The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: warhawke on October 17, 2009, 03:33:58 AM
-
Have you read this horseshit?
http://www.shotgunnews.com/cramer/ (http://www.shotgunnews.com/cramer/)
Clayton E. Cramer's
Column
How To Lose Friends
Perhaps this column will be an example of how to lose friends–but this is really important. There are times that being right isn't as important as being tactful. Over the last few weeks, as I write this column, there have been at least two incidents where those showing up at political events to protest Obama's health care reform program have been openly armed–one of them at an event in Phoenix where President Obama was speaking. 1
People who have not had anything to say about guns suddenly are asking questions such as, "Do Guns At Political Events Disturb You? Then Consider Skipping Arizona For Now." 2
Now, I am aware that the man carrying an AR-15 slung over his back in Phoenix didn't fit the redneck stereotype that news accounts tried to portray–many of which implied that the armed protesters were upset about a black man was in the White House. (The man with the AR-15 was about as black as his rifle.) 3
And yes, in both these situations, in Phoenix, and in New Hampshire, open carry is not just completely legal–the courts of the respective states have recognized that open carry is protected by the right to keep and bear arms provisions of the respective state constitutions.
But I want you to think back to some television commercials run some years back that emphasized the importance of both defensive driving, and being a bit less aggressive in your driving style. They emphasized that, ìYou may be clearly in the right in an accident you are involved in, dead right. î This is one of those times.
Americans have become very squeamish about guns over the last several decades–and it isn't just because the mass media have been propagandizing for gun control. There are a lot of people who have been victims of violence, or who are next of kin of victims of violence. In my experience, survivors of violent gun crimes respond in one of two ways: "Guns are evil. They must be banned!" or "I will be armed next time, and that monster won't survive." The reactions, in both cases, tend to be quite strong.
You and I can engage the first point of view with rational discussion of the failure of gun control laws to disarm the bad guys, and over time, we may be successful in persuading such a person that restrictive gun control doesn't work. But even if we win them over to our side, do not expect someone who has looked down the barrel of a gun wielded by a criminal to react dispassionately to seeing a gun over which he or she has no control in a public place. The next of kin of victims of violent gun crimes seem to be far more likely to respond with the first reaction than with the second–and it is part of the reason that under the best of conditions, gun control groups seem to have so many grieving parents and siblings in them.
I've had my share of conversations with gun control advocates over the years, and I've listened to their stories. Overwhelmingly, they didn't just wake up one morning and decide that guns were bad. There's usually a tragedy that struck close to home. You and I can look at their reaction and see that they came to the wrong conclusion–but you can understand that once someone has come to that wrong conclusion, seeing guns is going to provoke a strong and negative emotional response.
-
I have long felt that open carry, if you have some other choice, is a political mistake, and for this very reason. There are lots of Americans who have discomfort or misgivings about gun ownership. They may know that lots of Americans have concealed handgun permits, and that they are probably walking the streets with people that are armed. But it isn't obvious; the gun isnít proclaiming its presence. The visceral reaction that some Americans have to seeing people openly armed is not going to win you any friends–and may turn some people against gun ownership.
Let me draw an analogy that a lot of you may find unpleasant. About 3% of Americans are homosexuals. I don't approve of homosexuality, for a variety of reasons. I know that a pretty sizeable fraction of Americans share my views on this. We know what homosexuals are doing behind closed doors, and we generally accept that, however much we disapprove of that conduct, it isn't the government's job to tell consenting adults what they can do in private. Most homosexuals in America appear to know this; like you and me, they are more interested in living their lives than they are in making political points.
A small number of homosexual activists make rather a point of going the opposite direction. They hold "kiss-ins," with very public displays of affection, intended to desensitize straight America. I used to be pretty open-minded about homosexuality, but living in the San Francisco Bay Area, and seeing video of the San Francisco gay pride parades, so shocked and disgusted me that I am now pretty strongly disapproving. (And my guess is that many of you who are as open-minded as I was, would probably change your opinion, if you saw those videos.)
Open carry in an urban setting, when you have some realistic alternative available (such as concealed carry), is rather like a homosexual "kiss-in." The supporters are convinced that doing so makes Americans more tolerant and open-minded to the subject. I'm convinced that for every person who gets used to it, there are two who are repelled. In July of 2008, one of the open carry advocacy groups held an open carry event at the Zoo here in Boise, carrying loaded and holstered firearms. This is about as gun friendly a city as probably exists in the USA–and the reaction to it was about the same as if a bunch of same-sex couples had started passionately kissing and necking in front of the monkey cage. It wasn't illegal–but it sure took people that didn't think about the issue much, and made them unhappy.
