TexasCHLforum.com

The Annoyed Man wrote:

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.

...I believe people will ignore an issue if not forced to confront it,...

sawdust wrote:

boomerang wrote: Visibly carrying a rifle at a rally is not much different than audibly quoting scripture (or visibly carrying a bible) at a rally. Both may turn off some people but both rights are protected by the Bill of Rights.

I disagree. While the two actions may be protected, there is a quantum difference in the perceptions of the crowd around you. Our perceptions, correct or incorrect, are a product of the times. Not to make light of the event in any way, if one man were to walk into a cafeteria with a bible and another with an AK-47, which one am I going to be leery of and keep my eye on? (not a time for word-play, please) What if two came in with semi-auto rifles? Are they diners, or is something about to go down. 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. What if the same scene were to be in a school? Would the AK guy want to assert his rights there?

The world according to Ken: A successful general picks his battles carefully. And when the soldiers start deciding which battles they will or will not enjoin, the outcome will be in jeopardy.

Whether the AK guy at the rally was a general or a soldier, I don't know. But I do think that he picked the wrong battle, at the wrong place, in the wrong way, and at the wrong time.

That guy is operating under his own mis-perceptions, just as he thinks all of the "others" are.


Yeah, yeah, I know. It's easy to shoot holes in "Ken's World", but nonetheless, it is my perception that what I am saying is true, when taken in the context of the post.

As I found out personally, perception will almost always trump reality. And for the public, the "media" is usually who is deciding the perception. I'll be posting an example in the "off-topic" forum, titled "Perception and Reality".

chabouk wrote:

frazzled wrote: Carrying an AK to a protest makes you look:
1. Stupid
2. Militia like (read terrorist)
3. Redneck crazy.

If you think that you doing so makes you look stupid, then maybe you shouldn't do that.

If you think that him doing so makes you (or anyone else) look stupid, then you're engaging in the same kind of guilt-by-association the Brady Bunch likes to use to compare all of us to mass murderers.