DU Gun Enthusiasts: About All These Occupy Demonstrations....

[Paladin]

Do you think some open-carrying participants would add something positive to the events? If so, then why? And if not, why not?

Compare and contrast your feelings about all those open-carriers who were so conspicuous at the Tea Party rallies, with what's happening now.

Extra credit for honest responses, as always.

[movonne]

1. No all they do is cause problems....

[SteveM]

8. No problems when concealed; required in Texas & OccupyAustin. nt

[PavePusher]

14. Cite, please...? n/t

[MADem]

2. Hard to say--I think it would make the police nervous, to be honest.

But that would only be the case in places where open carry weapons are not commonly seen and in places where there is a great crush of people. A small gathering of a hundred, three hundred, in a rural state--no big deal. You get into the thousands, in a small area, and then the police might get hypervigilant.

In places where it is an accepted practice or a tradition, I don't think anyone would care one way or another.

The Tea Party people could never get much of a sustained crowd for their efforts, so they were not perceived as a "threat." There were few enough of them that I would imagine that the face-recognition software that no one is admitting they have these days can identify them in two shakes of a lamb's tail, and they'd know who was just a wingnut bozo with his gun, and who was a crazed criminal with a ten mile rap sheet and no business holding a gun.

DISCLAIMER: I am not a "gun enthusiast" so you can take my views from whence they come. I'm simply a person who is neither pro nor anti gun. I think guns do have their uses, but I don't circulate in environments where I have a need for one.

[SteveM]

3. In Austin, a few "wore" them openly as art. On their T-shirts. nt

[RC]

4. Hell NO!

It would just give the police an excuse the white shirts want to start shooting and/or calling in SWAT teams. You are not going to intimidate the police

Don't take your guns to town boy. Keep your fantasies at home.

[PavePusher]

15. Legally carried sidearms are not a legal excuse for police to shoot anyone. n/t

[RC]

19. And your point is?

Do you really think the NYPD care when they are already beating and macing unarmed people?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

48. I don't think conceal or open carry is legal in New York city --

The permit is very hard to get in New York city, I think.

[jeepnstein]

62. It's not hard to get.

You just have to have very deep and influential pockets, that's all. Concealed carry is for people who "rate" that kind of privilege. You know, the upper 1%?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

63. ok. . . but, wouldn't that by definition make it prohibitively hard to get --

if 99% of us can not afford it ... that is very exclusive and not very democratic at all, imo. :shrug:

[jeepnstein]

64. That's the point.

They're not so much against concealed carry and gun ownership as they are the 99% being armed. It's all a very quaint notion I suppose. Almost as if the wealthy are somehow more valuable to society. And of course we should be grateful that they're sitting on huge piles of cash and letting workers slowly go broke. They don't have any incentive to invest, no matter what lies they tell.

[saras]

5. It would only work if the vast majority did it.

[SteveM]

20. Now THAT would be interesting...

My feeling is if one had an Occupy_______ demonstration in a state which allowed open-carry, and a significant number of folks showed up with guns, a trend might start. "Hmmm, I thought this was a bunch of right-wing kooks, but those guys look like hippies, punkers, lotsa tattoos......"

[iverglas]

28. and yet

My feeling is if one had an Occupy_______ demonstration in a state which allowed open-carry, and a significant number of folks showed up with guns, ...

... they haven't. And they've had every opportunity to, it would seem ...


a trend might start. "Hmmm, I thought this was a bunch of right-wing kooks, but those guys look like hippies, punkers, lotsa tattoos......"

Not quite following you there. Hippies etc. would be showing up with guns? And someone is supposed to believe this?

Or the right-wing kooks would be showing up dressed as hippies etc.?

Scratch my head.

