Boycott Shotgun News!

[warhawke]

Have you read this horseshit?


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.

[warhawke]

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.

[warhawke]

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.

[Pathfinder]

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.

[MikeBjerum]

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.

[Sponsor]

[Hazcat]

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.

 

[fightingquaker13]

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

[Badgersmilk]

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! 

[tombogan03884]

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.

[tt11758]

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.