Understanding the "Incident"

[Ten*K]

I have drudged through the pages and pages of info, and soundly support the attending members and their advocacy of my rights (with the exception of eating at such an awful restaurant), and discussed the situation with my wife.

She understood the idea behind the meet, but quickly pointed out a concern.

She said, "What if it had been a bunch of minorities coming into a place with all kinds of guns?"

I said, "Well, that's... umm... thats... I can't even imagine."

I thought... 'Well, as a person of above average intelligence, I would be able to tell if the hypothetical "minorities" were a threat, and would act accordingly (finish ordering my meal or flip the table over and draw), regardless of the ethnicity of an armed patron.'

And my wife said, "yeah, but you're YOU. Other people aren't"

And I had an epiphany.

It is: The lay citizen is so worried about every little thing that hey don't have time to understand the fineries of law, nor the facts of a situation. The overwhelming majority of citizens are nothing more than sheep, and cannot be expected to act as more than what they are.

And then, I realized... far too many people are below our("our" as in legal, gun owning citizens cognizant of a right and need to bear arms) intelligence level, and are either genuinely ignorant of the law, or are willfully against the perceived "demon" that is the firearm.

It's at this point that I seriously question the legitimacy of allowing these sheople the right to choose anything for me. Am I wrong?

[Carnes]

I don't think you are wrong at all.

When I read Robert Heinlein's,"Starship Troopers," I was impressed by the system they used to influence voting. It was basically that any Citizen could vote, but in order for a person to become a Citizen, they had to volunteer for military service.

The idea was that, only after a person actually had to make personal sacrifices and serve as a part of something bigger than his/herself, would that person be able to appreciate the importance, gravity and obligations involved in casting a vote with honor and integrity.

I would like to see something similar, however I would not limit it to military service. I think that there could be a list of 'Public Service' type jobs that any person could volunteer for after high school and after two(maybe four) years of honorable service, the person then earns citizenship and the privileges associated with it.

[docwatson223]

I think you bring to mind another issue about who owns guns and who is considered a 'responsible gun owner' by our society.

Historically gun control has been used to control minorities and what would be the reaction if a bunch of minority gun owners came into a restaurant carrying in the open?

Would this and other boards be so vociferous in its' denunciation of police and their tactics? (Being armed and brown/black is a short way to get shot today.) :/

Frankly, I always thought that this was topic that so-called 'leaders' in the minority community should have tackled a long, long time ago. I'd love to see Al Sharpton talking about his people's right to defend themselves in areas where the po-po don't roll except in force.

[elston32]

She understood the idea behind the meet, but quickly pointed out a concern.

She said, "What if it had been a bunch of minorities coming into a place with all kinds of guns?"

I said, "Well, that's... umm... thats... I can't even imagine."

I thought... 'Well, as a person of above average intelligence, I would be able to tell if the hypothetical "minorities" were a threat, and would act accordingly (finish ordering my meal or flip the table over and draw), regardless of the ethnicity of an armed patron.'

What if...???

The hypothetical situation your wife posits evokes several questions which, I believe, should be thougthfully considered.

Firstly, how does the public at large react a group of openly armed adults and their families entering a public venue to engage in lawful activities? Do those reactions vary according to the racial/ethnic make up of the armed adults? Should it differ? If so, why?

Secondly, why is it unimaginable that a group of openly armed adults and their families entering a public venue to engage in lawful activities could be member of one or another racial/ethnic minority? Should it be unimaginable? If not, why?

Finally, allow me make the assumption that persons of above average intelligence are normally distributed among all professions, including law enforcement. Why are law enforcement officials given the "benefit of the doubt" when approaching racial/ethnic minorities engaging in lawful activities; yet the same law enforcement officials are accused of "abuse of authority" or "official oppression" when engaging persons of the racial/ethnic majority? What endows a legally-armed lay citizenry with more insight than professionally trained law enforcement officers as to which group of openly armed adults is or is not a threat to public safety and law & order?

If anyone out there has the time and energy, ponder these issues, come up with some thoughtful answers, and share your thoughts.

I have my own answers to the above questions. Please share yours.

Somehow, I am sure that there will be a multiplicity of differing opinions.

Stay well.


---elston

[SigP250]

how does the public at large react a group of openly armed adults and their families entering a public venue to engage in lawful activities?