[SteveM]

30. Scratch away; lice happen. Try a little humor. My God! It's almost 4:20!

:hippie: :smoke: :silly:

[Scuba]

6. I've not heard of any crimes against property at OWS so NO !!!

[cornflake_31]

7. I would say no.

As a long time gun owner myself, I would never dream of taking a gun to a protest or political rally. Doesn't make a lick of sense. Its gonna make security nervous at rallies and the police jumpy at protests and in the end make the whole event counterproductive.

My father and grandfather always taught me that guns are for hunting and self defense. Its not a toy and why handle it unless you plan to use it?
I've always figured that the people who do this are just overcompensating. What point are you trying to make? That you are ready to shoot something? The second amendment is here to stay regardless of what the NRA says. Get over it.

[gejohnston]

9. No for a couple of reasons

When I saw the Tea Party people doing it, two things came to my mind:
Self full-filling prophecy, and history repeating itself

This is how right wing Mulford and Reagan reacted when African Americans did it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulford_Act

Most importantly:to the best of my knowledge, it is illegal in the jurisdictions many of these demonstrations to open carry. Besides, since NYPD was unprovoked macing unarmed people what do you think they would do with the armed?

[aikoaiko]

10. Yes, it would confuse the hell out of tea bagger and the media who like to stereotype

Of course, anyone on the left who carried openly at an "occupation" would have to be very careful to be within the bounds of the law and not be provoked easily into making a mistake. Which is why the two tea baggers carrying at rallies were not hassled.

A hippie with lawfully carried gun with a "by any means necessary" sign would get some attention.

[mmb713]

11. No

Open carry never brings positives, it only makes everyone nervous. IMO it also makes the carrier look like a nut job, totally discrediting his message. Also, in a crowd a gun is totally useless as a means of self defense, unless you are a psychopath that doesn't care about innocent bystanders.

[rrneck]

12. No. The GOP owns the symbol. It would only be divisive for us. nt

[PavePusher]

17. Why let them continue to "own the symbol"?

Fuck that noise, take it back.

[rrneck]

35. I'm all for taking it back

but right now is not the time. We need to pull together and get more of the gun owning electorate back with economic justice. Making a stink among our own ranks will just hamper the effort.

We may be in for a shit load of labor riots in the future anyway. If that's the case it'll come back on its own.

[era veteran]

58. My answer would be ; Not Yet

The power should worry about when it should turn to yes yet.
That's the reason for the 2nd Amendment.

[SteveM]

31. I like the one is Austin; "Defend South Austin" seal with .38 in the middle. nt

http://www.southaustinoriginals.com/order.htm

More better stuff here.

[rl6214]

13. Would it add something positive to the events? NO

These events have nothing to do with the RKBAs. If it were a political rally that had something to do with the 2A that is the only time open carry would have an impact. I don't know the context when the Tea Party rallies were open carrying.

[PavePusher]

16. How would the lawful exercise of multiple Civil Rights at the same time....

be something to avoid?

I carry everywhere I am legally able to do so. Usually openly. Went to a Giffords event a few years ago O.C. and no-one even blinked.

Why should I change my normal routine for a rally about economic practices? Are the rest of the protestors going to become violent because of my presence?

[one-eyed fat man]

18. Isn't it a moot question?

Unless you are politically connected getting a permit to even have a gun in your house is a major deal in New York city. Anyone with enough pull to have a legal gun is unlikely to be in the crowd of protesters, he is on the 47th floor looking out the window at them.

Open carry is not legal in New York. Concealed carry is for movie stars and millionaires...and it's been that way since 1911 with the Sullivan Law.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

21. Good point, most of the demonstrations are in very repressive places like NYC and Wash DC

[Hoyt]

23. They seem to be doing fine without a gun or two. Hope they keep it up and don't act stupid.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

25. Given the repressive laws in those areas and other like CA, the demonstrators are already taking

their lives in their hands. Is Fullerton PD any worse than Pasadena, Portland, or Los Angeles?

