Soccer parents wince at prospect of guns at games

[normanvin]

Originally Posted by ScaredOnce

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.

It seems that sometimes it is easier to know who your enemies are than who your friends are.



I keep reading about how we are all gun owners. That we are supposed to be out for the same thing.
But then I read don't do this or that because it might tick some one off. Don't be an activist.

Does anyone think that if someone in England had spoken up and been an activist that England would not have been striped of their guns.

[Pa. Patriot]

Originally Posted by headcase

After reading Danp's comment and some of those that support it, I would love for him to clarify it. It seems to me that what he was saying, and I could be wrong but this is how it's coming across- and being agreed with-, is OK you made your point, got your license back, now be nice and cover it up so the people you beat can go back to their lives, because after all, there really is no need to OC at a kids soccer game, it makes us all look like gun nuts, and it is going to cause all these soccer moms to get more pissed off and then we will lose our rights.

That is what I got out of it, dance around it however any of you like.

Give and take, diplomacy, and compromise is for politicians, not people fighting to keep their rights. Activists or non activists who OC, have the right to do so where it is legal, no matter the opinions of soccer moms, sheriffs, judges, or forum owners who don't necessarily agree with the method. OC or CC where you like, when you like, as long as it is legal, and if someone causes another unfounded trouble, stand with them as if it was your family. Because we are.

I disagree with your reading of danp's comments, but agree and understand with where you are coming from.

OC is an individual thing. I agree that we should OC for the right reasons for us and apologize to no one.. I endorse people OC'ing as individuals as and where they deem "normal" for them. Again, all I ask of folks is to do it for the right reasons and to conduct yourself appropriately. What would some "wrong" reasons be?

Looking for attention, particularly negative attention.
Looking for conflict.

Sad to say that I absolutely HAVE seen some of this with OC both here in Pa. and elsewhere in the USA.

I think it's inevitable to have some of that though. The OC "movement", as it's referred to, is a strong movement because it is somewhat controversial and can definitely garner attention for individuals involved in it. These types of endeavors are prone to attracting a few individuals who want to be associated with the "attention" rather than the "objective".

There is little that can be done about that other than to discourage those individuals once identified as such. I am not going to tell someone to OC or not to OC. But I will speak with someone about their intentions and methods if and when I identify a potential problem. This is something that we all need to be watchful of. As dan and others point out, one idiot CAN do damage to the cause and reverse the work of many. We must police ourselves and we must start doing it more, IMO.
If you see someone gloating int he attention or controversy and loosing site of the objective, please discuss it with them or if your not comfortable in doing that you can notify someone like myself of your observations and if I agree with your concerns I will gladly discuss the issue with the appropriate parties.

I think the OC "movement" as a whole here in Pa. is far from being "off course". But it has also reached a point where some more attention needs to be payed to the direction of some of it's practitioners. As well as the some of the reactionary methods, as an example. When and if there is a negative reaction or "incident". Those of us who understand OC, since we practice it, need to remember that the folks we are dealing with in opposition at the time of negative reaction do NOT understand it nor our motives. Education is key, and education in reaction to a negative scenario is tricky. We are pre-programmed to be defensive in such a situations. I think we need to practice being more sympathetic to the opposing force. Not to concede, absolutely not, but rahter to relate to them that we understand their concern completely. As such we agree because I OC because of "this that and the other thing", and am not a threat to you. Put ourselves on the same page as them rather than the opposing. Simple things like that, rather than a response such as "It's my right!", as danp mentioned, can be instrumental in helping change "perception", even in reaction to a negative encounter.

Keep up the good fight people, but lets remember to fight smart and not get a little too comfy in our position simply because "it's legal".

[danp]

Originally Posted by normanvin

Don't be an activist.

No one's saying don't be an activist, people are asking for smart activism which I personally think is lacking. We have a lot of quantity but not a lot of quality lately.

[Brown-Bear]

Gotta spread the REP a lil bit Rich but its coming your way for that post. This fight can be won, but sometimes a few of our members need to be reminded that we are fighting for all of our rights and not just your individual right to OC.

[Philbert]

Originally Posted by normanvin

It seems that sometimes it is easier to know who your enemies are than who your friends are.



I keep reading about how we are all gun owners. That we are supposed to be out for the same thing.
But then I read don't do this or that because it might tick some one off. Don't be an activist.

Nobody is saying that people shouldn't be activists. Quite the reverse, in fact, because it's exactly activists who should be the most sensitive to how their actions will be perceived by the public. Activists need to have a strategy. Activists should rightly be judged by what their actions achieve for their cause. And activists should not attempt to escape criticism by virtue of the fact that their conduct is legal.

