Is Open-Carry Really Such a Bad Idea at These Protests?

[LAGC]

Surprised this post has lasted as long as it has in General Discussion without being banished here to the Gungeon:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2185832

It just got me thinking, I understand the core message at these protests is non-violence, and tend to agree with the sentiment that open-carrying in general is kind of silly, "showing off", "sacrificing your advantage by letting the bad guys know that you are carrying", etc.

But I can't help but think, if these guys keep the police distracted and focused on THEM instead of the rest of the protesters, might the police be less likely to assault the crowd with tear gas and pepper-spray?

I mean, its not like anyone would be stupid enough to actually open fire on the police with live bullets, but I can't help but wonder if maybe just their mere presence helps keep the police abuse in check?

What do you folks think?

[msongs]

1. open carry is a sort of bullying by default nt

[Remmah2]

10. Bullying is a matter of perception.

I've carried concealed twice in 53 years, total of 8 hours. I'm not a regular "toter". I do not feel bullied by police, national guard, nor any civilian carrying a firearm. (Remember, 99.999983% of my life I have been unarmed in public.) This'd be open carry or accidental concealed carry diaplay.

I think it has more to do with the maturity of the individuals involved. The fastest way to defeat a bully is to ignore them.

Excessive exposure to TV, the Internet and other media sources has created a conditioned response in some people.

If someone stuck a barrel up my nose and cocked the trigger, that'd be bullying.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. No it isn't, no matter how much you pretend it is.

[SteveM]

24. In all seriousness, msongs, many liberal are obsessed by bullies...

Every time someone legally carries a gun around, or makes inflammatory statements at a rally (the very tired "Socialism!" crap), or claims they the "King of the Forest," liberals call those people bullies. You know they will keep right at it because you complain about it. Sheltered liberals complain about it. Schools complain about it. Commentators complain about it.

Do something about it: Talk to these people, give 'em crap back if necessary, have your own demonstration. But quit complaining about it -- it gives liberals and progressives a bad image of whining weakness (something bullies love to go after).

[Paladin]

29. Open Carry Equals Public Intimidation And Bullying.

Anyone who can't be satisfied with concealed carry and the reasoned, restrained personal defense it ideally represents, needs to seriously question his or her motivations....

[oneshooter]

30. Some states like California, New York, and Illinois are imposable

or nearly so to obtain a CHL.

[mvccd1000]

31. In general, or at a protest?

Because personally, I'm more in favor of deterrence than the chance to "surprise" a potential criminal with my hidden weapon.

[oneshooter]

34. In general, California is a "may issue" state. You have to be in good with the

local sheriff to obtain one. Illinois has no concealed carry. New York state is also a may issue.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[SteveM]

35. Only if you perceive that you are being bullied...

Frankly, I have no desire to carry in public; concealed would be fine with me. However, if I needed to carry a weapon for protection, and the only option for me was to carry in public, I would do so.

[cleanhippie]

43. Except that it isn't.

[pnwmom]

2. I think open-carrying is INVITING the police to get involved.

It gives them the perfect excuse to bring out the pepper spray and to blame it on feeling threatened by the protesters.

[krispos42]

7. Like they did on the teabaggers? n/t

[Remmah2]

11. Tea baggers, old age and bladder control.

Tea baggers, old age and bladder control, they all go hand in hand. Many of them toting teabaggrs tuck their shooting irons in their depends and have to go home after 8 hours. The cops just have to hand out water and coffee tom get them to go home.

The 99% have staying power and can hold out for weeks. Give them an expresso and they can hold out for months.

[one-eyed fat man]

33. The 99%

can be hampered by cutting off the free Wi-Fi and pulling the plug on the cell tower. Remember, in 1968, the vocal left overplayed their hand and the final outcome of all the protesting in Chicago was to get Richard Nixon elected.

The extremist on either end, right or left won't change. It is the contest for all those who might go either way. Often it is easier to make an enemy than an ally. In other words, appear reasonable, the people you piss off will vote against you.

[pnwmom]

13. You don't think the police will treat them the same, do you? n/t

[krispos42]

19. Unlikely!

Remember, the teabaggers had plenty of well-connected people pressuring the cops to behave.


