Tea Partier Carries AK-47 at Capitol in Austin

[Ol Zeke]

I wonder why he was stopped... even if it was loaded, it would be legal

EDIT: Unless it's a city ordinance?

Naw ... the cop probably was looking to buy one and just wanted to look at it. Probably asked how much he wanted for it.

[frazzled]

According to the Mistakesman it was to see if it was loaded. As it did not have a clip I think you catch catch my opinion of the paper's veracity.

[Bennies]

A couple of interesting quotes...

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?

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.

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.

The annoyed man i agree with you on your take with your analysis on the tea party. From that perspective it is a good thing that it is becoming more nationalized. As for my original post i think i can pin point why i was feeling that way when i posted. I was at the Sam Houston Race track last night and there were a couple of things that bothered me. First was the venue. I could not carry my ccw much less a pocket knife. Bad choice but i also am keeping in mind that finding a venue for an event that size must be a large task that is not very easy. While there was very many respectful people there, i was also sitting next to people who were talking during the opening prayer (which the prayer was awesome by the way) and answering their cell phones in the middle of the pledge and national anthem. i think i was just sitting in the wrong crowd. Maybe i just let those little things bother me. PLus some people weren't exactly enthusiastic about when certain speakers were asking for donations which was very disheartening. Like i said, it could be i just chose to sit in the wrong spot. Anyways, i realize that planning an event like this takes many volunteers who are dedicated to this country. And i am behind the message of the Tea Party and i do support the effort. If i offended anyone who volunteers or participated i do apologize and would like to say thank you for your efforts. I feel bad for my comment especially since i have not been able to volunteered much of my time. I think we all want the best for our country and our children. Anyways i hope none took offense.

[chabouk]

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.

[Mike1951]

First was the venue. I could not carry my ccw much less a pocket knife.

Please explain why you could not carry a pocket knife.

[Oldgringo]

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.

He is the perceived image of you and the rest of us...rightly or wrongly.

My Momma, rest her soul, spent a lot of her time on this celestial ball advising me that, "you are known by the company you keep". It's all in the presentation/perception, Boudreaux

[Bennies]

First was the venue. I could not carry my ccw much less a pocket knife.

Please explain why you could not carry a pocket knife.

Well when I went through the security line the guy asked me multiple times if I had any kind of knife on me. I took that as noone of any kind are allowed. Mabey I assumed wrong and read too much into his question but it seemed that way to me. I even had to empty a pocket to show him I was carrying a camera and not a knife of some sort. It Judy took me by suprise is all.

[The Annoyed Man]

It Judy took me by suprise is all.

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

[Bennies]

It Judy took me by suprise is all.

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

Lol whoops. It just*. trying to post on forums with my phone is an art form I have not perfected. I get some crazy auto spells every once in a while haha.

[rm9792]

must be an Iphone, I have never seen a device argue so much about spelling. Even when you correct it back it changes it again.

[Bennies]

must be an Iphone, I have never seena device argue so much about spelling. Even when you correct it back it changes it again.

Yup you guessed it. It definently tries to do it's own thing

[sawdust]

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".

[Oldgringo]

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".

Now, this guy knows whereof he speaks...too.

[joe817]

I totally agree O.G.!

sawdust, you have put very aptly into words what I have felt for a long time. Thank you.

[ELB]

...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.