Category: Gun Rights

Joe shows the T-shirt he wore through a TSA security checkpoint. I ended up in a conversation with a TSA agent once because of the shirt (or maybe it was a hat, I can’t remember exactly) I was wearing, because he was interested in buying a gun for himself, and was wondering what a good beginner pistol was. This was heading out of Philadelphia.

There are a lot of ways to get the conversation started.

Kevin Baker shows at least one business in Arizona that there’s a cost associated with excluding gun owners.

Daniel Inouye of Hawaii has closed a key way Democrats were going to attempt to route around NRA:

D.C. voting rights advocates ran into a major obstacle Tuesday, as the top Senate appropriator said he’d block any proposal to attach the District voting representation bill to a must-pass military spending measure.

“Forget it,” said Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii).

House Democratic leaders have been trying to find a vehicle for the bill, which would give the District full voting rights in the House. They hoped adding it to the military spending bill might force Republicans to back away from efforts to repeal D.C. gun laws at the same time. The gun language, backed by the National Rifle Association, is unpalatable to many District residents and House Democrats.

Inouye is F-rated, and not our friend, but pretty clearly he doesn’t want a fight with NRA on his defense bill.

Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.), the powerful chairman of the House Appropriations Committee’s Defense Subcommittee, said he’d defer to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on whether to include the voting-rights provision but made clear where he stands personally.

“I’m with the NRA,” he said.

A spokesman for Pelosi said Democratic leaders are still shopping for a vehicle.

So you also have Murtha blocking that path forward in the House too, which pretty much makes attaching DC Voting Rights to the defense bill, as we reported on earlier, a no go. Pelosi says she’s still looking for a vehicle, but it’s looking more and more grim. At some point she’ll have to decide whether or not her need to please this constituency overcomes her hatred of the Second Amendment. I don’t know about you, but it would put a smile on my face to be able to strong arm Pelosi into accepting a pro-gun Amendment on a key piece of Democratic legislation.

From Scott in Phoenix AZ:

Despite that I think Clayton is GENERALLY wrong about this issue, I am sad to see him attacked with such viotrol. Frankly if I saw some of these posters openly carrying I would be afraid based upon their willingness to assault people verbally for no reason. Gun owners should not be attacking each other over disagreements as minor as this.

Disagreeing with Claytons opinion is anybody’s right, but calling him names, or “stupid”, is bad manners and STUPID. Clayton is a well-published historian, as noted he is cited in HELLER, he was also instrumental in bringing down the guy (forget his name) [Michael Bellesiles -Seb] that wrote the fraudulent book about how guns weren’t commonly owned at the time of the revolution. So arguing with him about history is a dubious proposition.

And no, Cramer is not like “Zumbo”. Clayton has not made remarks that call into question his devotion to the cause of gun-rights like Zumbo did. No, Clayton just stated his opinion that he thinks the open-carry movement may not be the best way to advance the cause of gun-rights. He doesn’t say open carry should be illegal, or not to do it, just that in his opinion “in-your-face” tactics like those of the PA open carry movement may alienate non-gun owning citizens.

I think he’s wrong (and exchanged some pleasant emails with him about it) and that the benefits of the movement outweight the potential alienation of anybody (and I doubt that will happen much anyway). The benefit of course is that we get the average citizen used to seeing arms in the hands of ordinary citizens – not just the cops and crooks. I think Claytons liking the movement to that of the Gay Pride movement is a stretch.

That said, the movement should not be stupid about it – plan their actions carefully and make sure the people doing the open carry don’t include some of the posters on this thread.

I couldn’t agree more. It is a relatively minor tactical disagreement. Until someone comes out and declares that open carry should be illegal, or calls open carriers terrorists, there’s no need for people to get all bent out of shape that not everyone thinks it’s the best face to put forward.

Dave Hardy reports that all hell is going to break loose in Sacramento because they issued 37 carry permits this year. Meanwhile Pennsylvania issues 600,000 of them to a population of 12 million people, and still has a violent crime rate that’s 20% lower than California’s.