I'll say again, because the one time I don't say this I'll be called out on it: I support the right of anyone to OC, and I condemn illegal harassment directed at those who OC. I don't seek to discourage anyone from any legal activity. If you carry openly because it suits you best, for whatever reason, then go right ahead. If you carry openly because you want to change the public perception of gun owners, then you are an activist. And when someone chooses to be an activist that they need to think about strategy and the impact of their actions. And I think that the strategic aspect of OC activism is not being handled as well as it should.

It's a problem when a subgroup of activists try to live in denial about their bad strategy by retreating to the question of whether or not they have the right to engage in unwise activism. When they inflate their own importance to the extent that we are to believe that OC at children's soccer games is the only hope for gun rights to survive. When they give up hope of reaching out to people and seek to resort to shows of strength to stare down the general public. All of these problems can be found in this thread.

The dangers of the echo chamber, of hubris, of the "for us or against us" mentality are not anything unique to OC activism. It happens all the time. Pick any fringe cause or interest with political dimension, I'd wager you'd find examples of the same problems. It's an inevitable tendency that has to be managed and fought against. I actually think that this forum does a better job than a lot of places. We have a good deal of diversity and a relatively hospitable atmosphere for minority opinions. We should aim to keep it that way.

Does anyone think that if someone in England had spoken up and been an activist that England would not have been striped of their guns.

The English lost their guns for many reasons, but two major ones were because gun owners were always a fringe group, and because gun ownership was about sport. In the US, gun ownership is about the right to protect one's life and one's community. That to me is the key difference that has kept gun rights alive here. In England, gun owners accepted that they owned guns for sport, and every time the government tightened the screws, gun activists had to go on TV to explain how the right of 0.1% of the population to have fun shooting at paper targets was worth the occasional massacre. Unsurprisingly, it didn't work.

[PennsyPlinker]

Well I for one am getting real curious as to who these activists are. You all know, the ones who aren't really helping the cause. I've carried into some pretty risky situations, sitting down next to cops and constables, going to the courthouse with my gun (actually, the first time I did that was way back in 1991, long before the internet or PAFOA), to the DMV, etc.

But we are getting a series of posts that are cautioning open carriers about their behavior, and I am just wondering who these unwise open carriers are. Even if we succeed at identifying them, what exactly is it that we are supposed to do? There is no "Society of Openly carried Arms Proponents". I'll abbreviate that SOAP in honor of P-11Shooter's comments. But there is no meeting, no membership, no way of policing ranks that don't exist. We can discuss perspectives, perceptions, and plans, but in reality, it is like trying to get everyone to order the same thing off the menu at a restaurant, or get everyone to drive their car in exactly the same way.

I know very well that there are stupid people out there. Some of them are even on this board. There is never going to be a shortage of people doing stupid things, and people with guns doing stupid things is just a subset of that. Is there a collective obligation if they participate on this board? Am I responsible for someone else who takes a loaded gun to a hearing, all the while leaving his pot stash out in the open at home?

We can criticize someone if we think they are doing something wrong, but if they aren't breaking the law, what then? We can refuse to donate to a cause if someone gets in trouble and needs help, but that is already an option, isn't it? But even so, it comes back to the issue of what is wrong and what isn't? Who is going to step right up and say, "Pennsy, you should not have have eaten breakfast next to those cops with your gun hanging out."? Or who is going to say, "SFN, there is no way you should go to another soccer game without concealing."?

Do you all see what I mean? Of course, I understand there is no shortage of people who would like to say these things, and wholeheartedly believe them, but often they are anti OC no matter what. So where do we go from here? When is the next meeting of SOAP? And that's just it. When it comes to controlling the behavior of others, the answer comes up NO SOAP.

[DaveM55]

Originally Posted by Statkowski

The next MPOETC quarterly meeting will be right in the lion's den - Northeast Pennsylvania:

SEPTEMBER 9, 10, and 11
Ramada Hotel
20 Public Square
Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania18701
(570) 824-7100

Be there or be square.

Did anyone attend this?

The next one is:
DECEMBER 9, 10, and 11
Hotel Bethlehem
437 Main Street
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania 18018

[-JD-]

Originally Posted by PennsyPlinker

Well I for one am getting real curious as to who these activists are. You all know, the ones who aren't really helping the cause. I've carried into some pretty risky situations, sitting down next to cops and constables, going to the courthouse with my gun (actually, the first time I did that was way back in 1991, long before the internet or PAFOA), to the DMV, etc.

But we are getting a series of posts that are cautioning open carriers about their behavior, and I am just wondering who these unwise open carriers are. Even if we succeed at identifying them, what exactly is it that we are supposed to do? There is no "Society of Openly carried Arms Proponents". I'll abbreviate that SOAP in honor of P-11Shooter's comments. But there is no meeting, no membership, no way of policing ranks that don't exist. We can discuss perspectives, perceptions, and plans, but in reality, it is like trying to get everyone to order the same thing off the menu at a restaurant, or get everyone to drive their car in exactly the same way.

