TexasCHLforum.com

ELB wrote:
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.

If one person carries an AK-47, legally or not, to a political rally (and he is not the keynote speaker or a highly recognized public figure), he is perceived to be insane/idiotic/unsafe. If 5 men carry them to a political rally, they are perceived to be suspicious/dangerous/unsafe. If 1,000 people, men and women, carry, it is likely to be perceived as a (safe) political statement, or even a political movement.

You get to the new norm by constantly applying pressure to our legistators and by cogent education to the public. The chances of success are greater if the "pushers" are not perceived to be singularly kooky/crazy/idiotic/evil/dangerous/grandstanding/?????? by those self-same legislators and public.

I assume that most of the visitors to this forum are already in the choir, so our chats are more about metholodogy than ideology.

If I am trying to assert my rights, as part of a larger group, I should take into account what effect my individual actions may have on that group. Yes, somtimes things need to be done in public, but creating antagonism to our version of a norm that is not yet fully embraced by our fellow Americans can be counter-productive. If the guy was trying to win over converts to the concealed/open-carry side, he failed miserably, in my opinion. And in the process, he may have pushed some fence-sitters back to the other side. At the moment, I believe Charles Cotton is more effective in his methodology.

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".