Carrying a holstered handgun in Phoenix is apparently pretty common. It isn't the norm, but it isn't particularly shocking. Carrying an AR-15 slung over your back in Phoenix, however, I'm guessing is pretty unusual. Carrying one outside an event where President Obama is speaking? This is equivalent to some of the really disgusting stuff that you see in gay pride parades.
It is shocking and disturbing not because President Obama is black, but because there is a long history of assassination attempts on the President, starting with the January 30, 1835 attempt on Andrew Jackson's life,4 on former President Teddy Roosevelt,5 on President Truman, President Nixon,6 President Reagan, and former President George H. W. Bush. 7 All of the successful assassinations–such as the deaths of Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy–were carried out with guns.
There are places where open carry is perfectly sensible. No one is terribly shocked to see Americans armed while hunting, while target shooting, or in rural areas, in many states. I can remember a time when I would hike in the forests or the deserts of California with a Colt Government Model in a hip holster.
There are circumstances where concealed carry is not legal, but open carry is allowed. In some states, people started to carry openly as a way to remind the legislature that it needed to pass a concealed carry permit law. In a few cases, I know of people who were over 18, but under 21, and thus ineligible for a concealed carry permit. Yet they had reason to be concerned with their safety, and chose to carry openly, because they had no legal alternative. I'm not talking about those situations when I criticize open carry–I'm talking about the situations where open carry is considered disturbing, you have the option of having your gun concealed, and you choose to carry openly.
If we reach the point where we need to be armed to engage in the terrifying scenario that the Second Amendment was written to make possible–the overthrow of a tyrannical government–then I expect everyone who loves his country to be armed and ready. But as a form of political statement, in cities, and especially in proximity to the President–this is just dumb. It makes gun owners look crazy, and drives some people who are indifferent into opposition to gun ownership. Don't be stupid.
Clayton E. Cramer lives in Horseshoe Bend, Idaho. His most recent book, Armed America: The Remarkable Story of How and Why Guns Became as American as Apple Pie was published by Nelson Current in 2006.
-
and my reply to SGN;
I have been a loyal SGN reader for many years and have subscribed several times.
Having read Mr Cramer's column on Open Carry "How to lose friends" this will no longer be the case. Mr Cramer's Column should have been titled "Why we should be ashamed of our rights".
I will NOT be buying any further SGN magazines EVER, nor will I encourage my friends and family to do so, until and unless Mr Cramer is FIRED publicly and SGN apologizes for his failure to support the rights of American Citizens.
Patrick K Martin
Screw them.
-
Yeah, I wondered about Cramer's article when I read it too. My concern is not only with his inability to see open carry for what it really is, but also his willingness to provide ammo to our enemies. It is not about losing friends, it is about losing rights, Clayton.
-
This article reminds me of the "Jim Zumbo Incident" of a couple years ago. A person with the power of the media behind him, and a person of presumed knowledge and common sense in the firearm world, opens his mouth leaning to the antis.
Zumbo has saved his career and regained most of his reader and viewer base after a lot of hard work. A major part of this work included public time with Uncle Ted.
-
WOW,
I didn't realize the gun culture and the 2A had so much in common with a disgusting life style choice! ::)
BUT if you want to make a comparison then look at it this way. As MB has stated, homosexual radicals have told him that if they had a 4 million member organization they would have passed every law they want. Why? Because they would have them in the streets protesting and demonstrating for their point.
We need to do the same thing. Not hide like the Nancy, bed wetting author of this article would have us do. I have never read the "right not to be upset" that he seems to be exposing the antis have.
-
warhamke
While I agree that folks should be able to open carry, I do have to disagree with your response. You want to boycott a mag because some one said something you disagree with? When did we become the Taliban? Seriously, I think he made some good points, I just disagree on balance. I think the gay activisyts are right. Why should we hide in the closet? Its a God given and constitutionally guaranteed right to carry, get used to it. That said,since when do we want to read a mag where everyone agrees with us? The amen chorus gets boring pretty damn quick. We learn a lot more from those who challenge our beliefs than those who just reinforce them. Its why Rush became boring when he stopped putting liberals at the head of the line. I can learn from a debate, saying ditto, it just gets old. He said nothing out of line, and nothing stupid. In my personal life I would rarely carry open even if I could, in part for the reasons he stated, but mostly because I think ccw is a better tactical approach. That said, you should be able to decide for yourself. Just bear in mind, its a legitimate point of disagreement. I disagree with him, but I'm not offended.
FQ13
-
Want to do something about the dim wit that wrote the article?
Book stores all have comfy chair's in them. Go, read SGN for free, and copy down the links to their vendors and let the vendors know you'll be passing the word for your friends and shooting clubs to avoid products from companies that support this kind of nonsense writing.
Even two or three such letters, and you can BET the vendors will be calling the paper for action, or pulling adds and placing them elsewhere. Money talks.
