OC Event Crash-and-Burn

[scruff]

You know, the admin of the site could have had the round ones to infract and pull the inflammatory posts. If it was mine, I would have told them to chill out and act like an adult, and if they dont like the movie at that theatre, head to the next one.

If it still continued, well, they can take their ball home and play with themselves in whatever progressive way they wish.

It's not her fight, and I can't blame her for not wanting to be in the middle of it.

But on the bright side- Yesterday I emailed a heads-up to the recreation dept. head so there wouldn't be any misunderstandings, copied the sheriff, and left my phone # in case they had any comments or concerns. Today, I followed up on the phone, and spoke with the park's facilities manager. She was very friendly and welcoming, and had already passed my heads-up on to her staff. No issues. I then got a call from Sheriff George David; we spoke for 10 minutes or so. His dept. patrols the parks in Beaver County. His attitude was "sounds great, have a good time!". But more than that, he gave me his cell phone # and said to call if we had any issues. Very cool! I'll post this in a new Beaver County thread.

[scruff]

Here's what I posted on the hiking web site after the hike today. No doubt, I am now evil incarnate, as I refuse to beg for forgiveness.

Follow-up: We had a beautiful hike today. Sunny but chilly at the start, we warmed up quickly on the first hill up to the razorback. One hiker brought his three kids, who had a great time with the huge selection of sticks along the trail. He and his kids split away to make a short loop, and we saw them again at the playground at the other end of the park. The creek crossing was challenging, as the foot bridge had been destroyed weeks before by high water; we improvised our own crossings.

But come on, openly hiking with guns? Isn’t that a disaster in the making? An affront to civility? In a phone call to me, Beaver County Sheriff George David wished us well, and he gave me his personal cell phone number in case we had any problems during the hike. The park’s facilities manager was friendly and welcoming – she had no concerns or conditions. At the start, a police officer drove past, giving us a nod. We had many friendly encounters along the way: a trail runner, a mountain biker, hikers, people walking dogs, a mother and daughter playing where we forded the creek - no alarm, no hysteria.

So what was the purpose of this hike that some group members found so profoundly objectionable?

Freedom of speech is a fundamental right, and is not dependent on the permission or approval of others. But what about the Second Amendment? “The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” To bear arms – bear means to carry. Is this right merely theoretical, so frowned upon by society that none would dare practice it? Or can a free people actually go out and practice a fundamental right? A right that’s merely theoretical is no right at all.

And there’s the purpose of the hike. Unlike the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street, we weren’t there to demonstrate, or protest, or persuade. We were there for the personal experience - to affirm to ourselves that the right to keep and bear arms is real, not theoretical. And that’s what happened on this fun, safe, exhilarating hike. Isn’t that the essence of hiking – to set off on foot for a great experience?

To those who were so vocal against this hike: I didn’t argue with you while you were flaming the event listing, and I’m not going to argue with you now. I didn’t try to change anyone’s mind, and I’m not going to try here. I didn’t ask for anyone’s endorsement. I just posted a very unusual event for those who might want to come. I hope to come up with more unusual hike ideas in the future (hopefully not so controversial!) and you’re all free to come. Or not. It’s a free country, isn’t it?

[glock19girl]

Here's what I posted on the hiking web site after the hike today. No doubt, I am now evil incarnate, as I refuse to beg for forgiveness.

well that was another well worded post. ill have to join the next hike.

[theshadow]

In that case it should be sold off and operated as a private club. (I had edited my previous comment to suggest this, possibly after you'd read it.) I don't think the state (and the Game Commission is an arm of the state) should be operating a members-only hunting club.

You know this one has been bugging me all weekend, and I think MAYBE this will explain it to you. I feel I, and every hunter DO pay annual dues to belong to a rather public hunting club. Almost anyone can join, Fees start as low as $20 for a basic hunting license, most of us spend more when you add in things like black powder, archery, migratory birds, doe stamps, second season turkey..... yet while we pay for our membership, the entire state benefits from those proceeds. Not only do we have the Game Lands that everyone is permitted to use (but please follow the rules) but also conservation and game management efforts.

SO here we have people who are not members of the club who take advantage of the benefits, and want to dictate how the club operates, and who should be allowed and when, on the club's land. These people also are the ones violating club rules and get angry when called on it. Wouldn't that make most clubs revisit the idea of being open to the public?

