Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
OverSword

NRA says open carry rallies weird

36 posts in this topic

I'm in total agreement with the NRA on this one. Sometimes overkill is not the way to prove your point.

From the article:

Companies, customers and others critical of Texas gun rights advocates who have brought military-style assault rifles into businesses as part of demonstrations supporting "open carry" gun rights now have a surprising ally: the National Rifle Association.

The advocates' actions in restaurants and other public places — part of a push for less restrictive gun laws, including legalizing the open carry of handguns — have prompted public criticism.

The NRA has long been a zealous advocate for gun owners' rights. But the group's lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action, has called the demonstrations counterproductive to promoting gun rights, scary and "downright weird."

The NRA said the demonstrations have "crossed the line from enthusiasm to downright foolishness."

"Using guns merely to draw attention to yourself in public not only defies common sense, it shows a lack of consideration and manners. That's not the Texas way. And that's certainly not the NRA way," the NRA said in a statement posted on its website Friday.

Read it here

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. I would immediately conclude that anyone carrying a gun merely to draw attention to themselves is high on the list of 'Who Is an Irresponsible Gun Owner?'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is stupid.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's pretty weird too, and is not representative of safe and responsible firearm handling. Just because you can, does not mean you should.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's pretty weird too, and is not representative of safe and responsible firearm handling. Just because you can, does not mean you should.

What good are rights if you can never use them?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

What good are rights if you can never use them?

with rights come responsibilities.

same thing as if i would scream in snowy mountains (very bad thing to do), and claim free speech. or freedom of expression. i wont be surprised if many people down those mountans would want to shut me up, and rightfully so.

Edited by aztek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that they are carrying rifles around to protest the state's open carry law because the law bans open carry of handguns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because keeping it in their pants totally restricts their rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It may not totally restrict, but it does restrict, which is an infringement and therefore unconstitutional.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I agree with the NRA (the staffer) on this.

Just because you have a right to do something, doesn't mean you should. Intentionally trying to make a spectacle out of yourself in an attempt to thumb your nose at whomever is counterproductive in my opinion. I see it here in NY at anti-SAFE Act rallies. There's always some guy walking around with a firearm in public view. Sure, he can legally do it, but guess who is going to be blasted all over the news that night and how is that going to be perceived by the non-gun owning public? A lot of gun owners would reply by saying "well screw them, it's my right to do that". And while technically they would be correct, that mini-van driving soccer mom in Westchester County has just as much of a vote as you do and there are a hell of lot more of her than there are of you.

Besides, pretty much any self defense and/or concealed carry expert will tell you to never open carry anything. All you're doing is painting a target on your back.

Edited by Rafterman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It may not totally restrict, but it does restrict, which is an infringement and therefore unconstitutional.

I absolutely agree, however, when I imagine folks walking around with pistols strapped to their side in plain view, it makes me very nervous. The old wild west revisited?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I have to agree. There is something to be said for temperance. Yes, I "can" do a thing, but maybe I shouldn't cause it sets a bad example or draws unneeded scrutiny.

I "get" why they do these over the top things...to get attention...but I disagree. It never works out well, it makes good hearted, lawful citizens look bad.

Kinda like the "over the top" Christians that we occasionally run into...they mean well but they make other Christians look bad...their "zealousness" is a burden and a black eye. I always thought Jesus looks down and sees these people and facepalms...."you are making me look bad"....

So...I am all for freedom and upholding the Bill of rights...but doing things like this makes good people look silly and that is bad.

Edited by Jeremiah65

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I absolutely agree, however, when I imagine folks walking around with pistols strapped to their side in plain view, it makes me very nervous. The old wild west revisited?

Well I can tell you that Alabama has open carry for all firearms and yet I do not see at lot of people walking around openly carrying. Now if Texas was to change their open carry to include handguns and they still walk around open carrying rifles then I would say they are just being foolish for foolish sake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*straps claymore sword onto back to go shopping*

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The shooting range I belong to is very cognizant of this fact. Even though we have the law on our side, we are overly aware that we have to be good neighbors to the people who have built homes around our property (even though we were there 50 years before they put a shovel in the ground).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It may not totally restrict, but it does restrict, which is an infringement and therefore unconstitutional.

True that. Just like keeping guns away from the mentally ill, blind, criminal, or incompetent infringes on their constitutional rights. We can't let things like common sense interfere with the constitution after all.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*straps claymore sword onto back to go shopping*

This is the only real beef I have with 2nd amendment advocates. The only arms that they support is of the firearm variety. I can't have a knife with a blade longer than 5" but I can have a .45 strapped to my hip. The hypocrisy just drives me nuts.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the only real beef I have with 2nd amendment advocates. The only arms that they support is of the firearm variety. I can't have a knife with a blade longer than 5" but I can have a .45 strapped to my hip. The hypocrisy just drives me nuts.

The 2nd amendment folks have nothing to do with what size blade you can carry,take that gripe up with your local law enforcement :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True that. Just like keeping guns away from the mentally ill, blind, criminal, or incompetent infringes on their constitutional rights. We can't let things like common sense interfere with the constitution after all.

So are you saying that the mentally ill, blind, criminal, or incompetent have no right to self-defense?

Criminals are in prisons, which are gun free zones. Once they have paid their dues to society they should have the same rights as the rest of us.

Mentally ill covers a lot of territory. Those deemed as a danger to themselves or others are placed in mental health institutions, which are gun free zones. Once the deemed to no longer pose a threat to themselves or others they are released and should enjoy the same rights as the rest of us.

Not sure why you want to discriminate against blind or incompetent people but I am against it on principle.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the only real beef I have with 2nd amendment advocates. The only arms that they support is of the firearm variety. I can't have a knife with a blade longer than 5" but I can have a .45 strapped to my hip. The hypocrisy just drives me nuts.

First firearms, then knives. Gotta start somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What good are rights if you can never use them?

Apparently if using them is weird, it doesn't count?

You strap a Claymore on your back to go shopping for critics who can't handle sword rights, Eldorado.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

with rights come responsibilities.

Are people being shot in these events or something? Where's the irresponsibility?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2nd amendment folks have nothing to do with what size blade you can carry,take that gripe up with your local law enforcement :tu:

I don't know. I consider someone carrying a sword to be armed, and they have the right to bear arms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So are you saying that the mentally ill, blind, criminal, or incompetent have no right to self-defense?

Criminals are in prisons, which are gun free zones. Once they have paid their dues to society they should have the same rights as the rest of us.

Mentally ill covers a lot of territory. Those deemed as a danger to themselves or others are placed in mental health institutions, which are gun free zones. Once the deemed to no longer pose a threat to themselves or others they are released and should enjoy the same rights as the rest of us.

Not sure why you want to discriminate against blind or incompetent people but I am against it on principle.

You do realize that the second amendment has nothing to do with self-defense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.