Haz, "homosexual radicals"... Just reading those two words together sends creepy chill's down my back!
-
BM, most of us may not approve of how they warm their sheets, but "Pink Pistols" and the SF gun rights case make them our allies in this fight.
FQ. It's called voting with your wallet and I agree with BM on this.
Haz stole everything else I was going to post.
-
BM, most of us may not approve of how they warm their sheets, but "Pink Pistols" and the SF gun rights case make them our allies in this fight.
FQ. It's called voting with your wallet and I agree with BM on this.
Haz stole everything else I was going to post.
FQ, I agree with Tom. That being said, if that's not a vote (so to speak) that you are comfortable casting, then by all means don't. Just don't criticize those who do.
-
I for one do not spend my money where they call me a fool. Money talks.
-
The 2nd Amendment, utilized with local and state legal rights to open carry just scares some
sheeple, people...
Whether their pro gun or not, I'm reminded that 130,000,000 million U.S. guns killed no one today, by the legal armed citizenry of this country.
If a writer, is too PC to realize that, than too bad for him. He can go to Canada..
-
Can't really demand his head. We have have had exactly the same argument here among ourselves . Need to just except the fact that some people who are just as intense in their support of the 2A such as even Mossad Ayoob think that open carry is self defeating.
I, on the other hand think that if we settle for concealed carry our rights will assume an out of sight out of mind status, which is more likely to lose support than gain it.
-
I received a response to my e-mail today;
Clayton E. Cramer wrote:
> I'm not ashamed. I said that open carry, if you had some alternative available to you, wasn't an effective way to win people in the middle. There is a difference, you know.
>
My reply is as follows;
Really? You could have fooled me. Just to ensure that I did not overreact, I reread your article and I still see a person who thinks that our right to keep and bear arms is something to keep out of sight, a sin to be hidden, like those disgusting faggots should be hiding their perversions from the rest of us.
Yes, I am straight, and over the years I have found a lot of things that have been done by homosexual activists disturbing. I myself believe that many have gone too far in their zeal and desire to get in peoples faces (men dressing up like nun's and simulating sex acts comes to mind) and the idea that ones sexual orientation entitles one to special rights and legal protections is nonsense. I believe this sort of thing did a disservice to those who simply wished to end the discrimination and bigotry that existed in our society and that many people WERE driven to greater levels of fear and hatred of homosexuals and increased the counter-reaction against the homosexual movement. However, without the parades, the 'Kiss ins' and all the rest, would homosexuals be better off? Would staying in the closet and out of sight have changed the minds of millions, weakened or gotten rid of anti-homosexual laws and customs and allowed huge numbers of people to stand on who and what they are instead of hiding from their families, society and even themselves?
I have a CWP from the state of Montana, but I carry openly at every possible opportunity, why? Because hiding my firearm might help protect my person, but does nothing for my rights, it does nothing to show others that they having nothing to fear from my weapons. The hoplophobes will ALWAYS fear and distrust us and our weapons, theirs is not a philosophy but a pathology. Yes, seeing a pistol resting peacefully on the hips of their fellow citizens might drive some into the arms of the anti-self defense movement, but it will cause others to question why they were ever afraid in the first place. In America, for far longer than I have been alive, those who believe in firearms rights, and indeed the right of self-defense in general, have allowed their enemies to set the agenda. We have allowed those who hate and distrust THEMSELVES, much less the rest of society, to determine the laws and customs in this country. We have allowed ourselves to be portrayed as racists, bigots and seething cauldrons of barely suppressed rage awaiting only some tiny provocation to unleash our unquenchable thirst for human blood. All my life I have been told to hide my love of firearms and shooting as some secret sin, "don't let the neighbors know." and "people will think you're some kind of nut", well no more.
The gun-culture in this country has been like a battered spouse, always looking to ourselves for why we keep getting beat up. I cannot count the times I have heard that we have to compromise, we have to go along to get along. Hide your guns, keep your lifestyle a secret, don't let your kids talk about it, just one more law, one more rule, one more restriction and they will leave us alone. Has it worked? Has allowing the Pete Shields and Sarah Brady's to set the agenda made our rights safer? Has living in shame and begging the media for forgiveness of our lifestyle gained us societal acceptance? Have our constant attempts at appeasement gained us anything but more frequent and vocal abuse? If staying in the closet has not worked for 40 years, why should we believe it will work now?
It is time for ALL OF US to come out of the closet. It is time for us to stand up and be counted, for all the MILLIONS of gun owning Americans to tell politicians and the media and the anti-self defense zealots that we will no longer lay down for them. We will no longer hide, no longer cower, no longer allow them to project their fears and insecurities on us with impunity. It is time to say NO! No more compromises, no more deals, we demand to be left alone, free to exercise our rights without hindrance or let. Is hiding your gun going to do any of that?
