Open Carry Texas Continues Blue Falcon Rampage

[Maximinus Thrax]

If you pulled your sidearm and held it at low ready with your running buddy similarly posed...

Then there's that little detail...

 

[rhino]

I get what you're saying. I'm trying to look at it through actual instead of perceived intent. We can see by their continued actions that they have chosen their particular method of demonstration in order to get a reaction. Those who open carry on a daily basis are not looking for that reaction.

No matter which method is chosen some people are going to react. There's not much we can do about that...

OKay, I can go with that.

OC'ing a handgun isn't trolling. There is your difference.

Says who? We have a lot of INGO members that truly believe that anyone who openly carries a handgun is trolling. How is that different?




To all: would this equation change if the slung rifles has covers over the trigger guards? If so, that would effectively make them holsterd.

 

[g00n24]

OKay, I can go with that.





Says who? We have a lot of INGO members that truly believe that anyone who openly carries a handgun is trolling. How is that different?




To all: would this equation change if the slung rifles has covers over the trigger guards? If so, that would effectively make them holsterd.

I think the point some of us are trying to make is it doesn't matter what we think. I'm not freaked out by seeing someone OC a long gun. I'm pissed about them freaking out the general public and making our cause more difficult to fight for. This isn't about what a bunch of gun nuts think is ok or not. This is about the perception of our community to those that have yet to decide about the gun rights debate, or those that may be swayed to our side. We are making the assumption that these people will get a negative view of our community when they see people OCing long guns at dinner...and I think that is a safe assumption to make.

 

[Lebowski]

Anyone else think these OCT guys may be bought by Bloomberg? They seem to be helping him the most.

Cant help but wonder what side they're really on with all the responses to different corporate policy following their gatherings, and the unchanging of their game plan after each one.

May be worth checking out some Texas gun forums and seeing what others in OCT have to say about some of this. Those two guys in Chiplote, the big boy and the little guy who was brandishing his rifle made me think they were planted by anti-gunners. Then again, some people really are just that dumb. They probably thought it'd make Chipolte welcome guns with open arms and all bystanders to who were previously uncomfortable, suddenly, comfortable around guns! (kidding)

 

[cce1302]

I know you guys love your myths as much as anyone, especially when the myths demonize those who want more freedom than you want, but here are some facts from Open Carry Texas:

Did you know?

Open Carry Texas members have always sought permission to enter an establishment prior to going in with our firearms. This has been part of our philosophy since day one and it has worked, with hundreds of businesses across the state 100% in support of what we do and how we do it.

In fact, Jack In The Box management invited that group in with open arms and those patriots there had great conversations about how semi-automatic guns work with the few customers inside. No one inside called the police and no one hid in a freezer, contrary to media reports.

In Chipotle, not only were we invited in, we had two UNIFORMED police officers with us inside the restaurant. Not eating here, mind you, WITH US. There were ten people at that event, not just the two in the photo that the anti-gun media used against us. In fact, that photo was taken expressly because those two patriots were on their FIRST walk with us. Chipotle managements welcome us in with open arms because "we feel safer when you guys are in here." No one called the cops and no one complained to management.

As for the Sonic issue, our group in San Antonio has been welcomed at so many Sonic drive-ins in the area, that they forgot our basic tenet of calling first. Most of the Sonic we have been to in that area even provide us with free drinks because, again, they know they won't be robbed while we are there and they appreciate what we are doing. In the latest manufactured controversy, our San Antonio simply didn't think they needed to call since they assumed all the Sonic were just as friendly. This particular Sonic was a new one and by not calling, they didn't know how they would be received. Obviously, it backfired, but it highlights why we insist that our members call first before going into an establishment or send someone unarmed in first. It was a simple mistake that highlights another tenet of our philosophy: if asked to leave we will do so. We respect private property rights.

Every single "controversy" involving OCT members didn't originate in Texas. Rather, the problems were created out of thin air by #guncontrolextremists who haven't event stepped foot in our state, much less the restaurants in which we have been welcomed with open arms. Because none of these establishments have banned guns - only asked we not bring them openly - many of those same franchise owners and managers have reached out to us and said we are still welcome with our guns at their stores. However, out of respect for the corporate request, we have still asked our members not to take their long arms with them.