Also, the teabaggers didn't need to stage a multi-week protest... 4 hours on a sunny day gave Fux News and their ilk plenty of time to flog the event beforehand and afterwards.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. If the protestors are armed? Yes, yes I do.

[one-eyed fat man]

40. Are you saying the police

will beat up the ones they think are the biggest pussies?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. Anybody open carrying was stopped and checked by the cops before they got there

So presumptively what they are doing is legal

Cops already believe there are guns in the encampments since it is a standard assumption they make.

[gejohnston]

20. pepper spray nothing

I think you have a valid point in places like Oakland but the cops will be bringing out the sub machine guns, shotguns, and scoped bolt actions. If you are going to open carry, I suggest Occupy Casper, WY. Yes, there too.

[cleanhippie]

44. Except that it's not.

[saras]

3. It's worse than useless unless you not only outgun the police, but are willing to use them to WIN

Otherwise you're getting into a penis-waving fight, and there's no way in hell the cops will back down ever.

[leveymg]

4. It really is a TERRIBLE idea. It trumps the nonviolent message of OWS that has sustained

and legitimized the movement.

Open Carry is for Tea Party rallies, where the police never show up.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. Violence is actions not objects. This does not impact the non-violent status of OWS in the least

Open carry is just fine. Some in the encampments are concealed carrying as well.

[SteveM]

25. The OWS must be more open to other people; I've seen that here...

in Austin, TX. No doubt Teaparty folks were here, along with libertarians and others and, since open-carry is not as yet legal in Texas, some folks wore t-shirts emblazoned with handguns. No problems.

Incidentally, Gandhi was a proponent of self-defense. He followed Ahimsa, the highest form of non-violent expression wherein an attacker was prevented from harming himself, family, home, without injury to the attacker. But he recognized that if a person could not practice Ahimsa, he/she was duty-bound to defend his body, family, home, religion by deadly violence if necessary. He eschewed inactive pacifism which some confuse with non-violent strategies and even personal life practices. He termed standing idly by while an attacker had his way as "cowardice."

[Euromutt]

32. If the OWS movement has rejected violence even as a final resort...

...then why should the 1% give a fuck? They have more money (which is precisely the complaint), they have the politicians' ears (Chuck Schumer is "Wall Street's favorite senator"; Obama's foremost contributor is Goldman Sachs) and thus have an inordinate amount of influence on government. For all practical purposes, they have the SEC in their pocket (which is "why Wall Street isn't in jail"). What is the 1% supposed to be scared of? That the 99% will periodically remind them how angry they are about the state of affairs, but won't actually do anything about it?

As Taibbi says in the linked piece:

"You put Lloyd Blankfein in pound-me-in-the-ass prison for one six-month term, and all this bullshit would stop, all over Wall Street," says a former congressional aide. "That's all it would take. Just once."

Failing that, maybe the thought of being dragged from their BMWs and Lexuses and being beaten to within an inch of their lives by the people whose livelihoods they've wrecked and whose houses they're now foreclosing on might give them pause.

[ileus]

5. Open carry is never a bad idea...it allows quicker access to your safety device.

[pnwmom]

14. It is when you're trying to have a non-violent demonstration

and don't want to provide the police an excuse for turning to violence.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

17. Cop already assume there are weapons present

And the open carry does not mean the rally is now violent. It actions not objects

[ileus]

18. firearms legally carried don't create violence.

However.com you're right if something does flare up and OCer would become LEO's first target. They have to remove the greatest threat first, and like loads of other people they believe the gun owner is a criminal.

[pnwmom]

28. I didn't say they did. I said the police would use them as an excuse. n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

23. Objects aren't violent, and you are perpetuating a myth.

[jmg257]

6. Bad idea. No way will having guns in the crowd keep police in check.

It's got little to do with "violence vs non-violence", at least initially...doesn't seem the clown in the OP is being violent, though he is a distraction...and of course the threat of serious violence is there...which may be his point.

So when confrontations start, the cops are going to be REAL jumpy, and having guns in the crowd means they will be drawing their sidearms and will be more abundantly & conspiciously armed with long arms, and will need to respond with much more force to try to be sure the protestors don't use theirs.