Patrick K Martin
-
Warhawke
I respect your POV. BUT I guess I am like one of those closeted gays you praise (Eric, Tom, don't even start). By this I mean I carry, I have a Glock in my waist band as I type this. I also believe people should be able to open carry. Even if I could though, I wouldn't. Why? First I don't want to scare the cops. A scared cop is a dangerous cop. Second I am afraid that seeing my gun, someone would follow me to the parking lot, get my plate and know which house to break into when I was gone. Third, I don't want the BG to know I have a gun till I decide to let him know I have it. Finally, and as importantly, I undestand that a lot of folks just don't like guns. Why rile them up for no reason when you've still got the gun? Tuck your shirt in and make it an issue, or untuck it and keep it "out of sight out of mind"? Which seems smarter? The best way to win a fight is by avoiding one. Just sayin'.
FQ13
-
Their is no need to boycot Shotgun News. Just flood the letters to the editor with negitive letters about Mr. Cramer's views.
Just when we are gaining some ground is not the time to go and become a nancy girl or to roll over and play dead like a good puppy. We need to educate the sheep people that when you see a person with a gun in plain view that they are the good guy's and will stand beside them when needed.
-
FQ posted
I understand that a lot of folks just don't like guns.
I don't know about YOU, but my rights are dependent on the Constitution, not what some Momma raised metro sexual is "comfortable" with .
FQ posted
I understand that a lot of folks just don't like guns. (Yes I know it's the same quote )
My reply is "tough sh!t, I don't like fat women in spandex, but it's still legal.
-
There oughta be a law against that.
-
There oughta be a law against that.
At LEAST an OSHA policy. ;D
-
warhawke,
The your response to the response was excellent. I don't believe I could have written better and I will not be a forum monster and try. Bravo, my friend.
-
FQ,
Maybe I don't get it, but if I have to listen to all the rantings of gay rights advocates and pro choice believers, and if I have to fund their life styles, they can damn well look at my 1911 on my hip! The Second Amendment says that I have the Right, It says that that Right is protected, and the writings of the founding fathers say that it is important that we exercise this Right. No gray area to muddle through to figure it out.
I guess in one of my many surgeries they removed my PC bone ... and I haven't missed it yet ;D
-
FQ,
Maybe I don't get it, but if I have to listen to all the rantings of gay rights advocates and pro choice believers, and if I have to fund their life styles, they can damn well look at my 1911 on my hip! The Second Amendment says that I have the Right, It says that that Right is protected, and the writings of the founding fathers say that it is important that we exercise this Right. No gray area to muddle through to figure it out.
I guess in one of my many surgeries they removed my PC bone ... and I haven't missed it yet ;D
I'm not arguing M58. You SHOULD have the right to wear that gun openly. I just choose not to for the reasons I mentioned. Your mileage may vary. Its like abortion. I am personally pro-life, I just don't think I have the right to make the choice for someone else. At the end of the day we are free people in a free country, do as you will, just please think about the down range consequenses. There are pros to taking an in your face stance, and pros to keeping the gun hidden. You decide. I won't presume to make the choice for you.
FQ13 Who IS a Libertarian
-
The next missive from Mr Clayton
warhawke wrote:
> Clayton E. Cramer wrote:
>> I'm not ashamed. I said that open carry, if you had some alternative available to you, wasn't an effective way to win people in the middle. There is a difference, you know.
>>
> Really? You could have fooled me. Just to ensure that I did not overreact, I reread your article and I still see a person who thinks that our right to keep and bear arms is something to keep out of sight, a sin to be hidden, like those disgusting faggots should be hiding their perversions from the rest of us.
I'm not ashamed of my sexual organs, nor are they a "sin to be hidden," but I generally consider it inappropriate to display them in public, and most people would prefer not to live in a world where everyone runs around naked.
>
> Yes, I am straight, and over the years I have found a lot of things that have been done by homosexual activists disturbing. I myself believe that many have gone too far in their zeal and desire to get in peoples faces (men dressing up like nun's and simulating sex acts comes to mind) and the idea that ones sexual orientation entitles one to special rights and legal protections is nonsense. I believe this sort of thing did a disservice to those who simply wished to end the discrimination and bigotry that existed in our society and that many people WERE driven to greater levels of fear and hatred of homosexuals and increased the counter-reaction against the homosexual movement. However, without the parades, the 'Kiss ins' and all the rest, would homosexuals be better off? Would staying in the closet and out of sight have changed the minds of millions, weakened or gotten rid of anti-homosexual laws and customs and allowed huge numbers of people to stand on who and what they are instead of hiding from their families, society and even themselves?
