Second Amendment Foundation: We Don’t Support Guns at Political Protests

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Qbeam

    Ultimate Member
    Apr 16, 2008
    6,074
    Georgia
    It's one thing if they choose not to advocate carrying at protests. It's another if they actively advocate that you don't! Not sure which this is, maybe vague by design? On your other point, it's hard to imagine those drafting the BOR's contemplated no carry when protesting a tyrannical government!

    I understand you're point, but due to the courts and media..... the BOR has been twisted by the current courts. One circuit says one thing, another says opposite. The supreme court is not necessarily in our favor with one variable vote deciding the outcome.

    I have no issue with open/concealed carry at protests and rallies if allowed.

    Q
     

    kcbrown

    Super Genius
    Jun 16, 2012
    1,393
    I don't consider civility any kind of appeasement at all.

    How is being visibly armed or not any indication of civility (or lack thereof)?

    The use of the arms, or the threatened use of them (by, e.g., drawing them), when said use/threat is not in direct response to a visible and viable threat, is most certainly an indication of incivility. But mere visible carry of them?


    I may or may not have been armed at each one. Code Pink was a true anti NRA/Gun demonstration. Going open carry at that event sent a relevant message. Not every enemy protest focuses on 2A. I recognize a few think every protest does, but I'm not in that camp. The last few demonstrations were not focused on gun rights.

    The focus of the demonstration is not the question (well, not in and of itself, at any rate). The question is whether or not being visibly armed is by itself a message in the context of those demonstrations, and if it is, then what that message is.

    A demonstration need not be focused on the right to arms for the presence of visibly armed protesters to be appropriate. Indeed, I would argue that any protest in which the subject of the protest is government overreach is one where such visibility is appropriate.
     

    fidelity

    piled higher and deeper
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 15, 2012
    22,400
    Frederick County
    There is some irony in the left trying to use Charlottesville as a pretext to go after open carry. First, even if rights are said to have limits, there was no abuse of 2A rights at the event. No unholstering and brandishing or threatening others with firearms, and certainly no use. Second, in trying to take away the right to open carry, implicit in this action is that the state will protect you instead. Well the state pulled back and watched the melee build. The state doesn't care about your defense. The state cares about order and retention of power when it's over, and at this point, you, your family, or your friends may be injured or worse.

    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
     

    WeaponsCollector

    EXTREME GUN OWNER
    Mar 30, 2009
    12,120
    Southern MD
    I'm sorry, but openly carrying guns under a Nazi flag doesn't help our side at all, it can only help the anti-gun side and if you don't understand that then that's a real shame.
     

    fidelity

    piled higher and deeper
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 15, 2012
    22,400
    Frederick County
    The mass media is saying that the Neo Nazis were open carrying firearms in Charlottesville but mostly showing pictures of Oath Keepers. They're not the same thing, by any stretch of imagination. However it fits into the anti agenda if they can call them Neo Nazis.

    Here are pics from the NY Times, which didn't make this mistake.

    8bef6d8e3d5bc3582b39c19b7bcd7ec2.jpg
    70c43bdc79c35ec69b8099b523d3b23d.jpg
    8cb3af014e22b3641e3ded83455c0d4a.jpg


    It looks like they're trying to keep factions apart in this series of images. There's video to back this up.

    However, the same Oath Keepers in these pics have been referred to as neo Nazis by Huff Post type sites.

    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
     

    Rack&Roll

    R.I.P
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 23, 2013
    22,304
    Bunkerville, MD
    The armed militia in Charlottesville, as it was alongside the Patriot Picket in Harrisburg and Gettysburg, is comprised of members of the III% Militia, not Oath Keepers.

    Most commonly, Oath Keeper members are outfitted only with radios, OK hats and OK shirts.

    Both groups will tell you they are there to preserve civility on behalf of all factions.
     

    fidelity

    piled higher and deeper
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 15, 2012
    22,400
    Frederick County
    The armed militia in Charlottesville, as it was with the Patriot Picket in Harrisburg and Gettysburg, is comprised of members of the III% Militia, not Oath Keepers.

    Most commonly, Oath Keepers are outfitted only with radios, OK hats and OK shirts.

    Both groups will tell you they are there to preserve civility for all sides.
    Thanks. I only knew they weren't the bad guys/neo Nazis as the media was labeling them.

    Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk
     

    Rack&Roll

    R.I.P
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 23, 2013
    22,304
    Bunkerville, MD
    After the bad scene in Charlottesville, the III% leadership announced they would no longer attempt to act as a buffer at future events where Neo-Nazi/Supremacist factions are present because of the media routinely misidentifying III% as supporting those causes.

    I disagree and believe Patriot groups should always try to have a presence wherever Free Speech is being challenged.
     

    MikeTF

    Ultimate Member
    After the bad scene in Charlottesville, the III% leadership announced they would no longer attempt to act as a buffer at future events where Neo-Nazi/Supremacist factions are present because of the media routinely misidentifying III% as supporting those causes.

    I disagree and believe Patriot groups should always try to have a presence wherever Free Speech is being challenged.
    :thumbsup: The second protects the first!
     

    wolfwood

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 24, 2011
    1,361
    Good post. For example, I joined GOA until it's President repeatedly attacked the NRA in an effort to bolster its own membership drives. I don't have a problem with them self-promoting, but the bashing of another pro 2A org was in poor form. No more GOA for me.

    Let me tell you I was hiking the AT trail last year and was passing by Washington D.C. for the first time in my life. I visited my friend Dick Heller to grab a beer. I asked him to call Larry Pratt to see if I could see GOA headquarters. Pratt agreed knowing nothing other than I was a GOA member on vacation. Not only did he open GOA to me him and his son sat with me for several hours to discuss the future of the Second Amendment. Larry Pratt is not only a patriot and a Godly Man he is a generous host. If he pokes the NRA once in awhile it make the NRA stronger.
     

    Biggfoot44

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 2, 2009
    32,881
    Larry Pratt can give very rousing speeches, and generally be very supportive to people already pro- 2A. And firing up one's base is a legitimate and helpful thing. And emphasising ideological purity to the larger and more successful Rights Orgs can help keep them focused.

    But GOA's direct influence upon State or Federal lawmakers is minimal.
     

    DanGuy48

    Ultimate Member
    Good post. For example, I joined GOA until it's President repeatedly attacked the NRA in an effort to bolster its own membership drives. I don't have a problem with them self-promoting, but the bashing of another pro 2A org was in poor form. No more GOA for me.

    X2. That did it for me too. You don't trash your competition working to protect the same freedom.

    I also very much agree with bigfoot44's post. SAF's accomplishments are second to none.
     

    Biggfoot44

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 2, 2009
    32,881
    There is no organization that I 100% see eye to eye with, all the time. Heck, sometimes I don't even agree with myself .
     

    inkd

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 4, 2009
    7,512
    Ridge
    There is no organization that I 100% see eye to eye with, all the time. Heck, sometimes I don't even agree with myself .

    Exactly. I'll give a bit of leeway to SAF based on their past work.

    But, I'll be paying more attention to what they say/do in the future.
     

    EL1227

    R.I.P.
    Patriot Picket
    Nov 14, 2010
    20,274
    Xactly ...

    I'm sorry, but openly carrying guns under a Nazi flag doesn't help our side at all, it can only help the anti-gun side and if you don't understand that then that's a real shame.

    After the bad scene in Charlottesville, the III% leadership announced they would no longer attempt to act as a buffer at future events where Neo-Nazi/Supremacist factions are present because of the media routinely misidentifying III% as supporting those causes.

    I disagree and believe Patriot groups should always try to have a presence wherever Free Speech is being challenged.

    Who was doing that?

    If you want to understand why Trump goes after the media, look no further than the reporting aftermath regarding Charlottesvile. It's no accident that the biased media's videos, pictures and print link the two together, and SAF fell into their trap by attempting to distance themselves from a contrived narrative.

    Imagine this response back in the 1700's ...
     

    Attachments

    • 1-the-battle-of-concord-1775-granger.jpg
      1-the-battle-of-concord-1775-granger.jpg
      105.6 KB · Views: 177

    GlocksAndPatriots

    Banned
    BANNED!!!
    Aug 29, 2016
    763
    This sums it up and I agree with them:

    I agree with that too. I think of open carry like this. You open carry (or concealed carry, for that matter) a handgun in case trouble finds you. You open carry a rifle when you're either expecting trouble or looking for it. While the latter is legal, you're always going to come off looking bad if you do it, outside of when you grab a rifle to protect your own property.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,921
    Messages
    7,258,981
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom