Open Carry and anti's

[Kyle1886]

First, let me say I'm pro-gun and 2nd Amendment supporter and a member of several pro-gun forums. As with most of you, I support the actions of Starbucks and their Open Carry stance. This morning a couple of anti-gun neighbors came over, aware of my pro-firearm position and ask what the "deal" was with the OCing at Starbucks. I guess one of the local TV stations had a blurb about it, but I did not see it. (I learned long ago it is difficult to have a meaningful debate with close-minded persons, regardless of subject). The debate, though lively, was civilized for the most part. However the antagonist did bring up a couple of points to ponder. One, being that "carrying unloaded (in condition four) is somewhat pointless and mainly for show and tell. Two, "pushing a point, just because you can", was likened to the "gays in San Francisco pushing their agenda, etc." creates a negative image. (I find that a pretty thin comparison). Three, is OCing actually doing more harm for the pro-gun agenda than helping?

What are you opinions on how OCing effects the overall climate of firearms in California?

(I do not OC).

Thank you

[GunNutz]

It's good that he noted the relative inadequacy of an unloaded firearm holstered in plain sight. I would say that's the most useful press we can get from the open carry movement: pointing out that CCWs are more appropriate, yet generally unavailable in the Bay Area. I believe that is the point that should be pushed by the OC movement.

I do not participate in the OC movement, BTW.

[GunNutz]

I think the jury is still out on more harm vs good. If done carefully and tactfully, the OC movement could possibly lead to more CCWs. However, it could also lead to irritation and panic amongst the Hoplophobia ridden Bay Area, which could ultimately provide more support for anti-gun candidates.

[My375hp302]

I totaly agree with your friends point in compairing it to the recent events in the gay movment. But let me expand on that a little. Lots of people who didn't have an opinion one way or the other started to lean away from the gay movement because of all the bad press they were getting. It doesn't matter that they had the RIGHT to protest in the streets, the public just saw what the media showed them.

In much the same manor, a large number of people in CA are neither for nor against guns, they have little or no opinion on the matter. These are your average sheeple that go to work, come home and watch the news, and are in bed by 8. To further our movment we need to get these people on OUR side. It's sad to say but the media pretty much decides for these people. They believe what they see on the news. They don't know what the difference is between semi-auto and full-auto, they just know that the news just said the a man robbed a store down the street from their house with a machiene gun and they picture Rambo in their little heads. I think we can all agree that the MAJORITY of the press on the OC thing has been negative. I believe you have convinced for more people to be aginst guns than you have to be for guns. You are having the opposite effect that you desire. Just read the blogs on all the news sites that have cover OCing. You have to remember that you are not trying to convince US you are trying to convince THEM. If you look at it from their perspective you are a bunch of gun toting nuts that are being contacted by the Police over and over again. It doesn't look good.

I just moved back to this hell hole from GA. In GA I had my CCW and it was as easy as paying the money and waiting for it in the mail. I really hope we can get to that point here in CA too someday, but this OC thing is NOT helping in ANY way.

[gabe123]

First, let me say I'm pro-gun and 2nd Amendment supporter and a member of several pro-gun forums. As with most of you, I support the actions of Starbucks and their Open Carry stance. This morning a couple of anti-gun neighbors came over, aware of my pro-firearm position and ask what the "deal" was with the OCing at Starbucks. I guess one of the local TV stations had a blurb about it, but I did not see it. (I learned long ago it is difficult to have a meaningful debate with close-minded persons, regardless of subject). The debate, though lively, was civilized for the most part. However the antagonist did bring up a couple of points to ponder. One, being that "carrying unloaded (in condition four) is somewhat pointless and mainly for show and tell. Two, "pushing a point, just because you can", was likened to the "gays in San Francisco pushing their agenda, etc." creates a negative image. (I find that a pretty thin comparison). Three, is OCing actually doing more harm for the pro-gun agenda than helping?

What are you opinions on how OCing effects the overall climate of firearms in California?

Thank you

In this country, there's a lot of strange things ... People are ready to question an armed man about this rights and agendas, yet can't really confront homosexuals without being discriminating.... While I'm at it, why can't I , a man, be locked up in a woman locker room at peak hours, while a gay man can join the military and basicly do just that?