As we have seen with the PA.Patriot accident they call the cops. Should they? not at all, there was no illegal activity or incumbent threat to the patrons/customer of the joint.

Do those reactions vary according to the racial/ethnic make up of the armed adults?

You betcha...like LEOs behavior...If a group of whiteys at the restaurant sees a group of -insert race here- coming in OCing I can bet you that some of them will call the police in a heartbeat...I can almost guarantee that the phone call would not be just "bunch of men with guns" but a non-existing imminent threat. And you would have 80 cops,a SWAT team and half the country news van outside the restaurant.

Should it differ?

Absolutely Not. The color of the skin/ethnicity should not be taken in consideration, only the action. I can care less if you're Black, Pink, Green of Fuscia with Orange polka dots...as long as you are not doing anything illegal I'll go my way you go yours...

why is it unimaginable that a group of openly armed adults and their families entering a public venue to engage in lawful activities could be member of one or another racial/ethnic minority?

Because a vast majority of people have a contorted view of reality created by the news and all the crap that has been fed to us by Hollywood...If someone other than a white carry a guns the general idea is to scream gang banger...

Should it be unimaginable? If not, why?

No...simply because the rights do not change based on your race...nor do they change based on your country of origin (as long as you are a legal Alien).

I don't commnent on the last bit...that calls for a topic of it's own....

[Posit]

Glad to hear someone had an epiphany... still waiting for mine (chuckle).

Without addressing a particular incident, I believe the following are blanket statements which most of us fail to regularly consider... IMHO, of course.

- The laws in question are man made, and can be changed by men (and women, of course). There is no law of nature which says we have a right to keep and bear.
- Those with the authority to change laws (our duly elected representatives) are driven first by personal interest, second by political interest. The interests of those who elect them are, for the most part, a matter of concern only to the extent they affect the first two.
- It is a function of human nature that we are most concerned with that which affects us personally, and the way in which it affects us... or the way in which we perceive its effect. Thus, most of us are greatly concerned with gas prices, but far less concerned about the price of petroleum based asphalt.

E.g., the soccer mom who's husband owns no guns hears about a psychotic shooting up a school or mall, and is instantly opposed to guns because she relates to other mothers but sees no benefit to gun ownership. If feeding her family depended on her husband hunting for meat, her perspective would be completely different.

Perception is usually more operative than fact. A group of minority folks with firearms entering a restaurant would be perceived as a greater threat than a similar group of whites... but the group of whites would also be perceived as a threat, albeit to a slightly lesser degree. The soccer mom's response will be the same either way: "There's no need for that, its potentially dangerous, I don't like it, let's ban them (guns)". The fact that both groups are acting legally is only relevant when the police arrive; the longer term impact is some number of citizens who feel (to some degree) threatened and may support gun control.

Its counterproductive for us pro gun folk to antagonize the general populace. We don't need to hide, but we certainly don't need to flaunt or call attention in a way which makes the soccer mom uncomfortable.

[Philadelphia]

I have drudged through the pages and pages of info, and soundly support the attending members and their advocacy of my rights (with the exception of eating at such an awful restaurant), and discussed the situation with my wife.

She understood the idea behind the meet, but quickly pointed out a concern.

She said, "What if it had been a bunch of minorities coming into a place with all kinds of guns?"

I said, "Well, that's... umm... thats... I can't even imagine."

I thought... 'Well, as a person of above average intelligence, I would be able to tell if the hypothetical "minorities" were a threat, and would act accordingly (finish ordering my meal or flip the table over and draw), regardless of the ethnicity of an armed patron.'

And my wife said, "yeah, but you're YOU. Other people aren't"

And I had an epiphany.

It is: The lay citizen is so worried about every little thing that hey don't have time to understand the fineries of law, nor the facts of a situation. The overwhelming majority of citizens are nothing more than sheep, and cannot be expected to act as more than what they are.

And then, I realized... far too many people are below our("our" as in legal, gun owning citizens cognizant of a right and need to bear arms) intelligence level, and are either genuinely ignorant of the law, or are willfully against the perceived "demon" that is the firearm.

It's at this point that I seriously question the legitimacy of allowing these sheople the right to choose anything for me. Am I wrong?

If you truely believe in your right to OC, then you should support the rights of a bunch of guys (minority or not; I'm not sure what that has to do with anything unless you're a racist -- I'm not saying you are, just wondering out loud what difference that makes) dressed like gangbangers with holstered pistols strapped on their hips, singing the latest popular rap tune about robbing and killing (exercising their first amendment rights as well).