Now yes, this is over simplification, but it's the only way I think you could understand our frustration. In some cases the Game lands are the only undeveloped 'wild' properties in a township, maybe even the county, and I think all kids need exposure to that type environment.

[theshadow]

Here's what I posted on the hiking web site after the hike today. No doubt, I am now evil incarnate, as I refuse to beg for forgiveness.

HEY this is great congrats on a great post and successful completion of your hike. I doubt your detractors will see it this way, but maybe you've opened the eyes of some fence sitters.

[twency]

... yet while we pay for our membership, the entire state benefits from those proceeds...

(I'm quoting just a little part not to belittle the whole of what you said, but to be brief and clear about what I'm responding too first.)

The comment I quoted could also be said of the state liquor store system. Anyone (of age) is free to buy the product they offer, but not all want to or do. Nonetheless the entire state benefits from the proceeds, not just those who want to buy booze. I also think the state should get out of the alcohol business, despite whatever benefits there are to the general populace under the current system.

More generally, I don't think the state should be operating clubs and businesses for a subset of the population when there are private options available (or that might be available if the state wasn't directly competing with them).

I'm non-libertarian enough to accept state-operated parks which are freely open to all, which is why I'm willing to accept the Game Lands system as it stands now as essentially another class of public park.

(I know that not all other states' parks are free. I lived in Virginia for a while and it drove me crazy to pay just to enter a state park. Similarly with national parks.)

I encouraged this tangent by calling out the earlier comments about gamelands users , and I apologize for distracting from the original poster's points. If you would like respond to what I said I'll try to give you the last word here and then if you'd like it might be appropriate to move our discussion of gamelands to a more appropriate forum. Thanks for letting me say my piece.

[scruff]

HEY this is great congrats on a great post and successful completion of your hike. I doubt your detractors will see it this way, but maybe you've opened the eyes of some fence sitters.

Thanks. It felt good. By not backing down and not stooping to their level, everybody saw what intolerant, loud-mouth bullies they are.

One interesting observation - when I first listed the event, seven people posted favorable comments. They saw something they liked, and weren't afraid to comment in public, until three people started flame-bombing the event. There were no favorable comments after that, only private emails to me.

So let me ask - how is carrying a gun for self defense any different than being gay 30 years ago? Some people think you're an abomination, some people don't like what you do but won't cause a fuss as long as you stay hidden, a majority of people think what you're doing is OK but won't say so in public, and the group members are afraid to come out of the closet because they don't want to be discriminated against. Tell me - how is that any different?

Looking back on it, my event listing caught those seven people off guard. For a moment, they forgot that they were supposed to be in the closet. I'm coming to realize that OC sends a message that "I don't care what you think; I'm not ashamed and I'm not going to hide in the dark!"

[Emptymag]

I wasn't apprehensive, so much as just unsure what would happen. I don't think you're stereotype fits the group; it's a pretty good cross section. Twice as many people posted favorable comments, but the anti's were rabid. Isn't that always the way, with the "tolerant" left? "How dare you hold views WE don't approve of?"

Yep. And you were spot-on above in regards to people not speaking up.
Much like this forum in general. You'll see all sorts of loud, obnoxious members who post opinions in such quantity that you'd think they were "right" because very little dissenting opinion is posted in response, but behind the scenes are a hundred other decent people who have something to say about it, but don't - they just don't want the hassle.

Loud people who talk a lot are "in the wrong" a lot more than they think.
(says the man with a gazillion posts on this forum! LOL!)



Good job with all of this - unfortunately, this is the first I had heard about any of it.

[Emptymag]

Oh, and can we knock it off with the off-topic discussion over who pays what and owns how much of the parks and why my money shouldn't be used for this and that, and the taxes, and game commission, and whatever else is being discussed that has nothing to do with a hike in the park...


Thanks a bunch.
The staff

[PhilB]

So let me ask - how is carrying a gun for self defense any different than being gay 30 years ago?

Well, for starters, you're much less likely to get beat up if you're carrying a gun.

I do agree with your point. People generally wish to be left alone if they are engaged in peaceful activities that are no business of the population as a whole. The trouble starts when some members of that population feel compelled to impose their values on others, but that applies to both sides of an arguement.

I think your idea for an open carry hike was a good one and the way you went about it, in a non-confrontational manner, was commendable.

--Phil