He was not talking about a permit. He was talking about a description to his action. He was not talking about the specific name of his permit. Even if he was, it is an innocent mistake/misconception.
And again, I reiterate, the ONLY time that "CCW" or "carrying a concealed weapon" are used in State statutes is to describe a crime, NOT to describe a lawful mode of carry. This use of "CCW" is anincorrect usage carried over from the pre-Shall-Issue days. It was started by "gun press writers" (who, BTW, were mostly LEOs like Mass Ayoob) who were using it to speak to a very small, insular community that the rest of the world didn't pay much attention to. For some reason, nobody put a stop to this a LONG time ago (perhaps it's because many of the mainstream gun magazines are owned by the same corporations who are big funders of the anti-gun movement. FUD makes profit...)
That has changed RADICALLY. The "anti's" watch our web fora. They read our magazines. They try to use our words against us at EVERY available turn.
And yet the "pro 2A community", like the proverbial ostrich, stands here with our head in the sand, unwilling to change our tactics, our language, or our PR models. We stubbornly refuse engage the public in a broad-based way. We staunchly cling to our historical demographic of middle class, white males, and tolerate racism, classism, sexism, and homophobia, even though the LARGEST growth markets for personal defense firearms are women and gay men. We cling to our old jargonistic terminology--MUCH of which is inaccurate at best (and flat out INCORRECT at worst) because "everyone says it that way", even though the "anti's" use these incorrect terms to increase FUD against us in the minds of the general public.
It's time to pull our heads out of the sand, folks.
It's time to take control of the rhetoric in this "debate". It's time to start using language in a THOUGHTFUL, persuasive, and yes, even manipulative way--because this is not merely an "argument about right and wrong". Most of the general public doesn't give a rat's patootie about "right and wrong". They care about "how does this effect ME". And if the "anti's" can trot out a few weeping mothers of dead crack dealers and say "see what guns do", most people aren't going to take the time to really investigate the REALITY of the situation.
When we start tossing out (in defense of RKBA) all sorts of statistics, and hypothetical situations, and reading passages from the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, do you REALLY think that gets traction with 90% of the population? Or do the videos of weeping and wailing mothers and children of the "victims" of "gun violence" (most of whom were actually some of the main instigators of violence themselves) hit home for more people?
The "debate" about RKBA is no longer a polite session of discourse. The "other side"--the anti-Liberty, fascist, control freak sociopath "antis"--made this a WAR from the very beginning. It is a war for the minds of America. They are throwing EVERYTHING they have at this war--TV interviews, propaganda feeds to the "news", supplying "experts" to the media, articles full of FUD and lies in the print media, radio appearances--and they have defined the battlefield from day one. They understand that this is a war for the mind, and will never stop spewing their filthy lies until they reach their goal of the complete disarmament of EVERY person who is not an LEO or active-duty military.
We need to WAKE UP to the fact that activism starts with the word "active". IF people can't be bothered to use the right words (and NOT use the wrong words)--words that carry with them decades of programming, subconscious resonance, and have been contextualized to automatically generate a negative visceral response in the public--then may I suggest such people get a different hobby.
Think of your days back in school. If the teacher told you that you were stupid for using the wrong form of their/there,that you make her look bad and she would give you a detention if you messed up again - would that help the situation? Whereas, if the teacher had you stay in for recess one day and explained in detail which form was correct and why - and told you that if you had any questions, to please ask them now - would that type of method be better?
So let me get this straight...
I HAVE been explaining for nearly 2 years how the use of "CCW" is counterproductive to our cause, and why that is. I've been explaining for nearly 2 years on this forum and others, that the RKBA movement need a RADICAL update to their PR model (if they actually even HAVE one at all!). I've been explaining that the "antis" have been working with state-of-the-art PR since the inception of the Brady Campaign--massive media penetration, VERY skillfully crafted word usage, a media presense that treads incredibly close to outright psychological warfare models used by our own military--and yet the 2A and RKBA communities seem content to respond to these tactics with 18th century PR model--Truth, Liberty Statistics and History.
And yet you are accusing me of doing the EXACT opposite of what I've been doing for 2 years--not because my facts are wrong but because you don't like my delivery style?
If a teacher had a student that the glass-covered hole in the classroom wall a "bleggle" in stead of a window, and did it starting in 1st grade, and CONTINUED to do it through his High School graduation--despite being corrected over and over again, and being shown dictionary entries, and engineering texts, and architectural books--don't you think his teachers might get a little short after a while?
I'm not saying we need to become the same sort of lying, duplicitous, devious, manipulative, control freak sociopaths that the "anti's" are.
But I AM saying that we are (and have been for over 2 decades) fighting a 21st Century war against a 21st century opponent using 18th century tactics. It's no wonder the 2A and RKBA movement is ALWAYS playing catch-up.
And a REALLY good place to start is for us to STOP using terms like CCW, because it's inaccurate, it is HEAVILY charged with negative feelings for many people, and it has been used (with great skill and craftiness) in the "entertainment" media for nearly 3 decades--in cop shows, movies, and such--for one reason and one reason only--to describe a CRIMINAL ACT. The public has had it drilled into their heads by the media and their entertainment that "CCW" and "Carrying a Concealed Weapon" is bad, illegal, and dangerous.
We need to STOP using that term.
Just call the act of lawful concealed carry "CC".
We don't call what we on THIS forum do OCW, do we? No. And CCers need to STOP calling their lawful, legal mode of carry by a term that is ONLY used in the legal code to define a crime. It makes no sense to use that term for a myriad of reasons.
Wake up people. This isn't a polite little game of high school debate team.
This is a WAR for the MINDS of the public, and we're already over 2 decades behind in controlling the battle, and three centuries behind in our tactics, technology and modes of operation.
Regardless, I don't really care to continue to argue about it - its pointless - you don't seem to care about education, but rather being hostile and disrespectful towards fellow OC'ers.
Oh, but you apparently DO, because you've written a quarter-page screed against everything I've said--attempting to turn my protestations into some sort of misguided personal attack. You've attempted to use a rather subtle logical fallacy to discredit my stance, while not spending a single second successfully refuting any of the claims I make.
Whose side are you guys on anyway?
Why are you so dead-set against changing your tactics, reforming your speech, and bringing your PR model out of the 18th century? Are you TRYING to lose against the "anti's"? I mean, really,
which side are you guys REALLY on?
The argument made by CCers against OC isn't that OCers will be robbed at gunpoint because they are OCing. The arguments made by CCers is that OCers will be "the first ones shot because they are OCing", or that we will b the victims of "gun grabs". This incident was NEITHER of those scenarios.
The "victim" had no training in retention, self defense technique, or even basic personal safety. He went out and bought a gun to "show the bad guys who was boss", and carried a gun--without training or education in it's lawful and effective use--as a knee-jerk reaction to the takeover of his neighborhood by thugs and punks.
He was held up--at gunpoint on a public street--and the thug stole his gun (and other things). He made no attempt to defend himself. He made no attempt to avoid the confrontation in the first place. He actually HELPED the BG get his gun out of the holster, and handed it over to the thug.
No, this is NOT an incident that any CCer can use to legitimately support an anti OC stance. It is simply a "goof with a gun" incident.
