TexasCHLforum.com

Srothstein made some excellent points, and denwego made an excellent followup. We need to keep pressing at all levels, with big and small steps. It is not choice of doing "radical" things like rifle carrying or doing it "Charles Cotton's" way (which I assume means legislative lobbying). We need both, plus pushing at every level. The left runs this country because they understand this, and they frankly earned the power to run this place into the ground because they were willing to make waves. Once upon a time, pornography was hidden and political speech was protected. Now even the raunchiest pornography is mainstream, and banning certain political ads against an incumbent within 60 days of an election is not only legal, but judged constitutional by the SCOTUS! That didn't just happen by itself. Srothstein is right we have to stay on the offensive, not just take a couple big wins and fail to followup. AK guy wasn't even trying to push the legal envelope -- he was just doing what is already legal. And the pushback comes from the gun crowd?

I don't know that I would have gumption to carry my AK by myself, but I am not going to dump on the one that does.The point of him carrying at a [pick one] anti-tax rally, picnic, backyard BBQ, walking down the street, etc is not that it is appropriate for that venue -- it is that it is not a big deal.

I will note that the AK-47 guy's "perception" and "wisdom" clearly exceeds that many on this board, since he accurately judged that he could excercise his legal rights without a problem. And for this he gets called "stupid," "idiotic," "redneck," and so forth. No wisdom there. Shame, yes. All these arguments against him boil down to catering to the anti-gun/MSM's caricatures of gunowners, and continuing the status quo. This guy said screw that, and the world did not end. For those of you who think somehow it's OK if dozens of people carry but not if only one does -- how do you propose to get from here to there? Hint. Follow this guy.

...Now, change the scenario just a bit. What if a majority percentage of the diners had their own rifles at their tables? Wouldn't that change the (group) perception when another person walks in with a weapon? That individual no longer is acting outside of the norm. ...

So how do you get to this new norm from the old one? Wait for the legislature to tell you it is OK? It's already legal. No, somebody with enough guts CARRIES THE RIFLE. Good on that guy, and shame on those who dump on him.