Those displays have the same effect on everyone else that they have on you and me: disgusting. That's not what has changed the condition of homosexuals in America, but positive portrayals in the media.
>
> I have a CWP from the state of Montana, but I carry openly at every possible opportunity, why? Because hiding my firearm might help protect my person, but does nothing for my rights, it does nothing to show others that they having nothing to fear from my weapons. The hoplophobes will ALWAYS fear and distrust us and our weapons, theirs is not a philosophy but a pathology. Yes, seeing a pistol resting peacefully on the hips of their fellow citizens might drive some into the arms of the anti-self defense movement, but it will cause others to question why they were ever afraid in the first place. In America, for far longer than I have been alive, those who believe in firearms rights, and indeed the right of self-defense in general, have allowed their enemies to set the agenda. We have allowed those who hate and distrust THEMSELVES, much less the rest of society, to determine the laws and customs in this country. We have allowed ourselves to be portrayed as racists, bigots and seething cauldrons of barely suppressed rage awaiting only some tiny provocation to unleash our unquenchable thirst for human blood. All my life I have been told to hide my love of firearms and shooting as some secret sin, "don't let the neighbors know." and "people will think you're some kind of nut", well no more.
There's a difference between "don't let the neighbors know" and not displaying your gun in an urban, public setting.
>
> The gun-culture in this country has been like a battered spouse, always looking to ourselves for why we keep getting beat up. I cannot count the times I have heard that we have to compromise, we have to go along to get along. Hide your guns, keep your lifestyle a secret, don't let your kids talk about it, just one more law, one more rule, one more restriction and they will leave us alone. Has it worked? Has allowing the Pete Shields and Sarah Brady's to set the agenda made our rights safer? Has living in shame and begging the media for forgiveness of our lifestyle gained us societal acceptance? Have our constant attempts at appeasement gained us anything but more frequent and vocal abuse? If staying in the closet has not worked for 40 years, why should we believe it will work now?
Have you noticed that we are now winning? Right now, I'm on a conference call with the attorneys preparing McDonald v. Chicago for the Supreme Court this term.
>
> It is time for ALL OF US to come out of the closet. It is time for us to stand up and be counted, for all the MILLIONS of gun owning Americans to tell politicians and the media and the anti-self defense zealots that we will no longer lay down for them. We will no longer hide, no longer cower, no longer allow them to project their fears and insecurities on us with impunity. It is time to say NO! No more compromises, no more deals, we demand to be left alone, free to exercise our rights without hindrance or let. Is hiding your gun going to do any of that?
>
> Patrick K Martin
>
>
>
>
I repeat: have you noticed that we're now winning?
-
I like the 'battered spouse' comparison! MUCH closer than the 'homosexual' comparison.
-
and my reply;
I will spare both of us the ever-expanding reply chain.
Are we winning?
In a country where Federal, State and Local Governments can still ignore the plain wording of the Constitution, not merely in the matter of the Second Amendment but the Ninth, Tenth and much of the bulk of the document.
In a country where most of the children are forced into school systems dominated by administrations and personnel actively hostile to self-defense of ANY kind and rules and curriculum's actively hostile to firearms.
In a country where the mass media is overwhelmingly biased against firearms and firearms owners and users and which actively and consciously seeks to enact social and political change through advanced psychological propaganda techniques.
In a country where the majority believes the governmental system is an unlimited Democracy as opposed to a Constitutional Republic with limited democratic institutions.
In a country increasingly attached to and dependent upon international organizations which are actively hostile to the ability of national populations to defend themselves from the predations of individuals or governments.
In a country where the Judicial Branch, no less than the Legislative and Executive, seeks to maintain the absolute authority of the Federal government by circumventing clear Constitutional prohibitions through ambiguous language and outright obfuscation as well as expanding limited Constitutional powers to levels beyond the wildest nightmares of our Founding Fathers.
In a country which has elected the most anti-self defense administration in its history, which is actively engaged in expanding its power and scope through the establishment of extra-legal offices within the framework of the Executive branch, the appointees to which have been universally anti-self defense and anti-firearms.
In a country where peaceful political protests by an increasingly restive minority in opposition to the Unconstitutional actions of government at all levels is being portrayed as extreamist and even 'Terroristic' both by the media and the governing majority.
In a country where the military and an increasingly militarized and Federalized law enforcement community at the State and local levels has effectively eliminated the concept that orders which contradict the Constitution are illegal and must not be obeyed no matter their source.
All of this you expect to change without effecting a major shift in the socio/political paradigm in this country? All of this you would expect to simply disappear without changing the general view of firearms and firearms owners in our society? Without Revolutionary change to the current socio/political status quo?
