Soccer parents wince at prospect of guns at games

[shefearsnothing]

I think all Dan was trying to say is we need to be really carefully about how we're perceived by the general public. There is alot riding on how we act in the near future. We need to think before we act.

And isn't that what I was saying when I said I didn't think a bunch of people should show up OC to the soccer field? So tell me please, why did I need a public spanking here?

[P-11 shooter]

Originally Posted by shefearsnothing

And isn't that what I was saying when I said I didn't think a bunch of people should show up OC to the soccer field? So tell me please, why did I need a public spanking here?

I said the same thing in the first thread.

Public spanking? Wait, am I still in the dinner thread?

As we speak "gun owners" think we're nuts. They are on the same page as the anti's on this issue. Everybody needs to stick together especially now, and we need to watch how we're perceived.

It's important.

[RocketFoot]

I guess it's kinda like religion. Everyone is entitled to believe what they want, I just don't want anyone shoving their beliefs down my throat. Same with OC/CC and guns in general...the general public doesn't want us shoving gun rights down their throats even though it is completely legal. The more we do it, the more the folks on the fence are going to be offended or alienated. There is a fine line between exercising your rights and stepping on other peoples rights.

[mjfletcher]

Originally Posted by danp

This entire thread is a perfect example of how NOT to run a public relations campaign.

Seriously, you OC guys need to rethink your strategy.

SFN, I'm glad you got your permit back, but I hope you realize that you are doing more to harm open-carry in this state than any bad sheriff could ever imagine. Supposedly the goal of open carry is to introduce people to, and get them comfortable with the idea of responsible people carrying firearms. All you are doing is alienating and pissing off the very people you're trying to win over.

You guys need an actual strategy that doesn't involve the idea "I CAN CARRY 18 GUNS TO A PETTING ZOO BECAUSE ITS MY RIGHT" if you want to actually accomplish your intended goals.

If your purpose is activism, discretion is the better part of valor.

I don't OC yet, when I do, it won't be to introduce people to anything, it won't be to educate them about anything, it won't be to get them comfortable with anything, it will be because I want the comfort of not having a gun stuffed inside my belt and because I want to be able to draw one handed without having waste time moving clothing out of the way. I won't be trying to win anyone over, because honestly, if they don't like the fact that I exercise my rights or what method I choose to do it that's not my problem, just as its not their problem if I don't like the fact that they exercise their rights or what method they choose to do it. Not everyone OCs for political reasons.

As far as SFN doing harm to the OC movement, without OCers there is no OC movement. She has stated quite clearly that she does NOT want anyone holding an OC rally at her kids games because that would appear to be aggressive on the part of the OCers. How is that harming the OC movement? Would you rather she organize a 20+ person OC rally at the games and accomplish nothing mroe than to piss off the other parents there?

Political activists who choose to be discrete never get anything done because nobody ever notices them. Activism, by nature, requires that one toss discretion out the window. SFN didn't choose to be in the spotlight, others however chose to put her there. If the attention she is getting is pissing people off and alienating them, they have nobody to blame but themselves for focussing that attention on her. Others made a decision to follow a course of action, she was then forced to respond to their actions by either rolling over and playing dead or standing up for herself. She chose the latter, as we all would, and in the end the law was upheld. Those people who are now pissed off and alienated are so because the law was upheld, the only way they were going to be happy is if the judge had decided to ignore the law and rule on public opinion.

Simple fact, we will never win over the anti's, only those who are on the fence can be won over, and if we roll over and play dead everytime the anti's push, the fence sitters will fall to the anti's side simply to avoid being pushed.

[ScaredOnce]

Originally Posted by danp

This entire thread is a perfect example of how NOT to run a public relations campaign.

Seriously, you OC guys need to rethink your strategy.

SFN, I'm glad you got your permit back, but I hope you realize that you are doing more to harm open-carry in this state than any bad sheriff could ever imagine. Supposedly the goal of open carry is to introduce people to, and get them comfortable with the idea of responsible people carrying firearms. All you are doing is alienating and pissing off the very people you're trying to win over.