[rl6214]

34. You don't like "a gun or two", how about three or four

You "gun or two" act is just :rofl:

[Hoyt]

37. Whine, whine, whine. Some of these folks carry two -- don't want to leave them out of discussion.

[rl6214]

43. Who's whining

I'm laughing
:rofl:

[Atypical Liberal]

52. No. These demontrations are now GLOBAL.

Here is a map of the current OWS demonstrations in North America:

http://batchgeo.com/map/dd09bbe6e582a3b1b23ce1372ef52e1d

[Paladin]

22. I Didn't Limit My Question To New York City.

So you have no basis to limit your response to NYC, either. Occupy actions are happening in virtually every state in the country---plenty of places where open carry is legal. There's nothing moot about it.....

[gejohnston]

38. still mostly in urban areas

and it would distract from the issue at hand even in Farson, Wyoming. It would also divide our side on some irrelevant culture war issue. On the other hand, pitchforks and torches would add to the theater.

[one-eyed fat man]

44. All I see on the news

Is New York, Philadelphia, DC, California and California is the only one that allows open carry at all, and then only unloaded.

Technically, open carry is legal in Philadelphia, but in practice only if you can afford to sue the city and out last them in the legal wrangling.

Hard to say what it will accomplish. After all, the best efforts of the protesters in Chicago in 1968, when it's all said and done, got them Nixon.

[iverglas]

29. then put it this way

Why aren't all the folks who love to take their guns out for walks organizing their own Occupy____ events where they are, where it's legal to do it?

I'm pretty sure this qualifies as a rhetorical question ...

[Kennah]

40. It's legal in Washington state, but I'm not an open carry fan

However, concealed or open carry, I would be inclined NOT to carry there.

Thus far, the Seattle PD hasn't been engaging in NYPD tactics--bust the heads and let Gawd sort 'em out

If they did start busting heads, having a gun on me, they would be inclined to make up bullshit like resisting arrest, threatening and intimidating, blah-blah-blah

The gun would become the story, "Look, now the OWS protestors are trying to overthrow the government!"

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

24. There are plenty of open-carry participants at these events

They're called "cops".

And no, they don't add much that's "positive".

:hi:

[jmg257]

26. I'd say no...enough tension, and enough subject matter already.

No reasson to dilute these protests, and or shift focusing the attention to guns.

[iverglas]

27. snork

That was actually my first thought/remark on seeing the teeming masses on CBC.

Where are the gun(nie)s???

(Yes, the Cdn mainstream media have been reporting on this phenomenon for some time.)

[SteveM]

32. "Where are the gun(nie)s???" At the demonstrations! See ya! nt

[gejohnston]

33. incognito

Last time gunnies did a similar thing, the plutocrats owned the cops and hired mercenaries. Today is no different.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

[Logical]

36. Open Carry is a dumb idea if CC is available. Open carry is more trouble than it is worth!

[krispos42]

39. It would probably detract from the purpose of the rally.

I can see that happening easily.


However, it might in some areas broaden the perception of people supporting the movement.


Take me, for example. Clean-shaven white guy with good teeth and other personal hygiene. Hair short and neat. No ink or piercings, wearing "regular" jeans, t-shirt, sneakers, and jacket. Husky, obviously not on a granola-and-tofu diet.

I could visually pass for a RWer. Okay, so I show up with a pistol on my hip and a sign decrying Wall Street. Maybe:

"White male gun
owners are also
part of the 99%"


Would that help to bury the divide that pushes gun-owners towards RW politicians... which also results in regressive economic policies and all the evil that implies?




What if I showed up with the sign but with an empty holster? Or with just the sign?

[Kennah]

41. MLK was armed at home, and applied for a carry license, but he never had a gun while protesting

[Oneka]

42. open carry at a rally or demonstration

is all well and good, in areas where open carry is already allowed. Bad legal juju happens to open{or concealed} carriers, if the demonstration suddenly gets upgraded to RIOT.