As to the actions of the Supreme Court in its upcoming sessions, do you truly believe the court will break with the tradition of the past century and establish what is effectively Federal preemption of firearms regulation? Or do you think it more likely they will they will maintain their usual modus operandi and maintain the status quo while paying lip-service to the Constitution? Likewise, if the court should act to uphold the actual text and spirit of the document do you expect the current Federal administration to meekly accept such a rebuke rather than emulate its role-model Mr. Lincoln who said "They have their decision, now let them enforce it" when the court struck down that administrations blatantly Unconstitutional suspension of the right of Habeas Corpus?
I repeat, this country has come too far down the road of collectivism and anti-Constitutional political action for its course to be changed by passive measures and weak-willed activism. Like the homosexual lobby, we must show the public at large that we are here and refuse to go away. We MUST act in a peaceful but resolute manner to show both the political powers that be as well as the general public that firearms owners are among them and that, while peaceful both in temperament and intent, we refuse to be marginalized and ignored.
You are obviously of a different opinion than mine, I fully understand and respect your opinion and your right to stand upon it. I however maintain MY right to withhold my financial support from a publication which supports your view as opposed to mine as well as my right to peacefully attempt to sway both the publishers and yourself towards my view. If the publishers find their views coincide with you more than me, so be it, that is their right which I will also support, morally, but not with my Federal Reserve Notes.
Patrick K Martin
-
and yet another reply;
I actually share most of your upset with how this country is going. In vast numbers of areas, this country is in BIG TROUBLE. But on the gun issue, we are definitely winning. And while I do not the Supreme Court to pre-empt all existing state and local gun laws as a result of McDonald, I do believe that they will strike down Chicago's handgun freeze, and make it clear that state and local gun control laws may not prohibit law-abiding adults from having guns in their homes of the sort that are in "common use." (Not a constitutional position--but one that Scalia came up with, probably to get Justice Kennedy to sign on.) They won't define what that means, exactly. Sometime in the next several years, we will successfully overturn California's assault weapons law because we will be able to demonstrate that the banned weapons are in "common use."
Once we have a statement that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states, there will be a swarm of lawsuits filed against the discretionary issuance policies of California (for carry permits) and New York (for possession permits)--and those states will be utterly unable to defend their positions. States can defend on public safety grounds the background check requirements for carry permits to prohibit convicted violent criminals, the mentally ill, minors, and those awaiting trial. They can't defend on either originalist or criminological grounds the sort of discretion that they currently use.
At some point, we're going to challenge Illinois's ban on open carry for violating the Second Amendment. I expect the Court will let the question go up and down the courts for a while, as they did with Brown, as a way to force Illinois to ask whether it would rather have unregulated open carry, or a non-discretionary concealed weapon permit system. I know what they will decide.
You make it sound as though I am the enemy. I'm not. I'm trying to get us to a state where the states stop worrying about guns, and start worrying about the problems of violent crime and mental illness.
and this one was in another reply;
You are aware, aren't you, that the stinky behavior of gay activists after Prop. 8 passed in California actually INCREASED support for limiting marriage to one man, one woman across America? Being loud hasn't generally helped them. What has helped them is subtle messages in support of homosexuality in the entertainment media, and the increasing immorality of Americans.
-
I have to say that he sounds like a reasonable guy. You do as well for being fair enough to post his side of the argument along with your own. Welll done.
FQ13
-
I stole this from Clarkkents blog because I think he sums up the debate as well as any one can.
His basic point is that this is nothing but a debate over METHODS, BOTH sides seek the same result, the protection of our rights.
We are all heading to the same destination, we are simply debating whether to take the bus or train.
Every one should check out Clarks site if you enjoy good writing. ;D
http://esmeraldasden.blogspot.com/
The issue of open carry has come up lately on several of the gun fora I visit, and it has gotten me to thinking, which, since I retired three years ago, I didn't think I'd have to do much of anymore.
But here's what I think: It's good for all of us that some people - I call them activists - are willing to push the envelope of convention and wear their iron on their belt for all the world to see.
What these folks are doing is part political and part consciousness raising. They're testing the waters, testing people's reactions. By putting themselves in the spotlight this way, they become ambassadors of our cause - showing the general populace that wearing a gun can be as unexceptional as wearing a cellphone, that the folks who wear them aren't wearing them as chips on their shoulders, aren't looking for trouble, aren't paranoid freaks, but are simply regular Janes and Joes carrying their guns legally, openly and unafraid of what anyone might think of them or say to them about it.
This, of course, carries with it an enormous responsibility.
Off the top of my head, it would seem to me that if one is carrying a gun openly one should dress as inconspicuously as reasonably possible. This would mean no gangsta pants dangling below the butt, no ominous tattoos or in-your-face freaky spiky hairstyles, no nose or tongue studs or eyelid rings or piercings that I don't have the stomach to even imagine at the moment. No T-shirts with provocative messages of the "Kill them all and let God sort them out" philosophy.