Clayton has another article on open carry that’s sure to piss people off. I actually don’t think Clayton is as anti-open-carry as he seems in his articles. I’ve had e-mail conversations with him discussing when and it what contexts that type of activism can be effective, and I don’t think he believes it to always be a negative:

My article did not propose that open carry should be illegal. There are some unusual circumstances where it might be the best choice — and in some rare circumstances, in some states, it may be the only choice that you have. (Wisconsin, for example, completely prohibits concealed carry of handguns, but does allow open carry.) What I did argue is that gun owners should think long and hard about whether it serves our best interests to offend, disturb, or concern people that would prefer that we keep our guns as well hidden as our excretory organs.

I think Clayton also makes some good points in the comments:

I am mortally tired of being told that I shouldn’t do this or that because it will, or might, “offend” someone.

It depends on your goals. If you want to win political battles, you don’t offend unnecessarily. If you want to express yourself, and don’t mind losing, then go ahead, open carry even when you don’t need to; it’s more important to express yourself than to win political struggles.

Some of the comments are way over the top, however. Anyone who’s read this blog for any period of time knows that I have strong disagreements with Clayton Cramer, particularly on the topic of homosexuality. I think we even disagree a bit on certain specifics within the gun issue. But this?

Yet another cowardly politics-before-liberty article from Cramer. Big shock. Here’s a newsflash dummy – rights aren’t subject to focus groups.

Or accusing Clayton of bigotry? Cowardice? Look, whether I agree with Clayton on everything or not, he’s one of the few Second Amendment activists that can claim being cited in the opinion of a landmark Supreme Court case. This landmark Supreme Court case. I don’t question his dedication or contributions to the cause of the Second Amendment, and anyone who does needs to have their head examined. I don’t think that means you have to agree with Clayton, or me, on open carry, but this is pretty clearly a legitimate disagreement within our community.

UPDATE: Another good point by Clayton:

I exercise my 2nd amendment rights because if I don’t, I’ll lose them.

Odd. The Black Panthers said the same thing when they marched into the California State Senate, armed, in 1967. The bill under consideration–to ban open carry of loaded firearms in cities–was at that point controversial, and not certain of passage. But the Black Panthers decided to exercise their 2nd amendment rights–and the bill was passed immediately, and with an “urgency provision” so that it took effect immediately.

Please: consider the possibility that the Black Panthers are not exactly the best model of how to win friends and influence people.

Michael Bane has some observations about my post regarding the spectrum of the public’s beliefs on guns. I want to make clear I am not at all advocating a political accommodation with the other side, where we give up something, in the hopes the public at large will see us as reasonable fellows, and the camel will naturally not put his head and neck in the tent as well. I think everyone knows by now that type of political accommodation does not work. But that’s not to say the great unwashed masses don’t matter. If they did not vote, and did not donate time and money to causes, they wouldn’t.  But many do, and for that reason we can’t discount them.

We can advance on our issue only through a detente with the public. The vast majority of them are ignorant about our issue, and if compelled to vote on that ignorance, would do great damage to our rights. I could gather Cam’s “Man on the Street” interviews and show them for weeks. It would be a parade of ignorance. Those who are regular listeners of the show can attest to this. Half the entertainment value of that segment is just in being amazed at what people don’t know, or what they think they know that’s totally wrong. One thing I consistently walk away with is just how effective the Bradys have been at confusing the public about our issue.

I don’t agree with Michael that the primary reason we’ve advanced is because we’ve been more uncompromising as of late. I actually don’t think there’s a primary reason, but rather a complex set of things we started learning to do better after getting our asses handed to us in the late 80s and early 90s. But if you had to boil it down, it really comes down to bringing more people who are inclined to be supportive deeper into the issue, and advancing the issue in contexts outside of the traditional rural gun culture. It’s in the former context that I think entertainers like Ted Nugent have made the greatest contribution. Back to Michael:

As far as the great bulge in the middle, it is better understood as a weathervane, blowing first right, then left, driven by prevailing winds in the media, in entertainment, in the fleeting currents of popular culture. Ted Nugent’s unrelenting, entertaining, line-in-the-sand personality has done more to sway the middle to our side than all the thoughtful reasonableness of the last 50 years. Again, my opinion…your mileage may vary.

