Soccer parents wince at prospect of guns at games

[stephpd]

Not quite the turn that I expected.

Whether the choice to open carry at a kids soccer game fits everyone level of appropriateness or not isn't for me to decide. As an outsider (live in DE) I know that things like this could be taken the wrong way by some. This is a diverse group and everyone can't agree on much of anything.

Having joined this group because of the Dickson City Incident, I'm very new to being an active member. I did troll this site for some time, learning about many things. There is plenty of information to be gleaned fro the knowledge of other without having to post.

I could see that besides just the general OC/CC debates that OC was turning into an active and growing situation. Personally I don't OC but do support the idea of it. As I see it OC is the only portion of the 2A that still exists. That it hasn't become a big deal until recently surprises me. Letting the NRA and the Brady Bunch deal away, through lawmaking in some states, has been a concern of mine for a while. But the purity of a right that hasn't been messed with can only be attributed to OC.

Seeing that Dan and Dog have opinions that don't agree with the OC crowd is concerning to me. I'd hate to see that all of this be removed from this site. But that is their choice. I'm not sure of the growth before or after these incidents but I do see it as a good thing. There are few organizations even willing to let this debate occur. And it would be a shame if it happened here.

With that being said I do believe that open carry is the next major front for political activism in regards to the 2A. That it's starting here and a couple of other forums points to the grassroots level of this movement. That no major organization is willing to touch it on the gun owners side is a shame. That it is a dividing line in this forum doesn't speak well for those that oppose it (in my opinion). But if that's what happens and the activist part of open carry has to move on then it is what it is.

As a new member my opinion means little. But this site is where I go to see what's happening in my neighbor state and how folks are dealing with it. Like a little brother, we in DE look to our big brother for knowledge and experience. We don't have the experience or the number of people like those in PA. What happens here guides us in what we do. I don't speak for our 'group' but just for myself.

[danp]

Originally Posted by stephpd

Not quite the turn that I expected.

Whether the choice to open carry at a kids soccer game fits everyone level of appropriateness or not isn't for me to decide. As an outsider (live in DE) I know that things like this could be taken the wrong way by some. This is a diverse group and everyone can't agree on much of anything.

Having joined this group because of the Dickson City Incident, I'm very new to being an active member. I did troll this site for some time, learning about many things. There is plenty of information to be gleaned fro the knowledge of other without having to post.

I could see that besides just the general OC/CC debates that OC was turning into an active and growing situation. Personally I don't OC but do support the idea of it. As I see it OC is the only portion of the 2A that still exists. That it hasn't become a big deal until recently surprises me. Letting the NRA and the Brady Bunch deal away, through lawmaking in some states, has been a concern of mine for a while. But the purity of a right that hasn't been messed with can only be attributed to OC.

Seeing that Dan and Dog have opinions that don't agree with the OC crowd is concerning to me. I'd hate to see that all of this be removed from this site. But that is their choice. I'm not sure of the growth before or after these incidents but I do see it as a good thing. There are few organizations even willing to let this debate occur. And it would be a shame if it happened here.

With that being said I do believe that open carry is the next major front for political activism in regards to the 2A. That it's starting here and a couple of other forums points to the grassroots level of this movement. That no major organization is willing to touch it on the gun owners side is a shame. That it is a dividing line in this forum doesn't speak well for those that oppose it (in my opinion). But if that's what happens and the activist part of open carry has to move on then it is what it is.

As a new member my opinion means little. But this site is where I go to see what's happening in my neighbor state and how folks are dealing with it. Like a little brother, we in DE look to our big brother for knowledge and experience. We don't have the experience or the number of people like those in PA. What happens here guides us in what we do. I don't speak for our 'group' but just for myself.

Without going into it too much, trust me, we agree with OC and I agree with you it's one of the few unfettered rights left. I do not have any intention of telling people they can't do it, or can't talk about it here. My only thing is that I think the movement in PA needs a little more structure, guidance and long-term strategy than it currently has. I also feel that without this, it will end up hurting more than it helps.

Again this is my opinion, and I'm sure many people will disagree, to those people, I ask that you give me some time to finish working on my full writing on the matter. I feel that once read, people will at least understand where I'm coming from more.

As for the NRA and "compromise" let me ask you two questions:

1. Which group gets more ultimately done for gun owners: The NRA or the "no-compromise" GOA
2. How many staunch Libertarians are in political office higher than a city council?

People who do not accept the reality of compromise in politics are the ones who end up unrepresented and talking to themselves about how unfair the world is and how no one "gets it". I will say right now I do not intend PAFOA to be in that position. I would rather be in a position to effect some change, even if it's not all I want, than no change at all.

