OC Video

[Tweed Ring]

Politically, I don't do appeasement. However, I am please to engage in recruitment.

[BobK]

At some point, this is a strategy of appeasement and is doomed ...

I do not agree at all with your characterization that being "an ambassador for the gun culture" means it is a "strategy of appeasement".

Look, I can't walk around Columbus or sit down and have a meal with you while I am open carrying these days because I am 1200 miles away.

Instead, I'll point to my friend Chuck, on these forums, whom I know to be an effective ambassador for the gun culture. He open carries every day, but he is not confronting people, he is recruiting them. He is a positive example, not a negative one.

I get back to one central truth, we must successfully maintain a clear majority of the electorate. If we fail that, we are always just one election away from losing our gun rights.

There is some percentage of people who are one issue voters. They vote for gun rights or they vote against gun rights. No one will ever change their minds. But that majority in the middle is basically indifferent to gun rights and can get swayed in either direction. Our cause has had about a 10% adverse swing in voter sympathy since Sandy Hook, and those are all people in the middle. If their images of guns are formed positively, by positive interactions from gun culture ambassadors, that is simply a more effective approach than some of the negative antics displayed by the more extreme interactions.

In the course of my professional life, I have had many career interactions where I needed to make significant changes in how people do their jobs, how they approach a problem, or otherwise implement process changes. I have had terrific success when I was able to persuade people on many levels (rational, emotional, legal, financial, their career self-interest). In fact the most effective changes result in the other people taking the ideas on as their own ideas and being an enthusiastic champion.

I have never seen successful change agents implement lasting change by shouting out the other party or trying to destroy them through argument. You cannot coerce someone to become a supporter and follower.

[Tweed Ring]

Convincing people to move or not move requires either persuasion or force. Persuasion may take longer, but it's legal.

[JmE]

Instead, I'll point to my friend Chuck, on these forums, whom I know to be an effective ambassador for the gun culture. He open carries every day, but he is not confronting people, he is recruiting them. He is a positive example, not a negative one.

If we're talking about the same Chuck ("Ain't activism fun?") then I have attended events with him and met him at Waverly. Please ask him if I'm confrontational, loud, or otherwise fit the image that you may have.

I get back to one central truth, we must successfully maintain a clear majority of the electorate. If we fail that, we are always just one election away from losing our gun rights.

I don't dispute that. What I'm trying to convey is that I don't have confidence in the paper restraints on government anymore. I am supportive of the work that others do in an attempt to maintain a majority in the electorate and believe that it's likewise important. However, I don't see any majority of legislators supporting the "government hands off" approach to firearms that I firmly believe is necessary for a free State.

But that majority in the middle is basically indifferent to gun rights and can get swayed in either direction.

This sounds too much like the liberal mantra of the day. (I am NOT calling you a liberal!!!) This is the "middle" concept and "reasonable" gun control poppycock. Those are non confrontational terms used by the left to lull people into the illusion that they can stop infringement. (No, that is not an insult towards you, I'm attacking the buzz words.) A thief walks up and asks for my money. I tell him no, it's mine and you can't have it. He wants to have a discussion about it. Why would I even discuss it? The government has stolen something from me and wants to have a discussion on it. No, it was mine to begin with and you shouldn't have it. I won't entertain further discussion with government about taking even more. My answer is, "No."

Our cause has had about a 10% adverse swing in voter sympathy since Sandy Hook, and those are all people in the middle. If their images of guns are formed positively, by positive interactions from gun culture ambassadors, that is simply a more effective approach than some of the negative antics displayed by the more extreme interactions.

For those that wish to be ambassadors, great. I don't go out of my way to create some "negative antics". I simply am myself, as I am always in public. It's that simple. Two wolves and a sheep are arguing about what to have for dinner. Popular opinion cannot create law that violates rights. In reality it is done all of the time but don't expect me to willingly engage in a discussion about how much of my remaining rights are reasonable for me to have taken. If the government decides to go full bore on gun control (even a Constitutional amendment), at least the froggie won't be slow boiling any longer. IF I and others of like mind are correct then engaging in "reasonable" discussion and dancing the dance with legislators is actually serving the interest of the frog being boiled at a rate that is inappreciable to the frog. If government's going to push, I'd rather see it go all out so that those in the so-called middle can see gun control for what it really is.

