TexasCHLforum.com

ELB wrote: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 you are clearly missing the point. I for one never said it was not his right. I never said it was illegal. You are reading into what I and others have written what is not there, and then you call down shame us.

Please.

Keith B wrote:Looking like a radical, gun toting redneck (perception of many) or a crazy guy with a so-called assault rifle on your shoulder will not help our cause with those that don't support it already. Appearing educated, civil and cool will do much more to promote us as 'one of them' and move us toward being accepted much quicker.

That is part of my point. And note, I did not say he looks like a gun-toting redneck to me. I said that he would appear so to others, and those "others" are the people we are trying to convince of the rightness of our cause. There are better ways to handle it.

Keith B wrote:Remember, just because something is legal and within your rights, doesn't mean it is the correct thing to do. A lot of people get seriously injured or killed in car wrecks each day taking their legal right-of-way.

That is the other part of my point. To this very day, the "mainstream" media has never acknowledged that they were wrong about the alleged "racist with an assault rifle" at a Tea Party gathering a year ago, who in fact turned out to be a black man peaceably carrying, perfectly lawfully, his perfectly legal AR15. You and I both know the truth about that; but the problem is that a huge portion of the news-watching, largely firearms ignorant, fence-sitting, middle of the road, public still gets their information from CBS/ABC/NBC/CNN, and they don't read or follow alternative media such as gun-blogs.

By comparison, the NRA has roughly 4 million members. Even if you maximize the influence of that number by assuming one member for each family of 4, that is still only 16 million people who are directly informed by the NRA of what is happening with regard to their gun rights — this in a nation of approximately 300 million people.

Adopting in-your-face tactics may serve to fire up the troops — some of them, anyway — but it will do little or nothing to convince those who need to be convinced of the justice of the cause in order to get on board; and it will, in fact, turn a significant number of people against you.

But if you want to be a firebrand, go head on, brother. While you're doing that, I will be quietly trying to undo the damage by convincing, one person at a time, that expanding gun rights is the right thing to do.

Peace out.

srothstein wrote:So, while I may not have been willing to do this, I must support the man's right to carry the rifle and the decision to do so while protesting the oppressive government.

Steve, I don't think anyone is questioning his right to do this, only the wisdom of doing it at this particular time or place, which is why I would not have been willing to do this either. So I guess my question to you is, why your own reluctance, if it were not for the questionable wisdom of the thing? Conversely, if it were not unwise, then why would you be reluctant? I ask because that is really the matter at the heart of the criticism.

And ELB, for the record, there is no shame in wisdom. None.

Bennies wrote:It Judy took me by suprise is all.

Who is Judy, and why does she have anything to do with this?

A couple of interesting quotes...

Oldgringo wrote:Alright! That's the image we want the world to see. We really want the media to report that some dude showed up with an "assault weapon". Right?

Folk, we're trying to win the "hearts and minds" of the populace, not convince them that the liberal anti-2A media is right about misdirected and illiterate gunowners.

Is it just me?

frazzled wrote:I have the right to wear a bikini and an aluminum hat to, but I wouldn't do that to a poltiical rally where I wanted anyone to take me seriously.
Carrying an AK to a protest makes you look:
1. Stupid
2. Militia like (read terrorist)
3. Redneck crazy.

It maybe your right but it just makes you and your cause look asinine and an absolute joke. Until you stop such antics any pretense you have of being a worthwhile long term party will not hold.

Oldgringo and Frazzled are giving voice to a legitimate concern, namely that nothing the Tea Party or its members do occurs in a vacuum. Practically everything that Tea Party activism does is newsworthy, and the media covering these things are overwhelmingly hostile to that activism. In Oregon, a local teacher is in the news because he has started an organization with the goal of breaking the back of the Tea Party. His chosen method is to infiltrate the movement, and act just a little bit more radical than the actual Tea Partiers, to draw media attention to himself so that the movement will be portrayed as dangerously radical and crazy. IF this story had not gained traction, he would have succeeded; the media would have focused on him and not the real members; and they would have willingly used that to try and destroy the movement.

Here is a fact: the predominantly liberal leftist media hates the Tea Party movement, dismisses them as illiterate crazies, and will gladly destroy them if they can. Why on earth should we give them the ammunition with which to do that, and make their jobs easier? Remember the famous "racist with an assault rifle on his back" photo at the early gatherings? When the un-cropped version of the photo was made public, the individual in question was a black guy. THIS is the media that is covering Tea Party events!!! STOP giving them ammunition to be used against you.

There is nothing immoral nor wrong about open carrying an AK47 or AR15, loaded or not, to a Tea Party event; but, it IS stupid, for exactly the reasons that frazzled numbered.

Bennies wrote:The Tea Party is turning into a circus anyways and has lost it's original following I believe.

After going to the one in Houston tonight i agree. It just didn't seem like the same type of grass roots event of the one last year i went to. I can't explain it but it was not the same.

I think there are two factors at play here which lead you to that impression:

1) The newness and spontaneity has worn off. This was bound to happen, regardless of whether the message is legitimate or not. As the fight drags on, only those who are really, really committed continue to show up, and to work behind the scenes to put these events on, while those who were motivated by temporary revolutionary zeal but not really committed to the cause start to fall away and do other things with their time. But the negative is that some of the fun has drained away, because now it is work.

2) The local grass roots has become a national movement. This involves out of state, non-local citizens in the process, and it becomes more "organized." At the original events here in Texas, the speakers were, perhaps with the exception of Glen Beck in San Antonio, Texas citizens and politicians. Now you have speakers with national reputations as activists showing up to speak at these things, and so yes, it is different.

If you believe in the cause, then you have to accept that it is no longer a local phenomenon and be happy that it has become such a national movement that it will have tremendous implications this year and in 2012. But that also means that you have to accept less spontaneous fun and more political work. If you believe in the cause.

If you don't, then do like the media has done: ignore it, ridicule it, fight it; and then like Ghandi said, lose to it.