Soccer parents wince at prospect of guns at games

[ScaredOnce]

Originally Posted by NineseveN

I think you may agree that it is a little premature to try and assess the gains and losses from SFN's issue here, at least it is in my opinion. Nothing that we can accurately track has changed, and nothing of any measurable substance has actually occurred save for the return or SFN's permit. It's going to take longer than a few weeks to really see how this all plays out, and there really are no absolute givens in this game, at least not at this level. Maybe you'd disagree, I don't know, but you seem to be pretty rational and I think you make some good points about the what, I just don't know that this impact you perceive is valid or even measurable at this time.

In fact, I do agree. I truly hope to be held fully wrong in my predictions. That would be best for the overall support of the pro-2A crowd.

Hopefully, my predicted impacts are not valid and will be measured as such. I cannot disagree with a single point you've sustained above. Kudos.

[Asmodeus6]

Originally Posted by ScaredOnce

In regards to the highlighted above, I did in fact take this stance among no others. I feel this is important. The owner of this site, danp, also took this position. Perception is often far more important than fact when trying to further a cause.

Maybe what I've seen out of 'the last 20 pages' of this discussion is that we need to have more threads and debates on the appropriate ways to deal with media attention. So we may all be more familiar with what is the best approach for furthering our pro-2A causes. I'd be appalled to consider such guidance as "diversionary"; quite the contrary, I find it paramount.

Maybe my implied meaning was unlcear. Not that understanding how to deal with media is not of issue. But that its being stated repeatedly with that in the same sentence to soften the attacks blow - when I think it reached a point where the were indeed just plain attacks.

I'm not exactly on or off a fence with this issue. I support SFN completely. But I am not close minded to the opposing arguments about discretion, and trying to be mindful of public perception.

If there is a way to turn all this negativity into a positive, by all means lead the way. If all this hashing things out and fighting turns into a "how to protect your gun rights, and OUR public image" hand book. I'll certainly read it. But I still think people are losing sight of supporting their own - even if they may not be doing it YOUR way, type thing.

I find your posts to be more on the moderate scale, more in the agree to disagree category. And you seem to be bright and up to date on the subject. I'm not here to argue who's right, just basically to blow the whistle and say TIME OUT. Before friendships are damaged and more harm than good comes of this situation.

[NineseveN]

Originally Posted by mikey

Little did I know, when I originally posted the above, that it was such good advice.

Well, yeah, in general that is good advice, but CQB isn't some random troll, he's really never came across to me as he has in this thread, and I can't really figure out why. He's always seemed like a good guy that had a lot of good things to say. Ignoring hi would be good advice, except that he's one of our own here, so this is more of an intervention, for lack of a better term anyway. I respect his right to have his opinions, but as I keep saying, the delivery really bothers me here and it just seems so out of character, but maybe I missed something along the way.

[XRAY Joe]

I am not going to get into the OC debate due to 2 past warnings. God forbid I get banned.

1. Anyway did SFN OC at any games since she got her LTCF back?

2. I love to read the posts that "If someone tries to disarm me they will get shot" Now that is not the exact quote but it was what was implied. Now if a group of dads stands in an OC'ers way and refuses to allow them near the playing field, or shoves the OC'er, they will be shot? I don't think some dad will try to disarm anyone but I can see them making a stand. I am curious as to see what would happen. I think when you OC everything should be "yes sir, no sir". Any aggressive move with a gun, CC but especially OC would be very bad.

3. I think the League is figuring out what they are going to do for the future. I stated before a Judge told me as the authorized users of the borough (public) fields we were authorized to ban anyone for any reason we saw fit from the field of play. In this case it was outside of earshot. A parent watched the entire season from a parking lot 400 feet away. We were instructed to call the police and a trespassing charge would result. Of course when there was no practice or games the person was free to use the "public" property. My guess is they will put in a no firearms policy which I guess they can. That means no CC either. Maybe PA Patriot and gbrotz can comment on that. Better take up another collection because if they do that, it is back to court.

4. I hate soccer and always did. Kids should play an American game.

5. I have no problem with OC, I just think someplaces people do it is pretty stupid. Also most people see what SFN did as grandstanding. "Hey, look at me" attitude. I don't see it that way but open your eyes, most people do. Do a poll of the members here and most might feel that way. I don't know how to do a poll or I would. Of course everyone could only vote once to keep it fair.

[NineseveN]

Originally Posted by ScaredOnce

In fact, I do agree. I truly hope to be held fully wrong in my predictions. That would be best for the overall support of the pro-2A crowd.

Hopefully, my predicted impacts are not valid and will be measured as such. I cannot disagree with a single point you've sustained above. Kudos.

No offense, but I hope you're wrong too.

