Just because you have the right …

doesn’t mean you’re not an attention whore.  Again, this is not a good public face for political opposition.  Once again, context matters.  The people getting hysterical about this might be wrong, but I would point out that I got this from an anti-gun twitter feed.  They know a public relations mistake when they see one, and this is.

29 thoughts on “Just because you have the right …”

  1. “threatening someone with a gun at a rally to stifle debate”

    hint: look up the SEIU members beating up someone who doesn’t agree with them.

    So should we cut off all of our hands for the greater good?

  2. I fancy myself a realist, but sometimes I think you’re just too worried about appearances, Sebastian. We’re going to be attacked with hyperbole and offensive rhetoric no matter what we do. At least this guy has some balls, and has shown that the behavior is normalized enough in AZ that nothing happened.

    Hell, in this instance we can even call any of the “scared white people” racists…

  3. I see no issue.

    The anti’s have very sucessfully marginalized gun owners to the extent tha the mere sight of a firearm is a prelude to hysteria.

    We need to normalize the sight of firearms again. Just why should we hide them away? Is it something to be ashamed of?

    Areas used top be reserved for “White Only” in some places. Being a gun owner and actually, you know, carrying a gun, is the new segregation.

    That guy is only going what Rosa Parks did in many ways.


  4. We need to normalize the sight of firearms again. Just why should we hide them away? Is it something to be ashamed of?

    Let me rephrase that in a different context.

    We need to normalize the sight of female breasts again. Just why should we hide them away? Is it something to be ashamed of?

    Personally, I would have no problems in a society where guns and boobies were openly on display, but how do you think Americans would react to a feminist group that promoted the latter?

  5. Sebastian, I think comparing firearms to boobies trivializes the issue …..

    I agree with Earl ….. I don’t see an issue (unless you’re a panty-wetting CNN journalist). The CNN clip over at Hot Air doesn’t say for sure, but I think the black gentleman is a pro-health care reform guy. And even though I disagree with him, I support his right to have his firearm with him.

    1. Why does a discussion about the matter of displaying breasts trivialize the gun issue? As a woman who would be arrested for daring to walk outside with no shirt on, I’d be curious to hear about why it’s such a trivial matter from a man who can do the same thing without fear of being arrested or even shunned by society for doing so.

      Personally, I believe it’s a reasonable comparison. There are reasonable debates that can be had over the best way to get over pants-wetting (as opposed to the female panty-wetting example you choose) reactions to both responsible firearms ownership and reasonable sexuality issues.

  6. I support his right to have his firearm with him too, in the sense that I don’t believe he should be charged or thrown in jail for having it with him. But that does not immunize you from social pressures.

    I’m going to do a post tomorrow sometime about why what other people think of us matters, and matters a lot. In fact, that’s the entire point of this whole struggle.

  7. even I wouldn’t compare guns to sweater puppies and I make some far out comparisons. “attention whore” Says you. What are you basing that on? A picture? So every woman who takes time to throw on a low cut shirt and a short skirt is an attention whore too? Someone standing up at a town hall and asking a question since the attention is directed their direction?

  8. Guns and boobies. They both preserve life, they’re both really nice to look at, and fondling them make me smile!

  9. Being bothered by the sight of OC at a rally, protest or whatever, means you have internalized and accepted the argument that gun carry whether OC or concealed can and will lead to misuse of the gun.

    The anti’s have pushed that argument for a long time. The discomfort that people feel when they see OC is because they distrust a fellow citizen with a gun, other than a citizen that has been given the OK by authority, i.e.: a policemen.

    This is an emotional argument and a very effective one.
    The fact is that we do not trust our fellow citizens with guns; just those that we feel have been approved. The CCW process is a process of approval. It has been demonstrated to be a valid approval system.

    I personally do not approve of a person carrying a rifle to a protest rally as that seems to be unnecessary, but it was slung over his shoulder and was not misused.

    I do fear that with the rising emotions that carrying could lead to a shooting. Illogical? Maybe.

    As a statement of rights, the open carry of a rifle is an effective one.

    As to the discomfort of people CC at an event is simply the comfort of ignorance. Criminals CC and so do law-abiding. I consider that CC by law-abiding is simply leveling the field.

    Logically if it is OK to CC at an event, then it should be OK to OC at an event.

    One thing I do agree that is that OC will increase respect and civility because arguing parties know there is a limit to an argument that they cannot cross without resorting to violence and the OC shows that do not cross that limit. Hence an armed society is a polite society or bloodshed quickly follows.

    The other emotional argument of OC is that people will cool their rhetoric because the gun being obvious squarely shows the meaning that devolving to violence, as a mean to solving a dispute is a bad idea.

    Sebastian decency argument is valid. Decency laws require that people cover their genitals. For women that includes breasts. It is the very example of morality backed up by law.

    However Americans are very passionate about the health care debate and I am glad. Perhaps this should instead reassure us that Americans could afford passion in politics without the fear it will lead to civic violence.

    I understand the fear that laws against carry can be a result of these very obvious actions of OC. One thing I am glad is that the police have very obviously been trained not to hassle the OC person.

    Perhaps the fear and consternation of the CNN media people and MSNBC they will start to accept that carry is OK. That is the whole idea of normalization by OC and the TV news people have been the most vocal opponents of gun rights.

    If the TV news people start to get used to it, than this normalization has worked. If the TV news starts to agitate, then it has failed.

    We have the right and have instilled in gun rights followers a desire to exercise their rights. Now we have to see where it leads.