Please also keep in mind I'm the guy that owns an M16 and multiple suppressors. My personal feelings on gun ownership are probably more liberal (in the true sense of the word) than the majority of people reading this thread, but I've begun to learn the difference between what I want and what I can get, along with what needs to be done to move the ball forward for the next first down.

[shefearsnothing]

Dan, thank you for the apology and for the more mature articulation of your thoughts on this. I would also like to let you know, in case you are not aware, that I at NO TIME called up any media to alert them to any of the goings on between myself, the soccer league, and the sheriff. I don't know if that has ever been clear to you or not because I know you seemed to think I was looking for attention. I'm just saying, I did not personally do any of that. The little talking I did do with media I did only at the advice of my attorney at the time. Even after the hearing 2 or 3 stations were begging me to stay and go live with them and I declined. It was more important for me to have some time to recollect and spend time with those who traveled from near and far to show support that day then to be "shining in the media spotlight". I just wanted to clarify that with you. I realize you may hold your opinion on the matter (as far as my looking for attention) and that's fine. I still wanted you to have all the information.

[stephpd]

Dan. as I mentioned, I'm new to all of this. You do what you think best.

I look forward to your post on this touchy subject, as I have much to learn.

The NRA reference was more toward the 'shall issue' craze that swept this country a decade ago. With both the President of the NRA and Sarah Brady living in my state it was just a matter of time before it was brought before the politicians. There were so many restrictions in that bill to make it unpalatable. Luckily the politicians shot it down and left us with 'may issue'. Not ideal but better then the alternative offered. By leaving the laws the way they were we have few restrictions on concealed carry. In this case nothing was better then something or 'all'.

That's more or less where I was coming from.

I was really surprised that you responded so quickly. I'd suggest letting this thread not be so distracting to you and your goals. We each have ideas and perceptions on the way we would go about this and I for one will stay off to the side and let you compose your thoughts.

Have a nice day, and thanks for all you've done.

Steve

[Eugene V. Debs]

Originally Posted by gnbrotz

WOW - that's a total misquote on all three points!

I didn't say the first two things AT ALL, and my last quote, while accurate, was in response to a different question, not the one they printed.

They asked me about parents having "the right to feel safe". THAT's when I said that "They don't have that right".

I don't think "more people" should carry guns - I think that anyone who chooses to should be permitted to. I don't carry if they conceal or not, and I don't think this case will make a big difference either way.

Talk about sensationalism! This is some of the worst reporting I've seen on this whole ordeal.

If you're giving quotes to a new organization, prepare to be misquoted. It happens, I've had it happen to me and other people in our union.

Here's what you can do to minimize it...when talking with the reporter take notes and ask for his or her e-mail address to send a press release to. As soon as you get off the phone, quickly draft a press release re-stating some of the points/statements you made, e-mail it to your e-board (or whatever body or officers normally approve such things), phone them and get it approved, then send it to the journalist.

A lot of the times misquotes aren't intentional, but rather due to laziness and sloppy note-taking by the reporter. Sending a press release allows you to more carefully control the written record of your statements and avoid errors in transcription by the reporter.

[ScaredOnce]

Originally Posted by Eugene V. Debs

Here's what you can do to minimize it...when talking with the reporter take notes and ask for his or her e-mail address to send a press release to. As soon as you get off the phone, quickly draft a press release re-stating some of the points/statements you made, e-mail it to your e-board (or whatever body or officers normally approve such things), phone them and get it approved, then send it to the journalist.

A lot of the times misquotes aren't intentional, but rather due to laziness and sloppy note-taking by the reporter. Sending a press release allows you to more carefully control the written record of your statements and avoid errors in transcription by the reporter.

Exactly. Some of the time misquotes aren't intentional. Sometimes they are, especially when the purpose of the journalism is other than objective news reporting. When I suggested have some type of control plan anytime anyone talks to the press, one could take your example above as such a plan.

Originally Posted by shefearsnothing

It was more important for me to have some time to recollect and spend time with those who traveled from near and far to show support that day then to be "shining in the media spotlight".

Interesting. Seems I remember your pictures being in a few articles. Those pictures seemed to be manufactured, not live action. I have had the impression that you often seek attention. That's not necessarily a bad thing; a lot of people do. I'm only commenting on seeking attention in this case where there may be other implications to issues which I support or organizations which I'm also a member of. No need to get defense, it's not an "accusation". It's opinion based on my observations - they don't come guaranteed are are only worth the electrons lighting up our screens.

Originally Posted by danp

My only thing is that I think the movement in PA needs a little more structure, guidance and long-term strategy than it currently has. I also feel that without this, it will end up hurting more than it helps.

My personal feelings on gun ownership are probably more liberal (in the true sense of the word) than the majority of people reading this thread, but I've begun to learn the difference between what I want and what I can get, along with what needs to be done to move the ball forward for the next first down.

