Most of you who know me also know that I’m a 100 percent proponent of gun rights. No compromise. The Second Amendment says what it says. The right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Constitution, and no tyrannical government swine has the right to infringe upon that right.
I stood up for the right of Meleanie Hain to open carry her handgun at her kid’s soccer game.
I supported Mark Marchiafava when he was unlawfully detained and abused by Gonzales police while legally open carrying his firearm.
I will absolutely stand up for everyone’s right to carry – whether open or concealed – without harassment from hoplophobic gun grabbers or their government lapdogs. However, I’m also a fan of judicious behavior, and I really think the judiciousness was lacking here.
About a dozen people carrying guns,
including one with a military-style rifle, milled among protesters
outside the convention center where President Barack Obama was giving a
speech Monday—the latest incidents in which protesters have openly
displayed firearms near the president.Gun-rights advocates say
they’re exercising their constitutional right to bear arms and protest,
while those who argue for more gun control say it could be a disaster waiting to happen.Phoenix police said the gun-toters at
Monday’s event, including the man carrying an AR-15 semi-automatic
rifle slung over his shoulder, didn’t need permits. No crimes were
committed, and no one was arrested.
There’s a good and bad here. The good is that these law-abiding citizens demonstrated that people do not cause chaos or commit crimes merely because they’re armed. They showed the cowardly gun grabbers that peaceable citizens’ nature doesn’t change merely because they happen to be carrying a weapon in the open.
But here’s the thing. We, gun owners, need to exercise some common sense along with exercising our rights. Mark and Ms. Hain carried their weapons, because it’s what they always do. It is their right. They were exercising it peacefully. They weren’t trying to make a point or shove their right into others’ faces.
This is not what the people open carrying at the Obama speech were doing. They were exhibiting their in-your-face attitude of “It’s my right, and you can’t do shit about it!” And while I support their right to do it, I do question the judgment that compels someone to intentionally stick their guns and their rights in someone’s face.
Are the people who were freaked out by the guns cowards? Indubitably.
Do I oppose open carry among them? Absolutely not.
Do I heartily support open carry just for the sake of shoving the fact that we can in their face? No.
While the people at the event did nothing wrong legally, I do question their decision to do so. “We’re armed. Get used to it,” is a courageous and honorable attitude, but it won’t win over those who are on the fence, and it’s a bad public relations strategy (as well as being tactically unwise).
As someone on Alphecca said this morning:
While part of me says “Tough noogies”, another part wants the debate to
occur without the histrionics and high-emotion, without the
name-calling and the shouts of “Nazism” and frankly, without the “I’ve
got a gun and I’m not afraid to use it and this is my opinion — in your
face.”
We have a lot of issues to debate in this country, folks. Many of us don’t like what’s going on. We need to foster healthy debate, without hysterical nonsense, in your face tactics and partisan attacks. Tactics such as the ones demonstrated at that event do not help gun owners and they do nothing to promote healthy discussion about gun rights or any other topic.
Let the flaming begin. I’m sure there will be plenty of disagreement here.




Aug 19, 2009 @ 01:55:55
Flame? Nah….This subject, though, is a real hard one. You see….I can support either side in this, and not lose any sleep. I guess that part of me supports the *in-your-face* approach, only because the Libs / Panty-Wetters / Hand-Wringers / Brady-Bunchers / et al are always using the *in-your-face* approach to try to disarm the populace in the name of *safety for the masses*. I find myself supporting the notion of fighting fire with fire. Also, why should the POTUS be afraid of citizens with guns? I mean really…he *ran* for the job. Its not like he was forced into it against his will….he voluntarily ran, and took it when elected. To be afraid of the consequences of being the POTUS (which is having whacko’s all around the world want to kill you so as to be a martyr or to live in infamy) is just wrong. Be a man, and show that you’re not afraid.The flip side is the argument of, if we wish to advance our belief’s and educate the populace that guns don’t have a mind of their own and go around shooting people of their own accord, we have to be mindful of the perception of the general public. Saddly, the sheeple have been programmed to panic at the sight of a gun.IF I had to pick between the two ways of doing things, I would have to chose the in-your-face method, with the caveat to the anti’s that if they continue to try to oppress, we’ll get even more brazen. If they take a step back and chose civil discourse, then we will show them the same civility. Which means that they need to rein in the Chris Matthews’, Keith Olbermanns, etc., or we’re going to continue to do things that will make them soil themselves, and giggle gleefully as we point to the wet crotches, and the brown glop exiting their pantlegs.