Being in the vicinity of a riot, even if you are not a willing participant, can get you charged with {i believe}a felony
in many jurisdictions,for carrying a gun in said riot, though i can't locate any of the applicable statutes right this minute.

[gravity556]

45. Pretty sure that unless you're rich or connected politically,

the NYPD will toss your ass in prison for having a gun so fast it'll make your head spin. Plebians are not allowed arms in Bloomberg's Domain. Unless you're rich, a political donor or a criminal. And I'll bet the crooks have the donors and rich folks outgunned 5 to 1. Hooray draconian gun laws. Because I'm sure that none of NYC's population of individuals who ignore the laws will leave those poor peaceful protesters alone and not rob them blind.

[Paladin]

46. See Post #22.

There are demonstrations going on in Texas, Idaho and Wyoming, among many other places.

[gejohnston]

54. Idaho and Wyoming too?

Cool! If I go, the Walther and the Rugers stay home. Be it in Florida or back home. See any of these folks armed?

http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/article_81e67687-fd80-5e51-b794-6b475f1f3088.html

http://kowb1290.com/occupy-wall-street-reaches-into-wyoming/

Things may be bigger in Texas, but things are always better in Wyoming.

[Paladin]

47. Kicking This Thread That I Opened A Few Days Ago......

....since open carry at public events is being talked about.

[ObamaFTW2012]

49. I stay away

from political rallies. I'd rather quietly carry my gun and go about my business than go somewhere I know I am likely to encounter confrontation.

[jmg257]

50. I think they would be a distraction - and a very dangerous one.

The teabaggers were protesting an intrusive government, and a few used firearms as manly props because their guns are what is really important to THEM.

If all we wanted was attention - we would get it by the bucket load then...protests would suddenly be not so boring.

The nature of OWS, the opinions on guns of many of those involved, the urban environments of many of the protests, the guaranteed confrontations with police, the understanding & acceptance that quite often people will be arrested, all make for a very dangerous mix when adding in civilian firearms. OWS isn't a few meat balls with guns sitting on a park bench or standing near a rural highway...they are in the cities, there are 1000s of people being controlled by hundreds of cops...cops who if smart will get even more jumpy if many of the protestors were visibly armed. The protests are getting bigger. The stakes are getting higher.

If one thinks the chancee of getting pepper-sprayed is bad, wait till you have a few dozen loaded Glocks pointed at you in the middle of a melee. I think people would get killed needlessly.

[gejohnston]

53. Glocks nothing,

I'm guessing more like MP-5 SMGs on the ground and scoped bolt actions on roof tops.

[jmg257]

57. Ture enough. nt

[Atypical Liberal]

51. NO.

I attended my first ever political protest at the Occupy Huntsville demonstration last weekend.

This is not a place for any kind of symbolic demonstration of force. That is not what this movement is about.

I don't support open carry anyway, but this is NOT THE PLACE FOR MAKING SECOND AMENDMENT STATEMENTS.

[Kennah]

55. Cops are already beating UNARMED people. What would they do to ARMED people?

[Euromutt]

56. As others have said, OCing would form a distraction

It strikes me that it's one thing to visibly carry when your protest concerns firearms law, but firearms aren't all that relevant to the OWS/99% thing, and carrying guns to such an event would just draw the news medias' attention away from the actual message. Look, we remember the Teabaggers in the summer of 2009, but does anyone remember any specific demands they had? I'm not certain that they even had any, but even if they did, that got lost in all the attention paid to the openly carried firearms.

[Hoyt]

59. I think most folks at various "Occupy" demonstrations are not that into guns. That's very good.

Truthfully, "guns in public" are old school. Guns on hips are what I would expect from the "anti-occupiers."

[ileus]

60. Trouble doesn't make an appointment..go prepared...OC isn't a form or protest.

Carrying a firearm isn't a form of protest but being prepared for instances of self defense.

[Remmah2]

61. NO

Not legal in NYC.