I have never seen successful change agents implement lasting change by shouting out the other party or trying to destroy them through argument. You cannot coerce someone to become a supporter and follower.

I hope that you don't perceive me as trying to "shout out" another party, trying to "destroy" them through argument, or coerce anyone other than government. I'm simply done compromising on my rights. What others do it their own affair. I'm simply speaking my mind about it.

[JmE]

Convincing people to move or not move requires either persuasion or force. Persuasion may take longer, but it's legal.

That might be where we are misunderstanding each other. I'm not out to convince anyone of anything really. Mostly, I just want to go about my own business and do so armed. When I go to an event, my intention isn't to persuade or force any citizen. Personally, the best thing that happens is when people who previously thought that open carry was illegal find out that's not the case. For example, at both gatherings recently in Columbus, many people came up to me to ask about the right to keep and bear arms. I'm very approachable and often hang out in the crowd apart from the group. I also don't carry a sign.

If there is a political statement to me open carrying, it is a statement to the government. That statement is simply, "No."

[JmE]

At some point, this is a strategy of appeasement and is doomed ...

I do not agree at all with your characterization that being "an ambassador for the gun culture" means it is a "strategy of appeasement".

I think there might be some miscommunication. Please read the following quote from my post and notice the "if". Your quote excluded some very important context. The underline is also in the original post.

At some point, this is a strategy of appeasement and is doomed if government has become too corrupt to stop by conventional means.

[whoownsyou]

He open carries every day, but he is not confronting people, he is recruiting them.

If you are implying that the average OC'er is confronting people, this simply is not the case. Like people who CC, their gun isn't even a characteristic of their day 99.9% of the time, often with that .1% yet to come. People with spare tires in their trunks are not aiming for potholes and can go a decade with the same vehicle and never have to pull it out.

If we fail that, we are always just one election away from losing our gun rights.

Perhaps you mean we are always just one election away from people saying we lose our gun rights. Alternative media is overflowing with numerous examples of citizens across the nation standing up saying they will not comply. Even people in position of authority are saying they will not enforce and/or are going so far as to counter-legislate. Anybody can say "that belongs to me" but saying it doesn't make it so. Nobody can take from you something you do not allow them to.

[BobK]

Instead, I'll point to my friend Chuck, on these forums, whom I know to be an effective ambassador for the gun culture. He open carries every day, but he is not confronting people, he is recruiting them. He is a positive example, not a negative one.

If we're talking about the same Chuck ("Ain't activism fun?") then I have attended events with him and met him at Waverly. Please ask him if I'm confrontational, loud, or otherwise fit the image that you may have.

Yeah, we are talking the same Chuck. But I am not even talking about you, personally. I am talking about principles, trends, tendencies in general as we defend our gun rights. I have no idea how you behave.

[JmE]

Yeah, we are talking the same Chuck. But I am not even talking about you, personally. I am talking about principles, trends, tendencies in general as we defend our gun rights. I have no idea how you behave.

No problem. When you pointed to Chuck's behavior as example I figured it was appropriate to defer to him about my behavior. Nothing more to it. Seriously, carry on with the good work and thank you for doing so.


Edited to fix the quote tag.

[JmE]

I wanted to drop another comment here about how people behave. If people in the public eye that aren't public officials are doing something I don't think is prudent for the cause, it really isn't any of my business. Of course, I can express my views about their behavior or their appearance but ultimately it is wholly their affair. I roll my eyes or swallow back a little when I read or hear about how this person or that will hurt "us". It's such a childish statement. People are people and if one doesn't like it then say that. But to try to shift blame onto the individual for something in government that has been allowed to gain such dangerous momentum is outright scape-goating. If voters are going to back Marxists, they're going to back Marxists. If elected officials are going to vote to violate the natural rights of the People then they are going to vote that way. If it only takes a few people viewed as uncouth or undesirable to sway voters and our public officials then the cause is kind of Sierra Oscar Lima anyway.