Aug 19, 2009 @ 04:49:33
And how many of those people on the fence will come down on our side because they have seen “They were telling the truth, it isn’t the gun, it’s the character of the person carrying it.”How ever many or few, it will be more than we would have gotten if we did not demonstrate the rights lawfully, peacefully and most importantly openly.
Aug 19, 2009 @ 05:11:01
Bigotry should always be met head on. We had the same soiled panties over sharing water fountains with THEM. CNN is going off for a lot of air time over a non-event. Nothing happened. The fence sitters are going (or will go eventually) “Yea..AND?!?! So he had a gun. What happened? What do you mean nothing? Next.” Normalizing guns may require getting an “in your face” attitude. It worked for the opposition. we need to learn from them. They may be stupid but they have been winning since 1934.
Aug 19, 2009 @ 10:57:23
I agree with the Right to Carry with a Common Sense attitude. This in your face BS gets us no support.. Sounds as if the enemy is among us.
Aug 19, 2009 @ 12:21:11
Well, I for one disagree (but still love ya!). My latest post explains why.I’ve not found any of these OC protesters who only OC at political events. They are advocates who OC as much as possible, so it is normal for them.And to say it’s ok to carry here BUT NOT THERE!!!! OH NOES!!!! just irks me.
Aug 19, 2009 @ 12:42:39
Awww… I love ya too! I’m not saying it should be illegal or “OK” to carry in one place, but not another. I vehemently disagree with that! I do, however, think that as mature adults, we need to be more judicious in our decisions as to when and how we exercise our rights.
Aug 19, 2009 @ 12:51:45
Ah, but what did Chris do that was ANYTHING but EXACTLY what we need? He was well dressed, well spoken, and God forgive me for this, he had the best skin pigmentation to shatter the “Angry White Man” myth.The entire group coordinated with the cops to ensure everything was peaceful. They didn’t get in people’s faces (OC people rarely do). I can’t imagine a single thing they could have done any better, and that includes the AR. It’s easy to ignore a white guy with a Glock on his hip. It’s damned near impossible to ignore a well dressed black man with an EBR strapped on his back. Granted, the press tried by only taking pictures of his back, from the neck down.We HAVE to get more exposure and if it is even a 1/10th as well thought out as these guys were, we’re going to make headway.
Aug 19, 2009 @ 13:17:33
Oh, I dunno, Robb. I’ve seen some pretty cantankerous gun rights advocates do exactly what we don’t want them to do – getting in people’s faces, strutting around and if anyone approached them, act like “Fuck you. It’s my right.”I’m really glad they coordinated with police and the whole thing went about peacefully. I’m just not sure it was smart decision to do what they did when they did it. Things turned out great in the end, and I’m happy that they did. But they could have just as easily incited panic among the morons who attended this meeting.As for getting more exposure, I’m all for doing exactly what you do, and what I do on occasion. I do open carry (especially in the summer when I don’t feel like wearing something to cover up. I go to the store, to a restaurant, to a movie, etc. And I act like it’s a perfectly normal thing. I don’t draw attention to it. I just do it. People get used to the site when it’s not a big deal, and I don’t make it a big deal. I’ve never been kicked out of any establishment.
Aug 19, 2009 @ 13:55:09
What? Modern freedom fighters emulating the sixties Black Panthers by carrying firearms to protests? Bravo! That Every Man Be Armed, always and everywhere.We’re merry. We carry. Get used to it!
