 501(c)(3)) is not some vast monolithic organization that gets its marching orders from some shadowy hidden agenda. In reality, Calguns is just a handful of unpaid volunteers, supported by another core group of unpaid volunteers. However, among those volunteers are some of the smartest pro-guns folks in California. I'm not saying that CGF is above criticism, but exactly what is your pedigree and/or agenda? Do you even understand the relationship between the NRA and CGF?
Here is my criticism in a nutshell: I have yet to hear from those dismissing UOC an acknowledgement of its potential for changing public opinion. Rather, there seem to be a rush to dismiss it as in-your-face grandstanding of no positive advantage and only negative risk. If that is the prevailing opinion of CGF then a) it's no surprise that UOC would be discouraged, and b) it's no surprise that those of a different opinion would ignore CGF advice.

But even beyond that, I have found that there is a very consistent bias here against influencing public opinion and in favor of legal action.

rrr70
11-22-2009, 7:12 AM
Proven? How has it been proven that UOCing dimineshes public support for the RKBA? Why is this proof begin withheld from the discssion?

Because general public watches the news, and there is no positive ever been said in the news about law abiding gun owners.

wildhawker
11-22-2009, 8:03 AM
Ipser, we're building an outreach program right here at CGN that is unparalleled in the CA gun rights world. Influencing public opinion is a care component of the program.

Wrt UOC, given the appropriate timing it will also be a component of outreach.

There is a planned and logical sequencing to the order of events, especially those with the ability to set us back.

UOC has the potential to be a positive influence and an effective tool to modify California's culture; however, the activity is currently net negative for reasons outlined numerous times in other posts.

oaklander
11-22-2009, 8:10 AM
Have you considered the possibility that the best minds are right, at least right now?

[insert graph]

Rather, there seem to be a rush to dismiss it as in-your-face grandstanding of no positive advantage and only negative risk. If that is the prevailing opinion of CGF then a) it's no surprise that UOC would be discouraged, and b) it's no surprise that those of a different opinion would ignore CGF advice.

But even beyond that, I have found that there is a very consistent bias here against influencing public opinion and in favor of legal action.

ipser
11-22-2009, 8:18 AM
Because general public watches the news, and there is no positive ever been said in the news about law abiding gun owners.

Battered Gunowner Syndrome.

This whole discussion reminds me of the movie "The Adventures of Baron Munchausen"

"Open the gates!"

ipser
11-22-2009, 8:21 AM
Wrt UOC, given the appropriate timing it will also be a component of outreach.
So where is this Calguns UOC strategy?

ipser
11-22-2009, 8:25 AM
Have you considered the possibility that the best minds are right, at least right now?

Based on what I've heard from CGN on this issue, I can well appreciate why UOGers are skeptical and impatient with it.

Obviously a unitied RKGA community approach would be suprior to a "lone wolf" approach but perhaps that is not to be.

oaklander
11-22-2009, 8:40 AM
This explains everything:

http://i45.tinypic.com/ctcoo.jpg

Liberty1
11-22-2009, 8:56 AM
So where is this Calguns UOC strategy?

Being held in reserve waiting for a breach in the wall to open. Then it's forward with the Grenadiers.

wildhawker
11-22-2009, 8:58 AM
So where is this Calguns UOC strategy?

It's quite clear if you take the time to read past threads on the issue, which will also provide you much of the background you apparently lack. Please understand that the I do not mean this to be a personal attack, simply a commentary on your statements to this time which do not imply an intimate familiarity of CGN, CGF or those involved in leading them.

Liberty1
11-22-2009, 8:58 AM
[QUOTE=oaklander;3396133]This explains everything:

Oak, Not helping :(

NorCalMama
11-22-2009, 9:19 AM
The entire tone of that clip was disgusting. And the video the guy took on his iphone showing the cop checking his gun just made me mad. I wouldn't want some cop handling my firearm... ugh, living in a nanny state is very belittling. You are treated like a child who can't handle their own weapon properly. "ONLY" a cop is skilled enough to properly handle a gun-"I'm the ONLY one professional enough that I know of that carries a glock fo-tay"....BANG!

And just a note, I can't express how furious it made me when they showed the man at the Obama rally with the AR and said it was an automatic!! ARGH!!! Seriously, can the news EVER present the FACTS?! And just a quick note. The cop made some stupid comment about protecting the public from someone who obviously has a weapon (ie, someone openly carrying)-WHAT does the public need protection from?! That pesky Second Amendment? Someone legally protecting themself? A person choosing to be self sufficient instead of being helpless? *sigh*

ipser
11-22-2009, 9:28 AM
It's quite clear if you take the time to read past threads on the issue, which will also provide you much of the background you apparently lack. Please understand that the I do not mean this to be a personal attack, simply a commentary on your statements to this time which do not imply an intimate familiarity of CGN, CGF or those involved in leading them.

Is there a Calguns UOC strategy or not?

wildhawker
11-22-2009, 9:58 AM
I'm a bit perplexed- what about my previous answer does not address your question?

ipser
11-22-2009, 10:09 AM
I'm a bit perplexed- what about my previous answer does not address your question?

