Originally Posted by
Bailey Guns
I should've made it clear I was speaking mostly about the kid carrying the shotgun (thus the "dead horse" reference), not the issue of OC as a whole.
And, for the record, I think there are far too many restrictions on the 2A. Also for the record, I'll say this: "I believe in the 2nd Amendment but"...I also understand rights are not absolute. I also live in the real world where not everyone sees the gun issue as I do so I understand the need to tread lightly in some places because I think perception can be a deal-killer in the realm of public opinion and how that relates to maintaining our gun freedoms. I also live in the real world where courts get to decide what restrictions are reasonable and they don't ask for my opinion prior to issuing rulings. Therefore I am pretty outspoken on the issue of gun rights but I also know there are some who don't care what I say and they're prepared to use any instance of perceived misuse of a gun to their political advantage or to bolster their anti-gun talking points. I'd prefer if gun owners used some common sense and didn't give that type of person the "ammo" they need to press their message.
Sure, people who carry an AR-15 into Starbucks may have the legal right and they may see this as furthering the OC cause but all too often we see negative consequences coming from this behavior. Businesses issue policy letters asking this behavior not continue and many in the general population, even some "pro gun" types, will completely miss the intended message due to the way the message is broadcast.
I see far greater value to furthering the OC cause when people exercise their OC rights as an organized group. The media, which is almost never our friend, tends to portray OC in a more favorable light as well. Sure, one can argue that permission from the media or society isn't required prior to exercising a right and it's a valid argument...to a point. But society can also change the rules and the pragmatist in me realizes this and I think the evidence is pretty clear that stunts like carrying long guns in public places gets far, far more negative attention than positive.
I don't recall a single instance where someone actively seeking attention for OC has carried a long gun into a public place and the result was, "Gee... What a great idea. Let's change the rules so everyone brings a rifle here." On the contrary, it's been just the opposite. It creates a negative reaction and is portrayed negatively in the media. Granted, sometimes another business may see an opportunity to advertise their pro-gun attitude and ride the attention wave these instances create but I think that tends to be a business decision that takes advantage of a moment of opportunity to attract new customers...not really a change in philosophy on the gun rights issue.
And those farts in a tornado you mention are really smelly farts and, in my opinion, do not cause someone on the fence to look positively at the bigger picture. I've never heard anyone say that seeing one of the "asshats" that OC a long gun for the attention it generates has really made them examine the issue as a whole and made them realize there's more to the OC big picture than just an asshat carrying an AR-15 into Starbucks.
Good points and I can sympathize with each one (except the but, no buts) however I disagree on the time line somewhat. The antis and others who support restrictions to carry were active and successful before the the OC protests. They were just as loud, hated us just as much and pushed for just as many restrictions, the only thing that changed was who they pointed their bony finger at though it changed frequently anyway. They don't care about anything BUT negative examples, they ignore all positive examples and if no negative example is handy they invent one. You can't win their hearts and minds by showing them what a good guy you are, they just want your guns.
I strongly agree with your point regarding organized groups. I’m also [mostly] a realist but I don’t think you can fight to protect rights that way, each interaction becomes a compromise that ultimately culminates in the right being reduced to a privilege. Rights have to be viewed differently and in terms of every individuals expression of them, in that light becomes necessarily idealistic. I see another side of it residing in a state that doesn't allow OC except long guns.
You see their new target as valid because you think the behavior is ignorant and subsequently support their view "he shouldn't be doing that" though you stop short of endorsing new laws to prevent it. Unfortunately by doing so you lend fuel to the fire that encourages more over reaction and tacitly discourage open carry except as deemed acceptable by our opponents (not at all). Let me be clear - I don't support people being stupid or attention hounds (though some folks make a good living at it) but I see this as another "common sense" bite at the cheese. Like being pecked to death by a duck, enough already.
I don't want to support that guy but I damn sure don't want to support the other guys and by not supporting his legal behavior that’s exactly how it works out. A new law is passed or it becomes "policy" but in the end, one more bite at the cheese. The thing is I don’t see a new law or policy as the fault of the guy exercising his right (however stupid) I see it as the original intent of the antis who sensationalize ANYTHING or use ANY scapegoat to achieve their goal and we can’t stop stupid but we can’t stop fighting. To me the battle is not one of “don’t scare the sheeple” but that scared sheeple should have no bearing on my rights. To me the line in the sand can’t move because someone claims to be uncomfortable. If they succeed in discouraging certain forms of OC do you think they’ll stop? Do you think they’ll be satisfied with deciding for you when and where you can carry? What happens when they want the next bite and it’s something near and dear to your heart, maybe your backyard range? Most people don’t have one, why should they care but I’ll support you because maybe the next bite is my reloading bench.
I don't perceive the protest as positive, I just see it as a symptom and not the problem, lashing out at the tiny infringements that combine to destroy the whole. Where we disagree is I think we have to support any legal exercise of our rights or risk encouraging the slow creep that fosters a “right” confined by “acceptable” usage. In other words, not a right at all. I think the proper response is “he wasn’t doing anything wrong or endangering anyone, why are you panicking and making a fuss over something so minor?” Antis are deathly afraid of being called out for their cowardice and irrationality, that's why they get loud and insulting because deep down they know their argument doesn't hold water, they just don't like it period. That's where organized groups come in to point out the nonsense and use the attention to our benefit as well as working internally to present a united front. We'll never change their minds but we can't let them change our country. Yes I'm aware we face an unsympathetic media, didn't say it was easy...
Some people are scared of spiders and think all spiders should be eliminated from the face of the earth despite any benefit or the irrationality of the fear. They can’t see any justification, don’t care about good spiders and want them all dead, such is the battle we wage. I think where you and I disagree is in the effect, you think it hurts our cause, I don’t disagree but I think it reveals a toe over the line in the name of “common sense” and it doesn’t matter how I feel about the fringe element rather if we let our opponents use it to further erode freedom.
Thanks for the well considered response by the way.
Reply With Quote