At some point in our social evolution, if we are successful, even people who push other envelopes of convention might be able to openly carry without frightening too many voters. But, for now, I should think that making one political/consciousness raising gesture is enuf - if for no other reason than that it follows the KISS principle of keeping things simple, keeping the focus on one thing at a time.
Carrying openly requires behaving oneself with exceptional discipline. No flipping the bird at drivers who cut you off in traffic, or getting into hardass staring contests with hardass types looking for trouble. It means controlling ones temper in public no matter how pissed one might get about damned near anything.
It also means focusing on "yellow" perhaps a tad more than if you were not armed. I realize this might sound illogical, as an unarmed person should be even more wary of his or her surroundings than should someone with lethal protection. What I'm thinking of here, tho, is that when you're carrying openly you have not only the prospect of danger to yourself and companions to keep in the forefront of your mind, but also the danger of a predator who can see that you are armed, and might be looking for that instant of inattention on your part to get the jump on you - even to the extent of sneaking up from a blindside and grabbing your gun.
Thus, it would seem that the focus should be more toward the "orange" side of yellow than solely on yellow.
Of course, some of these admonitions also apply to folks who carry concealed. You don't pick fights, you try to deescalate confrontations, you make it a point to silently think "yellow" periodically so that you in fact maintain a focus on yellow.
As for me, I carry concealed, and I don't want anybody to know this (except you). So, in addition to these other precautions, I also must concern myself with not allowing my gun to clunk against anything that will tip off anyone who might recognize the sound, and I always try to position myself so that someone won't inadvertently feel the gun under my clothing - no matter how clear it might otherwise be that I'm happy to see them.
Bottom line: I don't see this as a debate so much as I see it as a different-strokes-for-different-folks sort of issue. I admire the people who are making a political statement and are helping to raise public consciousness beyond the general hoplophobia that exists in many parts of society. More power to them.
As for me, I share the point of view expressed recently on Michael Bane's Blog by "Farmer" Frank James: "OC is a lot like Public Nudity....Only a 'Few' can do it well."
-
My (belated) reply;
Sorry about the lateness of my reply
No Sir, I don't think you are the enemy, I think you are just like Jim Zumbo and my Father-in-law and countless other firearms owners in this country, well meaning, well intentioned and wrong. Too often firearms owners have been their own worst enemies, eager to sell out their fellows in a vain attempt to appease their enemies. Machineguns, 'cheap' handguns and "Assault Weapons" are fine things to abandon to the anti's so long as they agree to leave "Hunting Weapons" alone. Likewise, the idea that it is fine to keep hiding, skulking about in the dark so as not to scare the sheep rather than get them used to the idea that the sheepdogs are different from the wolves.
What we in the firearms community need to do is make noise, file lawsuits, bring our rights and our guns out of the shadows and into the light. Instead of going along and compromising and letting our enemies set the agenda we need to start setting our own. The NRA has for years refused to confront the enemy head-on, you will note that the NRA moved heaven and earth to STOP D.C. v Heller because they didn't think we could win and only supported it after it became inevitable. The time for compromise is past and while you are correct, visible and public action no doubt will drive some away from our side I and others believe it will draw many more of our fellows who have given up on the idea changing the status quo.
Archimedes said "Give me a lever long enough, and a place to stand, and I shall move the world". I contend that the lever is an idea, the idea that the right to defend one's life, liberty and property and to posses the means of that defense are among the highest of all human rights, it is the foundation upon which all lesser rights, like freedom of speech and religion, rest and the means by which they are protected. We cannot use this lever without a place to stand and the only place to stand is upon the bedrock of an absolute conviction that we are right, that no compromise is possible with those who decide, however well meaning and well intentioned they may be, that the power of physical force may be placed in the hands of others in the hope that those others will wield such power to our benefit either individually and collectively. History has shown us that such a condition is at best temporary, and always leads to oppression, whether of physical or political minorities or of the society as a whole and often to the point of genocide.
Freedom is scary, liberty is dangerous and living in a society where we are solely responsible for our own lives and actions is not for the faint of heart. The bloody history of nations and societies where only the ruling class possess the means and tools of physical force should be still more frightening. Yes, the free and open exercise of our rights will frighten some of the masses, just as free speech and a free press and the freedom to worship strange god's is frightening to many, but we know the penalty for doing otherwise all too well. We know too that to abandon the right of self-defense and the means to exercise it is to abandon all of our other rights to the whims and fancies of those who possess it in our name.