[Tweed Ring]

My position is that I do not want to scare away those Independent voters who may cause an election to tip in our direction.

If an open carry gun owner is not pushing the Independent voters away, then that gun owner, as far as I am concerned, can open carry 67 guns, shoved into his belt line, and/or strapped to the various appendages of his body, and including, but not limited to a 7 gun pistol necklace.

BON APPETIT...

ENJOY...

HAVE AT IT...

Just, please, think before anyone acts to push those non-aligned Independents into the other camp.

[JmE]

That's quite a visual!

I don't disagree with you.

[Tweed Ring]

Convincing people to move or not move requires either persuasion or force. Persuasion may take longer, but it's legal.

That might be where we are misunderstanding each other. I'm not out to convince anyone of anything really. Mostly, I just want to go about my own business and do so armed. When I go to an event, my intention isn't to persuade or force any citizen. Personally, the best thing that happens is when people who previously thought that open carry was illegal find out that's not the case. For example, at both gatherings recently in Columbus, many people came up to me to ask about the right to keep and bear arms. I'm very approachable and often hang out in the crowd apart from the group. I also don't carry a sign.

If there is a political statement to me open carrying, it is a statement to the government. That statement is simply, "No."

I choose to engage in acts of persuasion doing political endeavors. I have severely limited my attempts to convince anti-Bill of Rights people that their position is wrong. Both our side, and their side seem to be entrenched. I cannot support any negotiation in this matterm,as by definityioon, negotiation may require we have to give up even more of our rights.

Nowadays, I tend to try to persuade elected officials as to the propriety of my position. The courts and the pols appear to be the gatekeepers of our rights, and the judges will not permit lobbying in their courtrooms. That simply leaves the pols.

[Tweed Ring]

He open carries every day, but he is not confronting people, he is recruiting them.

If you are implying that the average OC'er is confronting people, this simply is not the case. Like people who CC, their gun isn't even a characteristic of their day 99.9% of the time, often with that .1% yet to come. People with spare tires in their trunks are not aiming for potholes and can go a decade with the same vehicle and never have to pull it out.

If we fail that, we are always just one election away from losing our gun rights.

Perhaps you mean we are always just one election away from people saying we lose our gun rights. Alternative media is overflowing with numerous examples of citizens across the nation standing up saying they will not comply. Even people in position of authority are saying they will not enforce and/or are going so far as to counter-legislate. Anybody can say "that belongs to me" but saying it doesn't make it so. Nobody can take from you something you do not allow them to.

The alternate media just does not drive elections. If such were the case, please explain why our president was elected, not once, but twice, and why Democrats still control the US Senate, and many state legislatures. Alternate media is really a boatload of fun, but just does not feed the bulldog.

When those in authority have to make certain painful choices about feeding their families, or respecting my rights, many of them will fall into line, and tuck into a fine family meal.

Elected sheriffs who refuse to enforce the law will be summarily removed by whatever process exists in those respective states. They are sheriffs, after all, not judges. Their job is to enforce, not interpret, the law.

Please do not pin your hopes on this facet of the contest. There are 3-4 sheriffs in Ohio who have said they will not confiscate firearms. I'm a member of the Buckeye State Sheriff's Association, and I know full well what side upon which the rest of the Ohio's elected 88 sheriffs will fall.

If it gets nasty out there, you'll be surprised how many of our sunshine patriots will fall in line to receive their daily allotment of Soylent Green.

If there are changes to be made, then get involved in the political process.

Eventually, you may accept reality: the world is how it is, not how we want it to be.

[JmE]

I don't entirely disagree with you, Tweed Ring. I'm no babe in the woods either when it comes to rights and government. I haven't the rhythm to dance with the politicians. Those that do are important but I'm not one of them. Part of my signature says it best. It's a line from Plato's Republic about the Allegory of the Cave. It sums up my predicament about natural rights and government over many years now. Returning to the Cave after one experiences true freedom makes one a very poor player at the game of shadows.

Moreover, were he to return there, wouldn't he be rather bad at their game, no longer being accustomed to the darkness? - Plato