However in other cities, just because you can, does not mean you should. Poor taste. Bad judgement. RKBA is a personal right, not a public display option. Or as my dad use to say; "keep it in your pants." I'm 100% RKBA but out of respect and solidarity for my fellow protesters I would not openly display (or concealed carry) at an event like this.

[Paladin]

65. Interesting How Little Support There Is......

....from DU Gun Enthusiasts for open carry at OWS-style demonstrations. I remember plenty of Gun Enthusiast support for those gun-bearing Tea Baggers who turned up during the campaign, some of them in close proximity to where Obama was speaking. Am I surprised by this? Not even a little bit......

[ManiacJoe]

66. Should not be surprising.

The DU Gun Enthusiasts seem to have little enthusiasm for open carry, regardless of the situation.

The support for the gun-bearing Tea Baggers was support for them exercising their 2A rights in a legal way, not for the situation they did it in.

[Paladin]

71. If It's Not Situational......

....why isn't there more support for open carry at OWS-style gatherings? Why the support for guns at Tea Party rallies--some in close proximity to a Democratic presidential candidate--but such reluctance with regard to guns at left-oriented demonstrations? You say that 2A rights are 2A rights, correct? I think it's obviously and overwhelmingly situational, myself. And again, I'm not a damned bit surprised.....

[jmg257]

72. Now I am curious...Do you think it is a good idea? (OC at OWS protest) Why or why not?

For the record, I think its a bad idea for any protest (supposedly peaceful) to involve weapons...many a protest by their nature can assume confrontation, and purposely putting ones self into a position that greatly increases the chances of a confrontation while armed is damn near criminal.

edit explain type of protest

[Paladin]

74. I'm Against Open Carry, Period.

I'm just pointing out the differing responses I noticed in the Guns Forum, regarding open carry at right-wing rallies, vs. the possibility of open carry at left-oriented gatherings.

[jmg257]

75. Ok - thanks! nt

[ManiacJoe]

77. You missed the point I was making.

"If It's Not Situational... why isn't there more support for open carry at OWS-style gatherings?"

It is not situational because there is little/no support at DU for open carry under any circumstances. Open carry at the OWS gatherings is frowned upon just as much as it is at the Tea Party gatherings. However, open carry is legal at both events (assuming the correct jurisdictions); the DU pro-gun folks would not recommend a ban at either place.

[Euromutt]

79. Again, you're conflating two different questions

Question 1: should it be legal to openly carry firearms at a demonstration?
Question 2: will doing so be counter-productive to the objective of communicating the desired message and persuading others of its correctness?

It's perfectly possible to answer "yes" to the first question and "no" to the second while remaining consistent, because the first covers considerations of principle, while the second concerns considerations of pragmatism. What good open carry really do the Teabaggers? It got them attention, but it was only to the fact they were carrying, and in so doing, they alienated a lot of people, including ones who might have been sympathetic to their cause. For example, their antics caused immeasurable damage to the cause of the Open Carry movement, because OCing became associated in the public perception with those idiots (i.e. the Teabaggers) outside Obama's "Town Hall" meetings. As a result, people involved in the Open Carry movement prior to the summer of 2009 hold a lot of rancor towards the Tea Party types.

Hell, if anything, that's a pretty good reason for being all in favor of the Teabaggers OCing; it's hurt their image. And that's precisely why the pro-RKBA types who caution against carrying at OWS/99% events do so: it's because they don't want that movement to damage its own image.

[gejohnston]

67. You missed the important distinction

Support for their right to do so, but also saying it is not wise and distracts from the cause. Also, cops and their bosses tend to lean right of center and are basically more authoritarian than the general population. The phrase "it's OK if Republicans do it" applies to more than sex scandals. Ten tea party types show up, every network sends satellite trucks to cover it. Pundits fawn over them. Cops don't freak about white bread righties with guns.

