TexasCHLforum.com

There is always talk about the how “liberal” media controls what the public sees, therefore affecting public opinion. In this one instance, whether the media were liberal or not wasn’t an issue, but it did affect the opinion of the public in my area.

The building in which my furniture restoration shop was located was sold. I made the decision to auction off everything - equipment, furniture, and all. I received quite a bit of press about the event, including an interview from the local newspaper, which ran a nice piece the next day. The TV station also sent out an interviewer and a videographer, who was taking video of the furniture items as I was being interviewed. The video ran on 2 segments of the nightly news. I had some very nice furniture in the items to be sold. I also had some furniture that had been abandoned by the customers and that I had not yet repaired. One piece in particular had been sitting in a barn for decades; it was dilapidated and looked like it had been sitting in a barn for decades. Did anyone watching the newscasts see the several pieces of very nice furniture that was available? No! What the viewers saw was that one piece of furniture that had not been worked on. The auction of the furniture was an absolute dud.

The point of this story: On other forums, there is talk about the guy that went to the Tea Party rally in Texas with an AK-47 slung over his shoulder. A lot of the discussion is about his “right” to do so. Yes, it was his right, but it was “wrong” for him to do so. He perception versus reality of "how the world works" was skewed.

In my case, the reality was that there was some quality furniture available. The general public’s perception was that all that was being offered was garbage furniture not fit to be in a house. In this event, I would have been better off by not having the media involved.

To add a metaphor, if you are an Olympic diver trying to score points, it is much, much more effective to slice through the water, rather than making a big splash.

Certain other groups don't seem to have an issue with throwing their beliefs/lifestyles in our faces on a daily basis. I don't see the problem with the guy legally carrying an AK... pretty much anything can and will be skewed by the media. It's the real people we need to worry about. They need edumacation

MadMonkey wrote:... I don't see the problem with the guy legally carrying an AK... pretty much anything can and will be skewed by the media...

Why give the media more ammunition (pun intended) for their anti-RKBA rantings? That is counter productive...to say the least.

You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and they won't take him seriously.

And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both rednecks and they won't take either of them seriously.

And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking around with rifles. They may think it's an organization.

And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day, I said fifty people a day walking around with rifles. And friends they may thinks it's a movement.

You can carry anything you want. At Alice's restaurant.

1967, no?

sawdust, I think you've stated the case eloquently, with a real life experience to make the point. Our right to RKBA is so precious, and it is very, very much under attack. Therefore, discernment and wisdom are called for like never before.

I absolutely support "AK Dude's" right to carry that rifle to that event. I absolutely believe that it was unwise and lacked discernment. I know no other way of expressing that. In the thread from which this discussion originated, one respondent called shame down on the heads of those of us who thought it was the wrong thing to do. I, for one, will never be ashamed of exercising wisdom and discernment; and in fact, every step in the right direction from which we all benefit has been won by the careful and determined application of wisdom and discernment, and nothing else. There is no shame in being wise and exercising one's critical thinking skills — particularly whenever all the surrounding emotions are running hot.

The Annoyed Man wrote:sawdust, I think you've stated the case eloquently,

I blush Thank you.

Even in my enlightened state of being , I have a problem with the "K" in the term "RKBA". For those of us in the choir , , we understand the context in which it is used, and what is being intended by the word "kill" (I think). Yet, when the "RKBA" is spoken in its non-acronym form to anyone who is personally or politically opposed, or even just mostly neutral, to the 2A issue, all that person or others will hear "Right to Kill....!!!!". Because of the emotional content of that word, they will not even be aware of the rest of the statement nor the rationale behind it. As politicians well know, emotional impact is much stronger that reasoned logic. And once the emotional perception is set, the amount of effort required to re-set it is considerable.

So I go back to the original premise: we need to be sure that the reality we are trying to convey is the same as what the receptor perceives.

I'm out.

I thought RKBA = the Right of the people to Keep and Bear Arms

Like in the Second Amendment.

Oh I blush.

Stupid me. I don't know where that came from. Somewhere along the way, my brain changed it. Maybe I have heard it stated that way and never verified.

But in a way that I had not intended, my gaffe does illustrate how my point.

aardwolf wrote:You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and they won't take him seriously.

And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both rednecks and they won't take either of them seriously.

And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking around with rifles. They may think it's an organization.

And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day, I said fifty people a day walking around with rifles. And friends they may thinks it's a movement.

You can carry anything you want. At Alice's restaurant.

Five people walking around-they'll think is a militia.

boomerang wrote:I thought RKBA = the Right of the people to Keep and Bear Arms

Like in the Second Amendment.

You are correct.

Oldgringo wrote:Why give the media more ammunition (pun intended) for their anti-RKBA rantings?

They already have plenty. They'll just squeal about this like they do about everything else.

So its only OK to exercise our rights if the group says we can? Or if its not gonna offend other people?

mymojo wrote:So its only OK to exercise our rights if the group says we can? Or if its not gonna offend other people?

I personally believe those that are making a lot of noise about open carry may do more harm than good. First, I don’t believe open carry will ever be enacted in Texas. Second, if it did and some people started carrying openly and it makes a lot of people nervous, you may see a lot of stores start putting up 30.06 signs and/or the legal signs barring people from carrying guns into their businesses at all.

What good would a CHL or open carry be if you have to leave your gun in the car most of the time to go into any store or business?

In my opinion Sawdust and The Annoyed Man are right when saying we must use wisdom and discretion.

Remember, those people you might offend vote, and the state legislature can “take away” the right to carry as easily as they granted it. We need the public on our side.

Government does not “give us rights” but they can make it illegal to exercise them, and in a Democracy, government should bend to the will of the majority.

VoiceofReason wrote:

mymojo wrote:So its only OK to exercise our rights if the group says we can? Or if its not gonna offend other people?

I personally believe those that are making a lot of noise about open carry may do more harm than good. First, I don’t believe open carry will ever be enacted in Texas. Second, if it did and some people started carrying openly and it makes a lot of people nervous, you may see a lot of stores start putting up 30.06 signs and/or the legal signs barring people from carrying guns into their businesses at all.

What good would a CHL or open carry be if you have to leave your gun in the car most of the time to go into any store or business?

In my opinion Sawdust and The Annoyed Man are right when saying we must use wisdom and discretion.

Remember, those people you might offend vote, and the state legislature can “take away” the right to carry as easily as they granted it. We need the public on our side.

Government does not “give us rights” but they can make it illegal to exercise them, and in a Democracy, government should bend to the will of the majority.

I think Franklin said it best that: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

I don't think government should necessarily bend to the will of the majority, but I agree that it tends to do so. One of our problems, as I see it, is precisely that government bends to will of the vocal majority; curbing liberties and freedoms for all people in the process. For some, before becoming conditioned to the daily presence and need for firearms, the larger, and more important battle is reconditioning their understanding of the formation and intent of our government. Change the perception of what our government should be, and the reality of what it is leaves little room for defaulting our personal responsibilities to it. I'd bet open carry isn't an issue after that.