Not good.

[SteveM]

26. Carrying a weapon at OWS is for self-defense, not to confront police...

Here in Austin, a "transient" (homeless to some) threatened an occupier with a knife and had to be arrested by the police. Some of the "transients" in Austin are first-class fuck-ups, given "Greyhound therapy" (one-way bus ticket from other cities to the state mental health institutions and hippy culture of Austin) so they can continue their fuck-ups; what happened here was predictable.

It amazes me how many people see guns only in terms of social policy and culture issues, trying to force-fit their mere presence into imaginary scenarios and some kind of metaphorical symbolism.

[Katya Mullethov]

8. No problems in Phoenix

There's a whole crew of them over there .

Odd that it isnt all over the news , LOL

[jeepnstein]

9. Let's hope there never comes a day...

when the protesters have to rely on those open carry types to watch their backs as they peacefully protest. It's the job of the police to see that everyone gets a chance to exercise their rights under the Constitution. There have been cases where the police didn't exactly do their jobs. Some times the high bidder gets his rights first and foremost, if you know what I mean.

[jmg257]

12. Think a few protestors having AKs would be for the better here?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2186849




Nasty.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=CpO-lJr2BQY

[Glassunion]

27. My thoughts.

I'm a believer in non-violent behavior. Please do not confuse that with pacifism.

In my view, non-violence has less worth if the non-violent are impotent. However, if those behaving non-violently have great strength, there is great worth and power in the movement.

Strength can be attained in many ways. My personal favorite is strength in numbers. The kind of numbers that place a bit of fear in the authorities. The kind of numbers where those in charge know that they do not have the capacity to face the non-violent in a violent manner.

1,000 police officers can handle 10,000 protestors. They can bend the protestors to their will. However that same number of officers cannot bend a crowd of 100,000. Then and only then is the message heard.

The message is far more clear if a mass of great strength with the capacity of violence stands in one voice. Their cause is granted great weight if that same group takes the more difficult route of non-violence. That says to me "We are strong, we will not go away, we will be heard and you will listen."

Sadly I fear to today's day and age, this is impossible. I do not trust the peaceful to remain so. Frustration builds as more and more jobs disappear, all of our politicians refuse to listen, the police plant aggressors into the movement and the media turns a blind eye to the abuses of the bought and paid for police.

Personally, for me in regards to the OWS movement. I say, leave the gun at home. Yes the police will abuse, but do not give into violence. Yes the MSM will ignore the abuse, but do not give into violence. Violence gives the other side exactly what it wants.

There are movements where a non-violent display of firearms would be prudent. But for this particular movement, I do feel it would be productive.

[Euromutt]

36. Key phrase in your thoughts: "the capacity of violence"

I agree with you, up to a point; that point being when the route of non-violence fails to yield results. If I may paraphrase your words, a mass movement derives its power from its overwhelming "capacity of violence"; it derives its legitimacy from the decision to refrain from using that capacity. But if you completely rule out violent action, even as the very final resort, don't you then surrender the power that the mass movement can potentially bring to bear?

[Glassunion]

37. I see your point. You are correct.

It's a tough one.

My mother fought for civil rights. She marched with Dr. King. What would they have done if their non-violent movement was not heard? I cannot answer that.

[Katya Mullethov]

38. Atlantian excuses

http://downtown.11alive.com/news/news/87786-downtown-armed-man-spurred-decision-end-occupy-atlanta

Armed man spurred decision to end Occupy Atlanta

[jpak]

39. Yes it is - gun-toting = brownshirt tactics better left to teabaggers and GOP morans

yup

[one-eyed fat man]

41. The Mayor of Atlanta has answered that question

A Georgiacarry.org member went down to talk with them and explain how he supported their right to protest, while lawfully carrying his AKS-47. The police are cool with it -- it's legal. His sign reads that he disagrees with their message, but they have a right to express it.

But when the mayor hears someone has an AK in the park, he orders the demonstration shut down.

As far as Occupy Atlanta goes, William Tecumseh Sherman did first, and he did it better!

[jpak]

42. Georgiacarry.org = flaming GOP douchebags

yup