Contrast that with how the media ignored and ridiculed much larger anti war protests and OWC. Cops see lefties, especially non white lefties, with guns, the SWAT teams show up carrying sub-machine guns and shotguns on the street and scoped bolt actions on the rooftops.

In short, your observation is accurate to a degree, but your apparent analysis of "why" is wrong.

[Euromutt]

68. Opposition to restricting freedom is not the same as support

The "support for those gun-bearing Tea Baggers" you mention consisted of arguing against the position that their behavior should be outlawed or, worse, that they should be arrested on some trumped-up charge. That is not the same as actively supporting their methods in the specific context of opposing health care reform, not to mention the sheer idiocy of implying (or stating outright) that Obama was in some manner a "tyrant" for wanting to reform health care.

You'll find, if you can bring yourself to read the thread without succumbing to cognitive bias (a tall order, I know), that none of the pro-RKBA posters have said it should be illegal for the OWS/99% protestors to carry openly; we've just opined it would be counter-productive by drawing attention away from the protests' main message. Whatever that may be this week.

[Paladin]

69. "Whatever that may be this week"?

I think you've divulged a lot more about yourself than you might have intended.....

[We_Have_A_Problem]

70. It is a legitimate question

The OWS protesters have not exactly been consistent in their message.

[Paladin]

73. And The Tea Partiers Are A Consistent Bunch, Are They?

"Cut all government programs---but don't touch my Medicare checks or farm subsidies." "Fuck the government---but this wheelchair didn't cost me a cent."

[We_Have_A_Problem]

76. Not saying they are or not

I dont pay much attention to them to tell you the truth.

On the other hand, I can't help but hear about what is going on with the OWS weenies every day.

[Euromutt]

78. What does one have to do with the other?

Whether or not the Teabaggers have a coherent message has zero bearing on whether the OWS/99% movement does. As I remarked above in post #56, whatever message the Teabaggers had in the summer of 2009 rather got lost amid the palaver about their openly carrying firearms. We could sort of tell what they were against, but does anyone remember--if they knew in the first place--what solutions the Teabaggers proposed instead? I sure as hell don't.

The OWS/99% has a legitimate grievance (and one I fully support) with a system that allowed the financial industry to pocket the profits when the going was good, and then forced the rest of us to bail them out when their fuck-ups caught up with them. And I'm as outraged as anyone that banks are once again issuing massive bonuses to their executives for no readily apparent improvement in performance. The question is "what are we going to do about it?" and that's a question to which the OWS/99% movement has no unequivocal, unanimous and realistic answer. And that being the case, the people who write these "you're either with us or against us"-style posts on blogs, discussion fora etc. do little except other than get my back up. Yes, I'm one of the 99%; no, I don't recall appointing anyone to speak for me.

Does that make my position more clear, or would like to drop some more cowardly insinuations about my political views?

[friendly_iconoclast]

80. So what? There's no 'niceness' clause in the Constitution. Even fools like the teabggers have rights

You might want to search the life of one Ernesto Arturo Miranda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernesto_Arturo_Miranda

Ya know, this is not the first time I've had to remind you lot of the universality of rights:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=181522#182329

friendly_iconoclast (1000+ posts) Sat Aug-02-08 02:04 AM
Response to Reply #129
144. Guess what? Civil rights aren't just for "our sort of people"
Edited on Sat Aug-02-08 02:04 AM by friendly_iconoclast
There is a very long history in American jurisprudence of people defending the civil rights of
people they wouldn't have over for dinner. Or who wouldn't have *them* over for dinner.

From John Adams (accused British soldiers in the Boston Massacre), to
the ACLU (Illinois Nazis vs. the city of Skokie), to Sabin Willett (prisoners at Guantanamo).

I wouldn't defend Razzano as a person. I would, however, defend his rights no matter how odious his ideologies.

See: Goose and gander, sauce for.

I'd never OC at a demo, and I'd advise against anyone doing so at an OWS event. You might have the right to do it, but that
does not mean that you *should* do it. Capisce?