You guys need an actual strategy that doesn't involve the idea "I CAN CARRY 18 GUNS TO A PETTING ZOO BECAUSE ITS MY RIGHT" if you want to actually accomplish your intended goals.

If your purpose is activism, discretion is the better part of valor.

Kudos... I agree. There may be a little too much "hee-haw" in this endeavor.

Waiving your flag feverishly over a victory does little but spawn reinforcements against you. Know your enemy.

[imperialism2024]

Originally Posted by P-11 shooter

I think all Dan was trying to say is we need to be really carefully about how we're perceived by the general public. There is alot riding on how we act in the near future. We need to think before we act.

Think about what? About how idiots who are willingly ignorant of guns will twist and distort what we do?

I recommend that in order to help our cause, we should stop OCing, stop firing at outdoor ranges, stop hunting, and take all of the pro-gun bumper stickers off of our cars. We should do all of our shooting in indoor ranges, where no one can hear it, and we can transport our guns in inconspicuous cases. Maybe there will be some form of initiation for those who want to join us gun owners... if they can figure out who we are.

I'm sure that if the media snuck into a range, we'd all be screwed. Hell, people carrying guns... loading them even. Some of those demented nuts even shoot at targets that look like people! And then they have the nerve to shoot two or even three boxes of bullets! Some psychopath even has a semi-automatic gun too! God help us!

Sorry for the ranting... but at the end of the day, some people will always get offended by guns no matter how "appropriate" of a context we believe it is. Unfortunately, I believe that the most anti-OC sentiment is shared by the gun community, not by non-gun-owners. The latter will generally somehow rationalize it (he's an LEO, he's an undercover CIA agent, etc), ignore it, and a rare few will call the police or otherwise complain in an authoritative manner. The anti-OC gun owners are the ones to worry about, because they believe they have the authority to regulate guns and gun ownership to their personal beliefs and standards... justified by the fact that they own a gun or two. I was at the Dickson City council meeting, and just about every anti-OC comment was prefaced with "I hunt, but..." or "I have guns, but..." or a similar self-validating response. Hell, look at the average anti-OC LEO encounter: it's rare in Pennsylvania than an LEO who is hassling an OCer will tell him/her that civilians shouldn't have guns, but rather that s/he should conceal, or not carry a gun "there", or somehow better fit into the stereotype that s/he holds for a good civilian gun owner.

Anyhow, I think at this point the discussion is going gravely off-topic.

[BKeen]

Do you think for a second we can sway the anti gun folk out there! I think SFN said what SHE wanted and felt . Not what WE think of feel . Bottomline it always easier to arm chair quarterback than actually play the field. We as gunowners will never change liberal morons!

[ScaredOnce]

Originally Posted by Mtn Jack

GOOD Job Mel!!! It's your choice!!! Here's an article Jack and I thought you'd
you'd find interesting!!!!
Love Mrs and Mtn Jack



The Children Have Spoken

By

Janalee Tobias

On Monday, June 30, 2003, 1 p.m., the 5th grade class of Miss Erickson, at So. Jordan Elementary, So. Jordan, UT, held a mock trial. The issue at trial: Should guns be allowed in school? So. Jordan Elementary school is in Jordan School District where policy is currently being drafted regarding CCW permit holders taking guns to school.

Each legal team consisted of five brilliant 5th graders. Each side presented charts and facts to the jury which consisted of twelve 5th graders, half boys, half girls. An "expert witness" on each side testified: "me" for the "guns in school" side, and a women from the University of Utah represented "no guns in school." The principal was subpoenaed for the "no guns in school" side, but he didn't show up for trial. Rumor has it that he was afraid to go against me , and there may be a warrant out for his arrest.

After about 45 minutes of intense debate, the jury left the classroom and deliberated behind closed doors for five minutes. The verdict: 12-0 in FAVOR of guns in schools.

The comments of the jurors reflected their fear of a crazed criminal coming in and shooting up the school. They want teachers to be able to carry a gun for their protection as long as they know how to use it, know the safety rules, and keep it out of the reach of students. They also want the "bad guys" to think that if they come into their school to shoot it up, that a "good guy" is going to shoot them back and protect the children.