    Maybe society is more accepting of OC than Sebastian’ s thinks. Most have been pretty blasé about the OC. I really do not care if the OC is done at a protest or rally that Obama is at or not. As President he already has protection.

    People get comfortable at what they are used to. They are used to police having weapons openly and not using them without good reason. People’s comfort level at OC is being tested right now. They are getting more used to the sight and not reacting. Instapundit OC post at the restaurant is a case in point.

    The numerous defensive uses have been very effective in pushing the idea that normal people having a gun is a good idea.

    I recently had to visit DC and had to park on the streets. The problem is when I walked several blocks to my destination, I did not pay attention to the exact location I had parked my car. It took me an hour to found the exact spot where my car was afterward. I would have felt more comfortable to having a weapon available. Why, because I was obviously out of place. Every one was nice and no issues, but my risks had gone up as a possible victim because I was obviously looking and not a local.

    DC does not allow carry at all. The only ones who carry are criminals. Would I have felt more comfortable if the homeless and loiterers were OC, probably not. I had to trust in the goodness of the locals and since I was not attacked that trust was not misplaced.

    However this visit created the possibility of having to travel regularly to areas that may be dangerous and I should like the ability to be armed, discreetly. So in general I will accept the risk of others misusing a weapon in order that I have the ability to carry also. That is the tradeoff. So I am not bothered about OC is general and I approve of the normalization efforts.

    This CNN piece about the BMWAG did not bother me. I could see he was peaceable and the reporter on the scène was careful about stressing that, so in all in all this is probably a good effect if it gets the media to be stressing that people who are at these protests are peaceful if shouting and that OC can be normal and peaceful.

  10. I think peacefully carrying a gun anywhere is fine, so long as you aren’t protesting an individual whom you believe is a tyrant and holding a sign that says “It’s time to refresh the tree of liberty.”

    I firmly believe that an armed society is a police society and that openly carrying firearms to these protests where people have been getting out of hand serves to calm everyone down so that there is no violence. And if you can’t afford, or simply don’t feel like you should have to pay for, a concealed handgun license, but you still feel like you need to exercise your fundamental right of self-defense, particularly at a protest where people have been getting out of hand, then have at it.

  11. bare boobies != constitutional right
    bear arms == constitutional right

    Poor metaphor for the illustration.

  12. Incidentally, I got a good look at the CNN zoom on the gentleman’s handgun in NH. Am I mistaken, the angle is funny, or something, but it looks to me like the magazine well is empty.

  13. OK, just saw another angle. If that was the same guy, magazine is definitely in. Sorry.

  14. Gotta come down on the side of “he’s doing more good than harm”. MSM will always villianize and demonize us. Tam’s right “… a little crazy, but the right kind of crazy.”

  15. Whether it’s a constitutional right or not isn’t really relevant. Because it’s a constitutional right is the reason it’s not illegal to sling an AR-15 over your shoulder, and it is illegal for a woman to bare her breasts in public. I am not arguing that either should be changed, though I wouldn’t mind seeing more bare breasts.

    But either way, the point is how to convince people to support, or at least not oppose your cause. Baring breasts is about as effective a way to support women’s rights as baring guns is to support gun rights. As a method of activism I think both are a bad idea.

    That’s not to say I think open carry should be illegal. I think it ought to remain legal, and be legalized in areas where it’s currently illegal. But I think it’s ineffective when used as activism.

  16. Gotta come down on the side of “he’s doing more good than harm”.

    I just don’t see it that way. I even had people in work this morning confronting me with “Do you support stuff like this.”

    These aren’t people hostile to gun rights, but they think this shit is fucking crazy. When you lose the middle, you lose. It doesn’t change anyone’s mind about gun owners in a good way.

  17. Packetman- Good find!

    AR-15 was unloaded, with a loaded mag in pocket.

    There where 5 people open carrying as a group. They contacted the police the night before and had a police liaison with them at the protest.

    Here is a vid they shot:

  18. I just don’t see it that way. I even had people in work this morning confronting me with “Do you support stuff like this.”

    These aren’t people hostile to gun rights, but they think this shit is fucking crazy. When you lose the middle, you lose. It doesn’t change anyone’s mind about gun owners in a good way.

    So anytime some leftist whackjob does something do you ask them that question? You’re making the argument the guy’s nuts. How about when some “poor misunderstood minority” commits a crime do you ask them if they support it? How about the panthers at the polling place? You ask them about THAT?

    What middle? The apathetic folks who are now turning on this chicagoist manifesto? Those folks? Instead of putting up crap bashing the dude you should be showing why what he did was fully within the law and how nothing was wrong with it. We don’t need another apology tour, obomber’s got that covered.

  19. “Let me rephrase that in a different context.

    We need to normalize the sight of female breasts again. Just why should we hide them away? Is it something to be ashamed of?”

    Two can play that game: We need to normalize the sight of black people walking down the street. Just why should they be hidden away? Is it something to be ashamed of?

    After all, a black man walking down the street used to really “scare the white people”, it was just as threatening to some as carrying a gun is to some now. And, some black people actually did threaten and attack people. So hide them away, until the gentle-folk come around to accepting them. You know, there were well-intended anti-racists who made just that argument, back in the day. I can’t remember their names, because nobody can, anymore.

    Hiding your face completely is not “putting a good face” on the argument, it is conceding the argument. All that is left is begging for privilege.

    And snowflake, think twice before going off on “this isn’t racism, and the comparison is insulting…” For starters, remember what is at the root of a lot of the origins of gun control.

    Maybe what it will take is somebody bringing their AR-15 onto a city bus, and refusing to move to the back.

Comments are closed.