It sounded more like an evasion than an answer. According to Oak, CGN thinks UOC is a very bad idea (not mererly untimely). According to Liberty1 UOC is "being held in reserve waiting for a breach in the wall to open".

So, clearly, I am not the only one confused as to where CGN stands on this issue.

I rather doubt that pouring through all the various threads is going to illuminate the matter further.

wildhawker
11-22-2009, 10:40 AM
I said
Wrt UOC, given the appropriate timing it will also be a component of outreach.

How was that an evasion?

Liberty1
11-22-2009, 10:56 AM
According to Oak, CGN thinks UOC is a very bad idea (not mererly untimely). According to Liberty1 UOC is "being held in reserve waiting for a breach in the wall to open".

So, clearly, I am not the only one confused as to where CGN stands on this issue.

CGN is 35,000 individuals that are not of one mind. Are you confusing it with CGF? Most of CGN are in agreement however (from Oak to me and many points in between) that now is not a good time. After McDonald or after some other unforseen events, some might reevaluate and find it a useful tactic others will still disagree.

CGF, and their attorney's plans (the specifics only they will know before making it public) is what I'm planning on following. I have enough confidence in their leadership, based on past success, to follow their lead for now and not quibble about knowing every detail. OPSEC you know.

Turbinator
11-22-2009, 11:00 AM
But even beyond that, I have found that there is a very consistent bias here against influencing public opinion and in favor of legal action.

Hmm, how do you suggest we influence public opinion, in a day and age when the mass media is generally run by liberally biased people? How are you going to sway public opinion of millions of people with a few acts of UOC?

Turby

CitaDeL
11-22-2009, 11:11 AM
This explains everything:

Oak, Not helping :(

Agreed.

ipser
11-22-2009, 11:32 AM
I said How was that an evasion?
I was referring to your subsequent post after I asked where and what the strategy was. If, as Oak claims, CGN belives that UOC is stupid then it's hard to take your vauge claim seriously. But if you are serious, why not discuss the details and satisfy those who are pressing for UOC that Calguns is serious about it.

(And there still remains the factual question, which seems to be in dispute, of whether or not it is a good idea regardless of timing. Some have suggested that there is proof that it is not. I'd sure like to see that proof.)

ipser
11-22-2009, 11:36 AM
CGN is 35,000 individuals that are not of one mind. Are you confusing it with CGF? Most of CGN are in agreement however (from Oak to me and many points in between) that now is not a good time. After McDonald or after some other unforseen events, some might reevaluate and find it a useful tactic others will still disagree. CGF, and their attorney's plans (the specifics only they will know before making it public) is what I'm planning on following. I have enough confidence in their leadership, based on past success, to follow their lead for now and not quibble about knowing every detail. OPSEC you know.
OPSEC or just playing to strength. If you ask an attorney how to fix the world he'll tell you we need a legal strategy. (What I noticed in previously is that CGF is following a fictitious civil rights model.) Insofar as CGN is something more than CGF then it seems a more open discussion of UOC would be worthwhile. But if CGN is just the following orders, maybe not.

ipser
11-22-2009, 11:43 AM
Hmm, how do you suggest we influence public opinion, in a day and age when the mass media is generally run by liberally biased people? How are you going to sway public opinion of millions of people with a few acts of UOC?

The days when liberal mass media owns public political discourse are long since past. I'm not saying that they are impotent or irrelevant but certainly things are not what they were ten years ago.

And public perception of guns is also much less hostile than it was previously. It may not be what we would like but it's certainly not what it once was.

This is a much bigger question than just UOC, I only point to that as a strategy with unique potential because it can be exercised locally by RKBA activists and directly impacting the perceptions of the public. (Again, setting aside for the moment whether the net effect is positive.) You don't need the media to be effective with UOC.

wildhawker
11-22-2009, 11:51 AM
Ipser, our (CGN) strategy and operation isn't open to debate. I'm growing *very* tired of your underhanded comments.

Dr. Peter Venkman
11-22-2009, 12:04 PM
Ipser:

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/Assets/ferrouscranus.jpg

ipser
11-22-2009, 12:25 PM
Ipser, our (CGN) strategy and operation isn't open to debate.

As I suspected. Thanks for your honesty.

Kestryll
11-22-2009, 12:30 PM
As I suspected. Thanks for your honesty.

And your lack of it.

oaklander
11-22-2009, 1:00 PM
Sorry Liberty - I meant "not right now" - but I thought EVERYBODY ALREADY KNEW THIS WAS THE CGF POSITION, SINCE IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED NUMEROUS TIMES. . .

;)

Personally, I think a right not used is a right lost. I think what is lost on Ipser is that we don't have UOC as a "right" right now. I would personally LOVE to OC (not UOC) right here in Oakland. But now is not the time, and I do not have the 2A right to do it yet.

Jeez, I'll working on making my graphs more obvious next time!!!

LOL

[QUOTE=oaklander;3396133]This explains everything:

Oak, Not helping :(

oaklander
11-22-2009, 1:01 PM
What are you trying to accomplish? Other than get everyone all riled up?

As I suspected. Thanks for your honesty.

technique
11-22-2009, 1:04 PM
ipser,

Do you open carry?