The verdict is in: Children think that the best way to "save the children" is to let honest, law-abiding citizens carry guns for protection.

Cute story, yet it's easily dissected by anyone of the "Anti" inclination. I really don't find a bunch of children as a rubric for grading such an important issue.

[PennsyPlinker]

Originally Posted by P-11 shooter

As we speak "gun owners" think we're nuts. They are on the same page as the anti's on this issue. Everybody needs to stick together especially now, and we need to watch how we're perceived.

It's important.

It is important. And herein lies the problem. There are two parts to it too. "Gun owners" may very well be people who don't really own guns, but just saying so to make the rest of us think they are the reasonable ones. People can be anything they want on the internet. But some of these alleged gun owners come across as pretty rabid to me, and that smells like anti. Then there are the genuine gun owners who really do hate OC. Just like there are gun owners who hate EBRs, anything with auto in it, etc.

How we present ourselves is important, but part of that is offering up compelling arguments without backing down. Look at the scope of it though! We have the owner of this site coming into this thread to tell us that OC people are doing it all wrong. With all due respect to Dan, and anyone else who is concerned about the OC movement, if we don't OC, we might as well just give up and turn our guns in, because that is where we are headed. How many people here read the article on England that Empty Mag posted?

And look at other states where the OC movement has been around longer. Look at what they are accomplishing in VA for example. They are gaining ground, not losing it. There are always going to be antis, and some of them own guns. I was at the range a couple of years ago burning up a bunch of 7.62 x 39 mm, just having fun with my AK. An old guy (even older than me!) showed up to prepare himself for deer season. He fired a grand total of three shots from his deer rifle at 25 yards and proclaimed himself ready! When I asked him if I thought that was enough practice, he disdainfully told me that if it was sighted in at 25 yds, it was good to go at 100 yds. Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't, but I question his ability to be able to shoot in other than benchrest conditions with a total of three rounds per year under his belt. But he is a gun owner just like I am. And he probably doesn't give a rat's rear end if I lose my EBR to an AWB, or if I am not allowed to carry my handgun anymore, because it does not directly impact his hunting and firing his three rounds a year.

I think that we need to normalize the carrying of weapons in our culture again. But I also think we need to let people know that we are here, and we are not going gentle into that good night. We need to stand our ground, and even more so, we need to go on the offensive. We can't let the antis, gun owners or not, get away with their tripe. We need to call them on their arguments, to make them articulate their reasoning as to why they hate us so much, and why they hate our guns. Over in the comments section of the article on Meleanie, I have asked repeatedly what is so bad about having a gun in the presence of children. No one has stepped up to answer that! Why not? I don't think any of them have an answer! It's just a bunch of gabble that is repeated over and over again until it becomes their mantra. We need to force the issue, we need to shut them down and shut them up. We need to put them on the defensive so that they are reacting to us rather than us reacting to them. And we need to be polite and ruthless about it, all at the same time.

ETA: I just checked into the discussion going on in the comments section of the article. I have asked one of the most vociferous antis on the board to please explain why guns around kids are so bad - three or four times. The response?

I can't wait until you republicans lose your election.
You're all fools.

Game. Set. Match.

[gnbrotz]

I certainly understand Dan's comments, and philosophically, I agree. The problem is that I also highly identify with mjfletcher's comments on a personal level.

Meleanie is in a position that I don't envy at all. I had to ask myself the same question: What do I do now? I had a great luxury that she did not - time.

The first possible opportunity I had to repeat my behavior was almost 4 months after my hearing. If voting occurred with the same frequency as soccer practices and games, we likely would have seen many of these same ongoing issues. I've actually been surprised at the number of times the local newspaper has felt the need to tie my story in with another, when only peripherally connected at best.

Ultimately, Meleanie must live with her decisions, and any ongoing stigma that occurs as a result of those decisions. A decision to cover up more frequently and hide what she stood up for will be no easier to accept than enduring the ongoing ridicule and shunning from some neighbors and other soccer parents. Despite her victory, she ends up in a situation that no intelligent person would wish themselves to be.