You may call it a media war, but the sad fact is that the majority of people in California are afraid/offended/alarmed at the sight of a gun...that is the root of the problem and not the fact that some people chose to challenge police officers who have little respect for the constitution (and little understanding of Terry). Yes, you will be happy to know you "pushed one of my buttons"...people who believe their way is THE way tend to do that. To a great extent, I have quit most of the carry forums (though I still support USA Carry) because of the number of people who cannot resist but to tell other people how they should exercise their rights and assign blame to those who challenge LEOs who believe the constitution to be a hindrance to be avoided. The tendency to "go along to get along" is what has allowed this nation to slip more and more heavily into a police state mentality...and contributed far more to the erosion of our rights than anyone challenging wrongful acts. I spent just under 25 years in federal law enforcement, after a few years at the state level, (yes, I am also covered by LEOSA, but that has little to do with the question at hand) and have watched this erosion. I have watched the militarization of police agencies and the rise of the idea that the safety of those who have sworn to protect the populace takes precedence over the rights of those they are sworn to protect. I have watched the average police officer change from one dedicated to serving the people to one with an Us vs. Them focus and whose first priority is controlling all with whom they come into contact. I have seen "you can't fight city hall" become so embedded that the people have become little but docile sheep alarmed by any who would defend their rights. Personally, I don't see how the people of California are any worse off than they were...and may potentially be in better shape for a court challenge to the anti gun laws than they were before the carry of a useless unloaded gun was outlawed. One interesting factor of the McDonald decision was the reference to the right to protect oneself...and it's inference that the average person must at least have access to that right whether it be through concealed or open carry. The fact that California now has no avenue for the average person to even have the appearance of a means of self-defense could easily have a more positive effect long term than the temporary need to replace the unloaded gun with a brick or other equally useful object is negative. In closing, go back to whatever logic textbook you might quote. An ad hominem argument is one that ignores fact and relies on attacking the character of one's opponent in order to dismiss their argument. I did not, at any time, say that your argument was incorrect because you were a coward or any other character flaw. I did intimate that the argument itself was one that demonstrated cowardice in that it promoted the idea that one should not challenge the erosion of their rights because it might encourage further curtailment of those rights...big difference. Crying "ad hominem" is probably the most misused attack on an argument (and the most misunderstood) on internet forums. Have a nice day.