Why do the media portrait it alright to be pro-gay and anti-gun?

--

[artherd]

Overall OC should remain low/no profile till after incorporation and a CCW suit. At which point it becomes mostly irrelevant until it's time to challenge the LOC ban.

Two, "pushing a point, just because you can", was likened to the "gays in San Francisco pushing their agenda, etc."

I'll happily take that comparison all the way to the National media!

[SKSer]

as far as the "Unloaded and pointless" argument. When ever that comes up I like to show them this :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAFxgQmxbGI&feature=fvw

[SKSer]

In this country, there's a lot of strange things ... People are ready to question an armed man about this rights and agendas, yet can't really confront homosexuals without being discriminating.... While I'm at it, why can't I , a man, be locked up in a woman locker room at peak hours, while a gay man can join the military and basicly do just that?

Why do the media portrait it alright to be pro-gay and anti-gun?

--

Because if they allowed Gay Guys to use the Womens locker room, we would lose half of our male population.

[Army]

While the handgun must unloaded while carrying, ammunition is also carried in any amount you feel comfortable hauling around ( I carry four 10 round .45 magazines for the 1911, or thirty .357's in the cowboy loops for the SAA). Law permits loading and using your gun to detain or shoot a criminal in-the-act.

Normally (!!), I carry for self protection, not for anyone's agenda.

Most have elected to slow or stop UOC'ing until incorporation is established. The current UOC newsmakers will always make headlines in liberal rags, and create waves in anti-gun groups....but nothing will change minds closed to logic and reason.

[L84CABO]

I think the response to point one is, "If you were in a situation where you needed a gun, would you rather a) not have one or b) have an unloaded one on your hip w/a fresh mag on the other? And ok, you might not have enough time to load in a situation...but then again, you might....odds are probably 50/50...good enough for me.

# 2 might depend on whether you're wearing a gun to make a point vs. wearing it for protection.

And as long as questions are being asked...A couple I always like to ask...more for fun than anything else...are...

What does "...to bear arms..." mean if you're not actually allowed to carry them?

And...

"How would you feel if you had to go down to the local Sheriff's department to get a permit to speak freely?"

Remember...many of the Founding Fathers didn't want a Bill of Rights because they didn't think they should have to put down on paper what was, essentially, granted to us by God. Of course you have the right to speak freely...Of course you have the right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure...Of course you have the right to defend your freedoms with arms if necessary...

Sorry...probably got a little off track there.

Peace

[wildhawker]

I think the jury is still out on more harm vs good. If done carefully and tactfully, the OC movement could possibly lead to more CCWs. However, it could also lead to irritation and panic amongst the Hoplophobia ridden Bay Area, which could ultimately provide more support for anti-gun candidates.

We have 2 major chains banning firearms, almost daily negative press and a Legislature looking for an opportunity to pass an outright ban on UOC.

The jury is still out? Really?

[GunNutz]

We have 2 major chains banning firearms, almost daily negative press and a Legislature looking for an opportunity to pass an outright ban on UOC.

The jury is still out? Really?

Two private businesses exercising their right not to allow guns. Similar things happened in AZ - this is nothing new. And AZ still has some of the more laxed gun laws in the nation.

This brings things into the spotlight - there is a chance a positive spin could be made for pro CCW.

I've seen out of state (loaded) open carry advocates do a fantastic job of making their arguments and turning negative press around. The same could be done here.

[wildhawker]

There is zero chance than political strategy from gun-friendly states can be reimported here. The same cannot be done here.

[GunNutz]

So then, to play devil's advocate: the philosophy is to abstain from exercising one's right for fear that the right will be taken away? Is that not the same as not having the right in the first place? Of what use is a right which cannot be exercised?

[GunNutz]

Many of the arguments I hear against open carry are:

1. Scares people.
2. Perception that untrained people are toting guns.
3. Concerns about the intentions of those carrying guns which are not even loaded.

If CCWs were issued here, all of these concerns would be alleviated, with training/permit required, no visibility, etc.