[mjfletcher]

In regards to how things were handled with the media, with the name PAFOA has made for itself in the state its a safe assumption that, anytime anyone in the state is involved in a gun rights issue of any sort, the press will be looking here to see if they're a member. That being the case, I find it rather disingenuous to be speaking, after the fact, about how the media contacts were handled badly when there was no effort on the part of those who are making that complaint to handle it better while it was happening.

There is a press release forum here, but no press release was issued stating PAFOAs position, intentions, etc on the subject. Such a press release would have not only served PAFOA as an organization through written clarification to the press, but would have provided guidance to SFN and her attorney dealing with the media.
When SFN made the first post stating she'd been contacted by the media, where were the posts advising her and providing guidance on how to handle those contacts?

Coming along after the fact and telling someone they handled it badly is a waste of time unless advice and guidance on how to handle it were provided beforehand. If there is an honest concern about how media contacts are handled, then PAFOA needs to be proactive in handling it in the future. The next time an issue arises involving a member, PAFOA has to make a choice to either be proactive in handling media by issuing a press release and directly contacting the involved party, or to once again do nothing and then play the monday morning armchair quarterback again.

Lack of action in regard to media contacts resulted in said contacts being handled less than ideally. Consider this a learning experience so that the next incident can be handled better.

[normanvin]

Originally Posted by XRAY Joe

3. I stated before a Judge told me as the authorized users of the borough (public) fields we were authorized to ban anyone for any reason we saw fit from the field of play. In this case it was outside of earshot.

It sounds like the judge might have given his opinion on the matter. Did he cite any laws or court cases to back this up.

Originally Posted by XRAY Joe

4. I hate soccer and always did. Kids should play an American game.

I am not a big fan myself. To each their own.

[ScaredOnce]

Originally Posted by mjfletcher

Consider this a learning experience so that the next incident can be handled better.

I couldn't agree with you more.

[normanvin]

Originally Posted by mjfletcher

In regards to how things were handled with the media, with the name PAFOA has made for itself in the state its a safe assumption that, anytime anyone in the state is involved in a gun rights issue of any sort, the press will be looking here to see if they're a member. That being the case, I find it rather disingenuous to be speaking, after the fact, about how the media contacts were handled badly when there was no effort on the part of those who are making that complaint to handle it better while it was happening.

There is a press release forum here, but no press release was issued stating PAFOAs position, intentions, etc on the subject. Such a press release would have not only served PAFOA as an organization through written clarification to the press, but would have provided guidance to SFN and her attorney dealing with the media.
When SFN made the first post stating she'd been contacted by the media, where were the posts advising her and providing guidance on how to handle those contacts?

Coming along after the fact and telling someone they handled it badly is a waste of time unless advice and guidance on how to handle it were provided beforehand. If there is an honest concern about how media contacts are handled, then PAFOA needs to be proactive in handling it in the future. The next time an issue arises involving a member, PAFOA has to make a choice to either be proactive in handling media by issuing a press release and directly contacting the involved party, or to once again do nothing and then play the monday morning armchair quarterback again.

Lack of action in regard to media contacts resulted in said contacts being handled less than ideally. Consider this a learning experience so that the next incident can be handled better.

I have to agree.

[headcase]

Originally Posted by mjfletcher

In regards to how things were handled with the media, with the name PAFOA has made for itself in the state its a safe assumption that, anytime anyone in the state is involved in a gun rights issue of any sort, the press will be looking here to see if they're a member. That being the case, I find it rather disingenuous to be speaking, after the fact, about how the media contacts were handled badly when there was no effort on the part of those who are making that complaint to handle it better while it was happening.

There is a press release forum here, but no press release was issued stating PAFOAs position, intentions, etc on the subject. Such a press release would have not only served PAFOA as an organization through written clarification to the press, but would have provided guidance to SFN and her attorney dealing with the media.
When SFN made the first post stating she'd been contacted by the media, where were the posts advising her and providing guidance on how to handle those contacts?

Coming along after the fact and telling someone they handled it badly is a waste of time unless advice and guidance on how to handle it were provided beforehand. If there is an honest concern about how media contacts are handled, then PAFOA needs to be proactive in handling it in the future. The next time an issue arises involving a member, PAFOA has to make a choice to either be proactive in handling media by issuing a press release and directly contacting the involved party, or to once again do nothing and then play the monday morning armchair quarterback again.

Lack of action in regard to media contacts resulted in said contacts being handled less than ideally. Consider this a learning experience so that the next incident can be handled better.

KUDOS! I have been trying to come up with a way to say that, that wouldn't ruffle too many feathers. Past press releases, mostly through OCDO, looked like they were crafted by a fourth grade class. PAFOA being prepared to respond to these sort of incidents with properly crafted press releases, would alleviate a great deal of the supposed negative impact that the actual participants giving interviews is supposed to be causing.

Very good post man.