The point here is that a group of people were enjoying dinner doing nothing illegal but their appearance frightened others and the police felt compelled to do something about it. Get the pattern? Unless the hypothetical group you and your wife were discussing were doing something illegal, you should very carefully consider what you'd want the gov't to do about it.

The point you actually make is that you can't tell if someone is a threat until they threaten you. You can keep an eye on them, sure, or even leave if you think that's appropriate risk management; I'm not saying ignore the reality of whatever situation you are in (of course), but the moment you decide in your mind that someone is threatening who has not threatened you, you are doing exactly the same thing the sheeple did at OCB when they complained to the manager who then called the cops, and exactly the same thing the cops did when they hassled a group of people who were, in fact, fully obeying the law.

If the cops arrived at OCB and did nothing other than sit down, have a cup of coffee, and observe, even interact a bit with, Rich and the group, they would have done far better police work than just hassling them and leaving. What if the group really was dangerous as the cops initially assumed based on the job call? The cops did their harrassment routine and left, obviously concluding that there was, in fact, no danger. What was the point of the harrassment routine? They could have just hung out, had a little dinner themselves, listening to their radios for other calls while just keeping an eye on the group (you don't have a right to not be observed by the police when you eat dinner in a public place -- and the group could have even invited to cops to sit right at the same table and talk about OC and what was up -- could have been a very cool community relations opportunity for the cops).

Obviously we all know that what could have happened instead is cops could have arrived, observed a group of people open carrying, well open carry is legal, and noting that for their report, leave. What they did instead was arrive, hassle a group they thought they could get away with hassling in order to satisfy the sheeple, and leave. Whether the guys with guns were dangerous or not the cops left without accomplishing anything, and whether the guys with gun were dangerous or not the ultimate outcome would have been the same after the cops left.

[The Drew]

I don't think you are wrong at all.

When I read Robert Heinlein's,"Starship Troopers," I was impressed by the system they used to influence voting. It was basically that any Citizen could vote, but in order for a person to become a Citizen, they had to volunteer for military service.

The idea was that, only after a person actually had to make personal sacrifices and serve as a part of something bigger than his/herself, would that person be able to appreciate the importance, gravity and obligations involved in casting a vote with honor and integrity.

I would like to see something similar, however I would not limit it to military service. I think that there could be a list of 'Public Service' type jobs that any person could volunteer for after high school and after two(maybe four) years of honorable service, the person then earns citizenship and the privileges associated with it.

Keep in mind that the system in that book came into being after the "crazy years" which were vaguely the end of the 20th century beginning of the 21st, when the "veterans" came back from war and established said system. It is amazing just how prophetic RAH was at times...

[Philadelphia]

We don't need to hide, but we certainly don't need to flaunt or call attention in a way which makes the soccer mom uncomfortable.

I don't think there is a way to not hide but not flaunt. OC a gun is like the old saw of there's no "a little bit pregnant." If the gun is at all visible, soccer mom says to her self "OMG a GUN!" and has her kiniption.

There is no doubt in my mind that where we've arrived is where people who are so inclined to be, in essence, civil rights leaders are going to have to OC, get hassled, and fight it in court, over and over and over.

As the OCB incident amply demonstrates, we have, in fact, lost the right to OC. I can prove that by just referring to what happened. Sure, you have the right to OC, as long as you don't mind the risk of having the gov't hassle you as much as it possibly can when you do. Is that how you think rights are supposed to work?

[pex]

It is: The lay citizen is so worried about every little thing that hey don't have time to understand the fineries of law, nor the facts of a situation. The overwhelming majority of citizens are nothing more than sheep, and cannot be expected to act as more than what they are.

And then, I realized... far too many people are below our("our" as in legal, gun owning citizens cognizant of a right and need to bear arms) intelligence level, and are either genuinely ignorant of the law, or are willfully against the perceived "demon" that is the firearm.

It's at this point that I seriously question the legitimacy of allowing these sheople the right to choose anything for me. Am I wrong?

Didn't someone suggest the self-evidence of natural rights...and was this intended to come to an average adult after education by the state (much more near the time of inception of our nation, or of our Constitution, perhaps) or to all humans? What is so powerful that we (or, the subgroup of persons who willfully vote in representatives who) turn away that which is self-evident to us and instead subserve to that?