HUTCH 7.62
11-22-2009, 1:09 PM
After watching the segment I wondered why the question about why Open Carry was'nt really answered. I understand it's an exercise in 2A but I feel that the real reason is that people do not feel safe, that they no longer belive that the Police department can keep them safe, And that's why people open carry. I.E. I don't go to Oakland or Richmond (unless I absoulutely had to) because I feel that I might shorten my life drasticaly

I have yet to OC within city limits (I do OC when Hunting)because I do not feel it is nesscery as I live in Sunnyvale and to respect the wishes of CGF. We get one looney tune on this thing and it'll be all over guys back to square one.

Swiss
11-22-2009, 1:20 PM
Richmond's just truly dangerous in a few places, and generally just at night. As for the rest, read this (http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_13839342).

After watching the segment I wondered why the question about why Open Carry was'nt really answered. I understand it's an exercise in 2A but I feel that the real reason is that people do not feel safe, that they no longer belive that the Police department can keep them safe, And that's why people open carry. I.E. I don't go to Oakland or Richmond (unless I absoulutely had to) because I feel that I might shorten my life drasticaly

I have yet to OC within city limits (I do OC when Hunting)because I do not feel it is nesscery as I live in Sunnyvale and to respect the wishes of CGF. We get one looney tune on this thing and it'll be all over guys back to square one.

ipser
11-22-2009, 1:33 PM
What are you trying to accomplish? Other than get everyone all riled up?
I'm just trying to cut through the BS and find out what's really going on, where CGN really stands, and whether CGF is just a legal foundation serving a niche function, in which case it has no business telling people pursuing a different strategy what to do or not to do, or whether it seeks to become an umbrella for a general strategy, in which case it needs to deal with a vareity of strategies and tactics.

Sorry Liberty - I meant "not right now" - but I thought EVERYBODY ALREADY KNEW THIS WAS THE CGF POSITION, SINCE IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED NUMEROUS TIMES. . .
Saying "don't do it now" is not inconsistent with "don't ever do it." I suspect that many UOCers are seeing the first and hearing the second, especially given the venom that is spilled on the issue.

Personally, I think a right not used is a right lost. I think what is lost on Ipser is that we don't have UOC as a "right" right now. I would personally LOVE to OC (not UOC) right here in Oakland. But now is not the time, and I do not have the 2A right to do it yet.
I don't look at it that way. It's not merely an exercise of a right.

My main interest in UOC is the potential to positively influence public opinion. I was quite surprised at the lack of backlash at UOC at the Obama events, even though the media went nuts, and for the examples in CA.

UOC has very interesting possibilities.

Do you open carry?
Nope. I'd be very careful about it, personally. I might consider doing it as part of an organized outreach event if I was confident in the overall strategy behind it.

For example, it is unclear to me whether UOC is a net positive influence on public opinion. We know the media go nuts. But ordinary people are not shocked by it. It's easy to imagine the media influence turning it into a losing strategy but it's not obvious that this is necessarily the main consequence.

But to my original point, from what I've seen so far, CGN is biased toward legal solutions over influencing public opinion. That is a deeper problem.

berto
11-22-2009, 1:48 PM
But to my original point, from what I've seen so far, CGN is biased toward legal solutions over influencing public opinion. That is a deeper problem.

CGN seeks to do both.

UOC is seen as a potential PR boon by proponents and as a potential PR disaster by those urging standing down.

Legal solutions give us a leg to stand on. That leg gives us the opportunity to influence public opinion while not risking anything.

Seeking to change public opinion without the legal leg to stand on runs the risk of changing the playing field and increasing the cost and difficulty of the legal solution.

An anti upset about seeing UOC today can move legislatively. An anti upset at UOC post incorporation has a much more difficult time moving legislatively. Which way does public opinion blow today? Towards the antis or us? Who has the legislative votes today?

jdberger
11-22-2009, 1:48 PM
It's an unfortunate myopic perspective of the UOC militants in that they somehow don't realize that not everyone sees guns the same way that they do. They see them as an explicit threat.

This is certainly an interesting and reasonable hypothesis. I haven't seen any evidence for it yet, though.

Yes you have. You've read right here in this thread quotes from people who've related that they feel threatened by the site of a bunch of civilians openly carrying guns. Further evidence exists in the inevitable MWAG calls that go out to police.


We have a bunch of determined UOCers who get it. They may not like it, but they're willing to stand down (for now) based upon the proven guidance we've received from the CGF Board. Why not follow their lead?

Proven? How has it been proven that UOCing dimineshes public support for the RKBA? Why is this proof begin withheld from the discssion?

Perhaps you misread the statement. The proven guidance of CGF is pretty self evident if you look at this thread (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=26726), or this one (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=32973), or this one (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=110703). 100,000 ARs and AKs in California in the last 4 years all due to CGF Board Members (and the good members of CGN). That's a whole heap of "truth".

What concerns me about the UOC militants, is that they have the same revolutionary zeal of folks like the SLA, Weather Underground and Tax Protestors. They're myopic narcissists that insist that if the plebes were just better informed, they'd all clamor to get in line.