Aug 19, 2009 @ 17:36:30
As usual, you have the small minority who loves the idea of getting confrontational and pushing the issue just because they like the idea of asserting themselves over other people who in this case don’t like guns.Unfortunately, those “let’s make them all uncomfortable” types never seem to figure out that these people aren’t going to swing around and start to support gun rights just because someone got up in their face. Ever hear of Dale Carnegie, guys? You might want to take the class or at least buy the book, because mindless confrontation only makes most people dig in and resist all the more strenuously.I’ve said many times that some of the pro-gun community’s worst enemies are the radicals in our own camp. And one needs look no further than some of the Open Carry advocates who have staged confrontations with the police by posting one of their number on a street with a visible gun and then calling in a false 911 “suspicious man with a gun” complaint and videotaping the officers when they arrive to check the guy out.
Aug 20, 2009 @ 00:29:16
I agree with you Nicki. I think what those guys did was bullyish and does nothing for the cause. The idea that “I did it because I can and it’s my right” is a weak excuse whether they were within the law or not. There are a lot of things that we can do by right, but common sense dictates it may not be the best laid plan. I am all for 2nd amendment and as far as “him”, I can’t stand his whole damn agenda, but bottom line, like it or not, this guy is still the goddamn president. Does that mean nothing? I think this is a typical example of escalation of lack of respect. The democrats started with the greater and greater vocalization of their displeasure of Bush and everything in his administration. Michael Moore for instance…great role model there. They said and did things that completely disrespected the office of the president publicly because they “could”. Take the “shoe incident”. Americans on both sides have lost the meaning of respect for the office and it’s getting worse. Now, the other side, similarly showing how they too have lost the very idea of respect that now they think it’s a good idea to show up at a Presidential rally open carrying a gun. I don’t care if it is our right, it’s disrespectful and does nothing to help our cause. It seems that not long ago, people may have hated their administration, but there was a modicum of common sense and respect. We as a country have lost both of those things now so it is not surprising that some individuals think it now acceptable to pull such a stunt. We can only degrade further from here and I think we are on a terrible spiral down. It’s sad really. Quite frankly, I think that the in your face reality about the open carry thing was detrimental to the crowd they were trying to “educate”. Now those people are probably thinking, hmmm…it’s THAT easy to carry a gun. Maybe we really SHOULD put MORE restrictions on them. It probably was in the back of their and Obama’s minds, but he is likely back at his office writing up something as we speak to create more limits because of the “in your face” challenge he got to witness.It so didn’t help the cause. It was plain stupid and childish.To the responder who mentioned the Black Panthers similarity…ummm, not really sure trying to hold ourselves up to that standard is really the best strategy. Maybe you were being sarcastic.
Aug 20, 2009 @ 00:45:27
Angry Patriot:Ditto’s
If you’re afraid to show ‘em, you’re obviously afraid to use ‘em.
Aug 20, 2009 @ 11:07:11
Since I DO openly carry everywhere, everyday, does that mean when one of my so-called public servants comes to town, I have to DISARM to attend such an event?If so, who is the servant and who is the master?
Aug 20, 2009 @ 17:50:06
No, Mark. It doesn’t mean that at all, and I never implied that. I do, however, think that carrying openly just for the hell of it to prove a point that it is our right into a situation that is already volatile and emotionally charged to begin with is not the best plan.Additionally, it leads to unintended circumstances such as politicians pushing for more gun control, which they’re likely to get now that a stink has been raised.So we didn’t have a problem with the Secret Service or any other security agencies, and we wouldn’t have if people had used some discretion. Now we’re likely to get more gun control because discretion wasn’t used.I plan to blog about that later.
Aug 21, 2009 @ 02:59:14
The more that the LSM cry “ASSAULT RIFLE!!!1!!!” and the fewer incidents filmed and not PSH’d, the less attention an OC weapon will draw at a rally. Problem might be an agent provocateur. Which may be self-correcting/suicidal…