I know very well that there are stupid people out there. Some of them are even on this board. There is never going to be a shortage of people doing stupid things, and people with guns doing stupid things is just a subset of that. Is there a collective obligation if they participate on this board? Am I responsible for someone else who takes a loaded gun to a hearing, all the while leaving his pot stash out in the open at home?

We can criticize someone if we think they are doing something wrong, but if they aren't breaking the law, what then? We can refuse to donate to a cause if someone gets in trouble and needs help, but that is already an option, isn't it? But even so, it comes back to the issue of what is wrong and what isn't? Who is going to step right up and say, "Pennsy, you should not have have eaten breakfast next to those cops with your gun hanging out."? Or who is going to say, "SFN, there is no way you should go to another soccer game without concealing."?

Do you all see what I mean? Of course, I understand there is no shortage of people who would like to say these things, and wholeheartedly believe them, but often they are anti OC no matter what. So where do we go from here? When is the next meeting of SOAP? And that's just it. When it comes to controlling the behavior of others, the answer comes up NO SOAP.

Pennsy,

You are right, there is no "SOAP" here (PAFOA.) There is no chain of command. It is not even a democracy; direct or representative. It is an anarchy with limited and generally hands-off oversight by a few Mods. The only control over any individual(s) actions comes through argument and criticism (I mean both in the constructive sense here.) In the worst case they will be shunned by the members or even banished.

We should not abandon the discussion just because there is no enforceable mechanism of control, but I think most of us are here because we value the dialog and the ability to learn from others. You ask if we have a collective obligation for the actions of others ... In the end everyone is responsible for their own actions ... But I think we have both an ethical and practical imperative to speak up if we believe that some action will be undertaken that will have a negative outcome.

Originally Posted by Philbert

...
I'll say again, because the one time I don't say this I'll be called out on it: I support the right of anyone to OC, and I condemn illegal harassment directed at those who OC. I don't seek to discourage anyone from any legal activity. If you carry openly because it suits you best, for whatever reason, then go right ahead. If you carry openly because you want to change the public perception of gun owners, then you are an [A]ctivist. And when someone chooses to be an [A]ctivist that they need to think about strategy and the impact of their actions. And I think that the strategic aspect of OC activism is not being handled as well as it should.

It's a problem when a subgroup of activists try to live in denial about their bad strategy by retreating to the question of whether or not they have the right to engage in unwise activism. When they inflate their own importance to the extent that we are to believe that OC at children's soccer games is the only hope for gun rights to survive. When they give up hope of reaching out to people and seek to resort to shows of strength to stare down the general public. All of these problems can be found in this thread.
...

Bold and [Bracketed] capitalization mine

I think Philbert pretty much nailed it on the head.

But ... I think there is big "A" and little "a" activism.

Pennsy, you, SFN, and others who simply OC about your daily lives,
are just going about your lives. Sometimes that ramps up a bit to "activism" when you explain it or had out a flyer to someone who is curios or even upset, but that is incidental (I DO NOT MEAN UNIMPORTANT) to your daily life.

On the other hand "Activism" is shaping your actions with the specific intent to be noticed and make a point.

While I think both are important and both are valuable tools. "Activism" is can be a big one, and big tools have the capacity to accomplish great work quickly, or wreak great damage just as quickly.

[CQB]

Originally Posted by danp

No one's saying don't be an activist, people are asking for smart activism which I personally think is lacking. We have a lot of quantity but not a lot of quality lately.

You have taken the words right out of my mouth.

[fingers80002]

Originally Posted by Brown-Bear

agree that some are biting off more than they or rather we as a community can chew at any one given time. On the other hand some do it on purpose I think. Some sem to follow the "I wish a Motherf*&*er would say something" mentality. ONly to spout off at the mouth with no real facts about the law, much like the anti's.

Secondly I can tell you from personal experience that regular OC'ing of a handgun has changed some minds. My neighbors in fact had some rather inteligent questions about the laws regarding carrying weapons after my small time incident at the Dover carnival. Now they know that it is legal and since they see me do it all the time, I hope the have learned that it is okay, and not a need to call the police.

I just hope that ""perverbial line" gets pushed bac farther and farther, but that we also realize that it won't happen with one unifying incident but rather a slow progression of calm calculated responses by a community in unison with each other, not a bunch of loudmouths pushing their agendas in people faces. Not to say that some need that kind of in your face politics to get the point. But I would just rather see some decorum exercised with these incidents. As I said all very confusing. But I also agree that we all need to be unified against the GC agendas out there. Arguing amongst ourselves will solve nothing, but rather further the position of those against us.

Dave

I agree, my neighbor is thinking about buying a firearm, for HP, since we have been talking about gun laws.
Started with me OC'ing.