I can’t, and wouldn’t presume to stop you from open carrying. That’s an entirely different thing than telling you that in my opinion open carry is not effective activism.

That may be what you think you are saying, but let me tell you this: you are coming across as saying something entirely different. Every time the topic has come up, you have done damn near everything in your power to denigrate, demean, and diminish those who dared to have the gall to exercise their rights while happening to be on the small screen for a few seconds. That is not expressing your opinion – that is trying to coerce other people through emtional and, so far, factually lacking attacks.
You are right – saying that you do not agree with what someone is doing is, indeed, one thing. But coming out swinging at the person, worrying and fretting over what the person is doing to “the cause” (how ironic, that you just wrote a post on just this topic, and you are just as guilty of it as everyone else supposedly is), and otherwise engaging in attacking, offensive tactics is not ‘expressing your opinion’ – it is something else entirely.
As I said before, if you do not want to open carry, do not open carry. If you want to express your opinions as to why you do not want to, feel free. But the second you start telling people what they should and should not do, you lose any inherent high ground you might have had, especially given that, in the end, you have no better understanding of what this might or might not do for the cause than anyone else.
Methinks people not “intimately involved” in the process of getting the Norfolk 17 into their schools might have been firmly opposed to it as well.

It’s perfectly lawful for me…

If we were talking about you, we would not be having this conversation, Sebastian. If you had phrased your original disagreement with this whole shindig as “I would not” as opposed to “you should not”, you would have heard nary a peep out of me.
What works for you might not work for someone else. What works for someone else might not work for you. Who are you to be grand arbiter of it all, and decide what is and is not effective/a Good Idea (TM) in all cases?
Do not worry – based on your previous history of not answering questions in this thread, I will not hold my breath on that one either.

And as far as proof, how about I propose this. Next time you’re …

Fail. You are the one proposing that people should change their behaviors based on your opinion and your opinion alone. You are the one exhorting people to limit themselves and their actions on your whim. The onus, the burden of proof, is on you, not me. Get back to me when you have something concrete to show.

There are just some situations where if you’re trying to make a point, both to city council, and to the media who report goings on to the town folk, you’re going to have an easier time getting your message across by going concealed.

Ahh, and just because a situation will be made “easier”, law-abiding citizens should be willing to give up their rights, and you feel perfectly vindicated in advocating such an abandonment.
I have to admit, it is rather interesting watching you go through the necessary contortions of redefining your own statements on the fly – I will ask again, in slightly plainer language: if a person routinely and regularly openly carries in his normal routine of life, and also regularly and routinely goes to city council meetings, why should he abandon what he does in the “ordinary routine of his daily life” just because he happens to be a concerned citizen?
You, yourself, said that open carrying in normal life is acceptable, so why do the rules change suddenly when you want them to? And if a law-abiding person is performing a lawful action in a peaceful and polite manner, then, really, what is your problem with the spotlight being shined on him/her? That individual should be held up as an example, not shuffled off into a closet and never again spoken of.
Additionally, I will reiterate my other question: if open carry is not currently normal (a point I agree with you on), and if the idea of open carrying being normal is something you would approve of (an assumption on my part), then what, exactly, do you propose people do in order to get from point A to point B?

…what I’m essentially advocating is for people to view open carry for what it is, which is one tool in the arsenal of tactics that we can use against our opponents.

Great – given that I cannot think of anyone who does not hold that opinion, I guess your work here is done. The only difference is, certain people do not see open carry exclusively and only as a self-defense tactic.

But I don’t agree that open carry is a remarkably effective form of political activism.
[...]
I just don’t think he practice gives people enough context to accept it and understand it.

Fine. Then do not do it. However, disparaging those who do choose to open carry in potentially politically-active situations, and proposing that they should “keep it in their pants” (so to speak) is taking a page from the book of the anti-rights folks, and you should definitely know better. This is especially true considering that you have absolutely no facts, no evidence, no hard information of any variety concerning how the public, on average, has been viewing law-abiding citizens showing up to things like city council meetings while armed. Oh, sure, we have all seen the knee-jerk reaction from the usual suspects, but from Mom and Dad Jones? Not so much. I am going to have to go with Robb and demand evidence to support your opinion, given you are the one proposing limitations (“voluntary” or not) on other people based on your own personal opinion.

Note I am not advocating “sitting on your hands.”

No, you are advocating something worse – that people should be willing to give up their rights when it is politically expedient… for you. You will have to forgive me if I find that particular stance to be intrinsically distasteful.

If the goal is to get people used to the idea that carrying a gun is normal, attracting attention makes it automatically fall outside that set.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. And what course of action is actually going to propagate the idea that openly carrying a firearm is normal? (1) Hiding said firearm whenever someone happens to look at it funny or tape it with a camera, or (B) simply openly carrying it wherever you go (within the bounds of the law, of course), whatever happens, and answering questions as best and as politely as you can. The definition of “normality” is not going to change until we make it change, and that has never happened, in the entire record of history, by simply sitting on your hands, or, even worse, hiding when the spotlight happens to be on you. We are already outside of the publicly-accepted, media-enforced definition of “normal” by daring to own firearms and havin the gall to not only exercise, but also defend, our rights – if some people are willing to publicly embrace that fact, more power to them.
But, then again, I guess the Norfolk 17* should have simply continued going to their original, segregated schools – after all, Lord knows we do not want to rock the boat… I know I stood up for you in the past, but I am really starting to understand some of the things folks said about your deportment at the 2A Blog Bash.
(* – Analogy chosen due to your inability to look past the legal aspects of the actions of Rosa Parks, which, in this particular analogous situation, are completely irrelevant – the “public relations” element is exactly the same (and the public opinion is what created those laws to begin with), and what the analogy more-specifically addresses.)

Well, I did it again… I went and threatened all of that progress we have been making on preserving the rights protected by the Second Amendment by openly carrying during my errands around town. Today’s jaunt took us to Bliss…