Ted Nugent is indeed an effective voice for the Second Amendment, but he is only one section of the orchestra. Having seen Ted in action on radio and TV, I think his contribution is reaching people who are culturally inclined to be favorable to the issue, getting them involved, making them understand what’s at stake, and firing them up for action. We do need people in that role, and Ted Nugent is about as effective as they come.

But Ted Nugent isn’t going to do much to help a Manhattan financial consultant, or a Chicago lawyer not freak out and donate a lot of money to anti-gun groups when we come in and start dismantling their respective city’s gun control laws in the next few years. I don’t think Ted Nugent will be able to take a whole lot of credit in making persuasive arguments that convince federal judges the Second Amendment means something. Those are all types of people we’re going to need to influence over the next decade to keep moving forward, and some activism and messaging is going to be more effective in that context than others.

I would not be so bold as to suggest there’s only one style of activism that works — there are many kinds. But effectiveness is dictated by circumstance and context in which they are practiced, which is why I’m very skeptical of any form of activism that claims it’s always the right thing to do in all circumstances and in all conditions. I don’t think that’s ever true. People are too varied and different for it be.

We’ve had a lot of talk in the blogosphere lately about normalizing guns within the culture, and have discovered substantial disagreement. For my part, I think the only way we can educate and enlighten people is for individual gun owners to reach out to the to people they know and associate with, and give them real information on our issue in a context they can relate to. It’s for that reason I’m not particularly sanguine about methods like open carry to promote cultural change. It’s just not conveying enough information to the ignorant to help bring them closer to our position. That’s not to say I think open carry has no value, and is inappropriate under all circumstances. Rather as a general tool to promote social change, I’m skeptical of it’s effectiveness. More than a few folks say they want proof. I don’t think either side has proof. All we can offer is evidence. Into that debate I’m going to put forward some evidence of what ordinary people on the street think on the issue of guns.

Cam Edwards from NRA News, in his evening radio show, runs a segment during his breaks called “Man on the Street,” where he sends his producer down to the streets of Alexandria, Virginia with a cameraman and a microphone to capture the opinions of people walking by. These segments are very helpful to understand the diverse and often incoherent opinions of the general public. I have captured a collection of them from this past week to share with you, some of which even touch on people’s attitudes towards carrying firearms.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drkgotcnvMw[/youtube]

You can see they do find people who are strong believers in the Second Amendment, but notice the couple from Texas who was with us all the way up until the point where he said he doesn’t approve of civilians possessing machine guns? Notice the ignorance on semi-automatics that can be converted to automatic? And this is someone who knows and has carried firearms! Here’s another segment, including a woman who’s from England, the North of England judging from her accent:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OPdbytxFSE[/youtube]

You can see from these videos that the assertion by Michael Bane, that people are really on one side or another isn’t really true. There is a rich tapestry of opinion on the issue of guns in this country, and the truth is that the majority of people, even the majority of gun owners, are somewhere in the middle between our position and the people who want to prevent gun ownership. Our success over the past decade has largely been due to reaching people who are conceptually on our side, like several of the people here who voiced general but weak support, and getting them to understand the issue better. But to do that, we had to reach them with real information, and on a lot more issues than just carrying firearms.

My skepticism of open carry as a means to effect social change is based on the fact that I don’t believe it reaches people with enough information to help them put it in context and understand its role in the political and cultural struggle for gun rights. It is one of the great dangers in any kind of activism, that if you spend too much time only speaking with other activists, that you lose touch with what average people think about your issue. It’s through that mistake, to switch the context to gay rights for a second, that you go from “We just want to be equal and accepted members of society” to the Folsom Street Fair.

There are two messages competing for the loyalty and votes of the types of folks you see in these videos, our’s and the Brady’s. The more our message is outside of context they can relate to and understand, the more appealing the Brady message is going to be. That’s why I advocate more discretion and restraint than many harder core folks are comfortable with. We can do very well using certain kind of outreach methods, but others I think are less effective. All I’m advocating is that when folks think about outreach, they keep in mind the people in these videos.