We must therefore act to educate our fellow man in the rightness of our cause and actions rather than simply abandon our rights and principles to their baseless fears in the hope that they will one day miraculously understand our position and return our rights over the objections of those who benefit from the exercise of absolute power over all of us. We must show, in the clearest and most unequivocal terms that our fellows have nothing to fear from us or our weapons. We must never let ourselves be swayed by the promises and entreaties of those who seek power over us or who fear that we may exercise our power of force over them and instead show that the only power we seek is the power to defend ourselves and the people we love. We must never compromise with evil, no matter how it presents itself nor how many others may accept it. We must stand upon what we know to be right, no matter the cost, no matter the inconvenience, no matter what, or we and our heirs we never stand in freedom and liberty again.
Patrick K Martin
-
GREAT response, Hawke! Well reasoned, clear and powerful!
-
Outstanding writing Warhawke! A pleasure to read...
Well Done!
-
Well done !
-
All I can say is, "WOW! Great replies, Warhawke"......you speak your convictions well, most especially the last one............. and I applaud you for it sir.
-
Well reasoned; well written, Hawke. I haven't read the entire thread, but just now I read the first and last pages. Thanks, Tom, for the kind remarks and the plug!
I haven't bought Shotgun News for ages now because I simply don't have enuf time to spend on it. When I subscribed, it was like eating potato chips - hard to stop once I started. As to making a political statement by boycotting the publication or by boycotting its sponsors, I believe that's an overreaction to an editorial that simply raises some interesting points. I spent a career working for newspapers, and I was often infuriated by the editorials that appeared in the papers for which I worked as a news reporter. Most times, tho, the editorials bored me. But I continued to do my job, gathering facts and trying to present them without injecting my own biases into the mix.
I cherish the First Amendment as much as I do the Second. I may disagree heartily with what someone says, but it's his actions, more than his words, that are more apt to move me to action. If I disagree with an editorial, my response would be to reply in kind, with a counterargument. I'd reply differently, tho, if a publication's entire viewpoint was tied to its editorial policies. If an article is presented as objective, I reserve the right to determine for myself if it is, in fact, objective. If I find a pattern of deception, i.e. articles presented as objective that really are camouflaged editorials, the publication suddenly reverts to toilet paper in my eyes.
The SGN editorial that launched this thread - I scanned it, but didn't study it - seems like a reasonable argument put forth by someone trying to present an open-minded point of view. Open minds are our battlefield, folks. If we run for cover the minute we see an opposing viewpoint, we lose face and, possibly, the argument that's at stake. We can't let the enemy paint us as closed-minded cranks. If we do, they use what can be our greatest strength against us, much as the jiu jitsu and judo artists turn a larger man's innate strength against him.
We need to fight smart, keep our wits, stay agile and use a little humor if we expect to prevail in the battle for the hearts and minds. We lose those, we lose our rights.
-
Open carry as a Political statement is one of those things that we just WILL NOT agree on, like the usefulness of writing to anti gun publications and politicians. Some say it is a waste of time, others say that the venal SOB's will go where they see the most votes and the more Pro gun letters and information they receive the better the chance they will, if not change sides, at least be less active in trying to infringe our rights.
While I wholeheartedly agree with Warhawke on the issue, and support the "in your face" approach of people like The Nuge, I DO NOT agree that a boycott of SGN is appropriate.
It would be well to remember that the Founding Fathers did not agree on everything, the issues of fiscal policy and slavery come to mind since both debates led to armed confrontations, but they recognized that if they did not have a free country such issues were irrelevant.
By the same token SGN is dependent on the continued existence of our 2nd Amendment rights for it's very existence, if we occasionally disagree on methods, so be it. Every time we turn on one of our own it is a victory for the anti rights minority.
I will point out that any military commander will agree that a multi prong attack stands a better chance of success than a single massive frontal assault, this is supported in the writings of Sun Tzu (The Art of War ) and Mao Ze Dong who in his book (On Guerrilla Warfare ) wrote of the need to consolidate quickly and gain LOCAL superiority, he also wrote about avoiding the enemies strengths and attacking his weaknesses.
While multiple approaches prevent our opponents from concentrating on a single approach of their own, a moments reflection will show that when our 2A rights are unassailably established and the anti's have gone down in final defeat most of our internal disagreements will become moot.
-
I agree with the right of SGN to print what they please. I agree that Mr. Clayton to hold his opinion and to publish it. I agree that all of you have the right to disagree with me and my method of dealing with SGN and Mr Clayton.
I feel differently, I believe that when SGN and any other publication prints an editorial it implies agreement with the sentiment expressed, unless otherwise indicated and I refuse to support them with my money until they change their position. If they refuse, that is fine too, it is their publication to do with as they please. I stand by my statements, I believe SGN and Mr. Clayton are doing a disservice to the firearms community a disservice, just as the NRA has over the years, by not standing on principle and refusing to compromise with our enemies. As for the first amendment, it protects not just SGN's right to publish, but my right to disagree.