NRA Calls 'Open Carry' Rallies Scary and "Downright Weird"

The group "Open Carry Texas" is pissed off at the NRA and is threatening to withdraw its support because the NRA said they were weird.



MSN News

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" rights now have a surprising ally: the National Rifle Association.
...
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."

I have to agree with the NRA this time. The extremist gun rights advocates who are carrying their guns everywhere they go are pretty damn scary and weird, IMO. In an effort to draw attention to themselves and their cause, they are scaring people and it's no wonder the government has their eyes on these groups.

I wholeheartedly support firearm ownership. But what these groups are doing is approaching brandishing and will go nowhere good. I wonder if they're purposely pushing to see how far they can go before the government steps in and stops them. Then they'll REALLY have a case that proves Obama is trying to take their guns. LOL

Has the "Open Carry" frenzy gone too far?

These types of actions to scare and intimidate people and to what end?

I think they do more harm than good as far as gun rights go.

These morons have the potential to start a riot. I don't know how anyone else feels about it, but if 3-5 people came into the restaurant I was at with assault rifles, I would bolt out the back door so fast. I'm sure some other people would to. Hell, I won't be surprised when some 60-something empties his concealed weapon into them on sight, thinking he is saving lives.
These idiots should be charged with inciting a riot or something.
I'm all for people having guns, but don't bring them into where I'm at with my family trying to have a nice time.

I will tell you what is scary:

The fact that for 70+ years guns have been demagogued, and during that entire time LAW after LAW has been written.

When the law that says 'I can't kill another person' has existed pretty much since man called himself 'cvilized'.

Even more scary is the support of the total violation of the bill of rights.

Specifically:

Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Regulation created the NRA of course they have done a snip poor job.

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Every gun law violates this amendment :'the right of the people to be secure in the persons,houses,papers, and effects.

Amendment V No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

All gun laws hold the entire population of the country responsible for 'crimes' someone esle did, that is already in violation of that LAW that says 'I can't kill someone else'.

Amendment VI In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence

Since the majority has committed no crime, and are denied their DUE PROCESS in a court of LAW.

What gun owners get is tried, and executed in the kangaroo courts of public opinion.

Amendment VII In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Gun owners are well aware of the cost of guns these days, and they sure the hell cost more than 20 bucks.

And are still denied their RIGHT to trial in a court of LAW.

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And here it is.

The powers 'granted' to the US government of certain rights can not be interpreted, to deny or disparage other ( RIGHTS) retained by the people.

All gun laws DENY AND DISPARAGE A RIGHT that is specifically laid out.

See the 2nd.

Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Guns are not prohibited in the constitution, any type can be owned by WE THE PEOPLE.

But since some people think that constitution is just a GD PIECE of PAPER.

We have gun control laws, and created the NRA.

The message in the post is what the NRA needs to be sending to the American people.

a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

As much as I have the right to carry my long gun around…I don't. We just don't live in a country that requires me to. If I lived in a war torn or destabilized country maybe. I mean if I actually had a need to shoot targets 50+ yards away then sure it's my go to gun…lets look at us stats though. Most of the situations faced by the average American will be within 10 feet. Soooooo not really so useful to even carry a long gun around like that.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Retraction:

NRA’s Chris Cox: Open Carry Condemnation Was a Mistake

Yesterday, NRA-ILA jefe and NRA Veep-apparent Chris Cox took to Cam and Company to issue a retraction. Cox called the alert as a “mistake.” “It shouldn’t have happened,” Cox said, blaming the statement as a “staffer’s personal opinion.” “It was a poor word choice,” the NRA-ILA Director added. That said, Cox stands by the gun rights group’s assessment that long gun open carry in Texas restaurants is tactically inadvisable. That said, Cox said “we support open carry . . . unapologetically”

link with video


From OCT's Facebook:

Open Carry Texas would like to both thank and applaud Chris Cox and the National Rifle Association for clarification on their stance of open carry. We remain confident that the NRA will aid with legislative support, to help in getting an open carry bill both drafted, and passed in the 2015 legislative session. With or without support of the NRA, our mission is unchanged: to legalize open carry of modern handguns in Texas and to continue to educate and train Texans in regard to safely carrying firearms openly.

a reply to: neo96

God damn you Neo..
I was going to say what part of Shall not be infringed do people not understand.. But you just took it into way way more detail..

Good job man, good job.

For the record, I do not own any guns, I only shot a 22 1 time in boy scouts.. I dont care for guns, but I am glad the limited ability that we have can own guns. My point of view Shall not be infringed means people can own whatever gun the government has.. So we can keep a well regulated militia to INSURE a FREE STATE.

And about the topic, this is like people being afraid of people smoking pot.. Just saying.. As much harm will come to people around them considering the people carrying these supposed military weapons are law abiding citizens.

The differences between the two are staggering.......

