Category: Guns

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.