Boycott Shotgun News!

[MikeBjerum]

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 

[fightingquaker13]

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 

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

[warhawke]

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?

[Hazcat]

I like the 'battered spouse' comparison!  MUCH closer than the 'homosexual' comparison.

[warhawke]

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

[Sponsor]

[warhawke]

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.

[fightingquaker13]

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

[tombogan03884]

 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.  

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."

[warhawke]

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 

[Hazcat]

GREAT response, Hawke!  Well reasoned, clear and powerful!