*Licensed carry- Background checks of personal, criminal and medical...plus training with an instructor and X amount of range shooting time before being granted a license to carry

*Open Carry-Nothing

There is a BIG difference here

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

As much as I have the right to carry my long gun around…I don't. We just don't live in a country that requires me to. If I lived in a war torn or destabilized country maybe. I mean if I actually had a need to shoot targets 50+ yards away then sure it's my go to gun…lets look at us stats though. Most of the situations faced by the average American will be within 10 feet. Soooooo not really so useful to even carry a long gun around like that.

That's a really good point. Carrying a side arm in a holster on your belt or something like that. Probably more effective in a street situation and not as scary or confrontational or really, controversial.

originally posted by: mysterioustranger
The differences between the two are staggering.......

*Licensed carry- Background checks of personal, criminal and medical...plus training with an instructor and X amount of range shooting time before being granted a license to carry

*Open Carry-Nothing

There is a BIG difference here

What is the difference?

A license is a violation of the 2nd amendment.

I've been carrying for a good while, both open and more usually concealed. I firmly believe our best way to support our 2A rights is to be responsible while carrying, but more so, conduct ourselves in a manner socially considered NORMAL.

Open carry rallies do more harm than good, in my opinion. It draws attention to the guns and the owners being so eager to force them into people's faces; rather than the option of being able to say "see that? Ever third person is carrying and you'd never know. Why? Because they are just like you." The every third is just a random number, but it's meant to illustrate that responsible carrying owners are all around you, and you'd probably never know if they are being responsible.

Even open carrying rarely gets noticed if you're just going about your business. You might get the occasional odd look but they almost always quickly pass over you after - because you're not waving the gun around in the air declaring your rights.

We can fight for our 2A rights in many ways. Political forums, talk shows, web posts and blogs, all sorts of social media, but at the end of the day we are the best representation of what we are trying to protect. I don't want people to hear that I carry and assume I run around with my AR in the air at rallies. I want them to be "Wow, I'd never have known." And then I can educate them.

Sure is.

Don't need an ID to vote, or a license,background check to vote since that is a 'constitutional right'.

But that other constitutional right.

WHO CARES !

How about treating gun owners like voters ?

Because they are.

2 rights constitutionally guaranteed.

I don't think the NRA ever thought people would get that obsessed with open carrying like that. There is no reason to disturb the public by carrying assault rifles. Get a concealed weapon permit and keep the gun out of sight in case it is needed. When someone tries to rob a convenience store, ten guns could be pointed at them. Now that is the way to do it. Just make sure not to hit the store clerk or any innocent people if the people holding up the store don't drop their gun when told to.

People flashing serious looking guns around just makes others feel uneasy. How do you know if that person isn't someone who is crazy and going to start picking off people.

There is no reason to disturb the public by carrying assault rifles. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Back in the day growing up. I use to see trucks with rifles, and shotguns hung up in their back windows.

20 years later that no longer happens.

If it does the driver is likely to be met with 10 cops with their guns drawn at them.

Once upon a time in America there was freedom.

Today some people only think the cops, and the military, and other federal agencies get to 'open carry'.

Messed up country we live in.

a reply to: rickymouse

Here is a question.

Why do you need a permit to carry a firearm that is garented under the constitution?
Like Neo stated, Voting you dont need to give your info or anything for voting, but you have to give your 1st born left nut and life to carry a gun? The license is a violation of the 2nd amendment where it states shall not be infringed.. Meaning anything undermining the 2nd amendment is a clear violation of said amendment. The 2nd amendment is clear.. Shall not be infringed...

Definition for reference.

in·fringe
inˈfrinj/
verb
verb: infringe; 3rd person present: infringes; past tense: infringed; past participle: infringed; gerund or present participle: infringing

actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
"making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright"

I never really understood the whole point of open carry rallies or people who walk around with their semi-automatic weapons, and rifles on the streets.
As someone mentioned earlier, there is no point on doing so, it will only alarm and make people feel a little on edge, especially since so many random shootings happen in the U.S already. And the law is already known, that you CAN open carry.
I am not against the right to bare arms, hunting, or carrying while out in the woods or on a ranch or what have you, but, in cities, and populated areas, it is kinda weird.

a reply to: ThichHeaded

The constitution- BILL OF RIGHTS is the only 'license' we need.

And it is free.

a reply to: neo96

People used to break into vehicles to steal those guns hanging on the gun racks back then also. The guns would fly out of those hangers in an accident also, hurting the driver and passengers if they hit something. Better racks had latches. The laws for having them in a case was to prevent poaching, as it was harder to get them out if you saw a deer on the road. I remember those days with poachers with spotlights. I used to know a few people who did that kind of stuff back long ago. I preferred to shoot my deer legally though. I could not judge though, some people needed the meat to feed their families. Too proud to get assistance for food.

a reply to: neo96

Naw man, it is just a god damn piece of paper according to some.. Actually some very high up..

But I definitely agree with you.

originally posted by: ThichHeaded
a reply to: neo96

Naw man, it is just a god damn piece of paper according to some.. Actually some very high up..

But I definitely agree with you.

Day by day this country is turning in to China or the old Soviet Russia.

They keep widdling away a clear right for nothing more than a false sense of security.

That a law some people don't care about in the first place.

So they write more laws that get ignored.