Don't believe the liberal media. We are dedicated to the SAFE and LEGAL carry of firearms and our mission will not stop until we get open carry of handguns passed in Texas and become the 46th state to do so.

 

[turnandshoot4]

Says who? We have a lot of INGO members that truly believe that anyone who openly carries a handgun is trolling. How is that different?

Don't mean to be snarky here, no tone can be heard via text.

 

[Hoosier8]

They want to go back to the time when the Luby's massacre started the carry movement.

 

[turnandshoot4]

My point is, we're viewing the intent through very similar eyes that antis view the intent of people carrying handguns.

Some of us perceive carrying a rifle as an inherently contentious act and presume to assign motives to the people doing it. I see the antis doing the same thing to handgun carriers who are doing it to rifle carriers.

Certainly some of these guys do have questionable intent and motives, but I won't ascribe those automatically to someone just because they're carrying a rifle.

After reading the whole thread I totally agree with you. I thought you were taking issue with OC in general, including pistols.

They have no way to raise awareness LEGALLY unless they OC rifles. In which case I agree with what they are doing as there is no other way to raise awareness.

 

[rhino]

After reading the whole thread I totally agree with you. I thought you were taking issue with OC in general, including pistols.

They have no way to raise awareness LEGALLY unless they OC rifles. In which case I agree with what they are doing as there is no other way to raise awareness.

Whew!

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So . . . I'm not going to contest the results of the actions by the people in Texas. This didn't go well. I also will not speculate on their motives.

I am curious, though. What is the difference between how people here view carrying a rifle as being unacceptable, vs. the antis finding carrying a handgun unacceptable?

Yes, in our little culture, carrying a handgun is "normal" and carrying a rifle is unusual, but to the antis, carrying an handgun is not normal.

Keeping in mind that most folks aren't dedicated "anti's" or dedicated "pro's", most folks are kinda humped up in the middle but sliding one way or the other:

1) Context.

Why is it acceptable to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle or working construction, but not going to the mall? Why is it acceptable to wear a mask at halloween or while skiing, but not while doing a bank transaction? That's the difference between OC of a long gun at a political rally vs attention whoring in a restaurant. That's the difference between handgun carry, which is on the rise and socially acceptable as evidenced by the expansion of states with a permit to carry, and carry of a long gun for no apparent purpose (such as a hunter getting ready to go into the field having a readily apparent purpose) is an oddity and lacks a socially recognized context. That takes us to #2.

2) Social acceptance.

Regardless of how you feel about gay people, you aren't as affected by two guys holding hands as two guys french kissing. If I want to sway you to be more accepting of gay relationships, I should emphasize the aspect of a loving couple who are dedicated to each other. I shouldn't have multiple gay couples stand outside your office window kissing and groping each other. Both may be legal, but one is good PR and one is the opposite. One could argue that the sight of OC'd long guns would eventually innoculate society, however the results we've seen are the opposite. Changes aren't generally made in sweeping steps, they are made in baby steps. If our society will ever be ready for OC of long guns or not, its obviously not ready right now, and pushing the issue backfires.

3) Its a diversion, and a stupid one.

We aren't really fighting for the right to carry a long gun into a restaurant. Nobody does that routinely. While they are "fighting" that fight, that's less time, attention, and resources going to things we *do* care about, and more ammunition to be used against us because of #2. Its like arguing for your right to wear clown makeup and ride a pogo stick through the mall. Even if you win, you're doing it for the spectacle, and won't do it routinely, so what did you gain? If you do gain the right to pogo stick in clown makeup, what if that results in you being banned from going to the mall without makeup and just walking? You "won" something no one cares about and no one does at the expense of losing something everyone cares about and everyone does. That's not a net win.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

but if I had the choice, I'd have my rifle with me all the time.

You do have the choice, so why don't you? Given the effectiveness of body armor in increasing your odds of survival in a gun fight, and its relative discreteness compared to a rifle, do you also wear armor all the time?

Even soldiers don't carry their rifle all the time. Its a PITA. You stack arms to eat, to poo, to do vehicle maintenance, etc. Then you've got buddies to watch it for you, until its their turn to eat, poo, and/or turn wrenches. What are you doing to do with your long gun at the movies? Cradle it? When you are sat at a restaurant booth? How are you going to keep from muzzling people, keep it secure, and enjoy your food at the same time? I think the reality of the headache of keeping up with the rifle would quickly end your experiment.