Dan, oh dear, you used the "S -word"... STRATEGY. Tactics are easy; they're usually based on logical reactionary principals. Strategy is tough. Strategy must involve unified and cohesive collections of tactics, evaluation and optimization of multiple tactical response plans, and contingency plans for every possible positive and negative impact any action may effect upon your ultimate goal. I played with this concept all day today. No amount of Evian bottles or Panera to-go will ever make strategy formulation easier. It takes time and a lot of work (and sometimes throwing thumb-drives across the conference room at each other).

One small part of the strategy game I tried commenting on in this thread was the communication factor and the importance of the perceived culture (which is way more important than the truth) of the group. Truth makes you feel good when you're going to sleep or dying. Perception makes everything else happen. I kind of always like the quote, "The perception of legitimacy is far more important than legitimacy itself."

Originally Posted by Pa. Patriot

As headcase pointed out. These types of comments are not very helpful at all without more specifics.

One approach to discourse is to keep everything in the generic. Often this opens up the floor to more discussion based on less accountability. The "specifics" of who and what were easily inferred. If they weren't then, I think I've fixed that.

Originally Posted by danp

My official stance on this has always been: As long as you do not claim to represent or speak for PAFOA, you're welcome to identify yourself as a user of our discussion forum. It's just very important that it be clear that you are in no way officially affiliated with us. We have had very bad experiences with this in the past where reporters got confused and associated us with some very, very stupid public statements.
<...>

PAFOA's interest is not in each individual battle but in the overall metaphorical "war", that is why umbrella organizations exist, to focus on the long term. If you blow everything on each battle, you might not notice until it's too late that you've set yourself up to lose in the long run.

I would however implore everyone to realize that just because I make decisions I think are right, doesn't mean I like or take joy from them.

This is great. Underlined and bold are what I consider "leadership remarks". Kudos.

As mentioned in the opening of your response, I too attempted to highlight the importance of the "non-affiliation" factor. I commented on that issue from two perspectives. One, the objective (looking out for the organizational goals without my opinions). Two, the subjective (looking out for my personally desired ROI on engaging the PAFOA).

-=-=-=-=-=-=-


So in summation, this topic of discussion has actually been fantastic. This is probably the most heated discussion, which has contained such a vast myriad of points and counterpoints, that hasn't resulted in total failure & worthlessness of the contained discourse. I've really appreciated everyone's inputs and comments. I think we all deserve a pretty big pat on the back for that. Try going over to LS1.com's forum and telling them you think the LSx engines are crap compared to the Hemis or that they should trade their V8s for 4bangers because of global warming, 15 people will be banned in the 15 seconds after you hit the 'submit' button just for the nasty replies you'll get. So, I'd say we're doing pretty good here.

Happy Discourse... :P

[shefearsnothing]

SO, there were a LOT of pictures taken of me at the hearing. We were there early and waiting around before going in to check our firearms. When I came off the elevator after the hearing there were cameras snapping pictures left and right. Of course there are pictures. Now, the one for the LDN, yes. My daughter and I did go to the field for that one. AGAIN, I went with the advice of my ATTORNEY. Considering how much was being paid for his services I think it would have been a bit insulting to not go with his advice.

[ScaredOnce]

Originally Posted by shefearsnothing

SO, there were a LOT of pictures taken of me at the hearing. We were there early and waiting around before going in to check our firearms. When I came off the elevator after the hearing there were cameras snapping pictures left and right. Of course there are pictures. Now, the one for the LDN, yes. My daughter and I did go to the field for that one. AGAIN, I went with the advice of my ATTORNEY. Considering how much was being paid for his services I think it would have been a bit insulting to not go with his advice.

As expected, decent deflections and justifications.

I suppose that if you're inferring that substantial funds were paid for legal counsel, who advised you to pose for the media, then you may have paid too much. If you were struck by a tuna boat which was killing dolphins, I'd even recommend going the media route. But you weren't. In the grand scheme of things, you got hassled for a controversial, albeit legal, activity. So, going the publicity route, regardless of your non-success by my rubric of public communication skills, may not have served the good of the many.

Strangely, I can't wait for the next such incident to take place. Then, maybe we can bury this event, before it does more harm overall, for the chance that the next such event may pan out better.

[shefearsnothing]

He did not advise me to "pose for the media". You're twisting my words. No sense in talking to you. You have made up your mind. Any discussion with you will just fuel your argument.

[ScaredOnce]

Originally Posted by shefearsnothing

He did not advise me to "pose for the media". You're twisting my words. No sense in talking to you. You have made up your mind. Any discussion with you will just fuel your argument.

Those who duck and run, or cry foul, when confronted with intelligent discourse deserve neither duck nor fowl.