With friends like this: Clayton Cramer attacks open carry

[ungawa]

I'm sorta with GL on this. I read the guy's article. In my opinion he was pretty stupid to write it. But I believe it was sincere and I believe there was truth in everything he wrote. I disagree with his article because I believe his points are small truths vs. larger and more important truths. And before someone claims it, unlike him, I have no problem with gays. I couldn't care less about anyone that doesn't want to force me to do something against my will.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

And I haven't subscribed to Shotgun News since the Internet made it irrelevant.

there is a link to cramer's article in the OP article if you want to read it.

That being said, when did we gun folks develop a code of Political Correctness? Apparently, we must unthinkingly support open carry, gays, and Republicans (nothing wrong with supporting all 3, and in fact I do, but is UNTHINKING support required?).

read cramer's article. it isn't entirely about that. it is, in part, a several paragraph long gay bashing session.

if he had stuck to saying "open carrying might backfire on us the way public displays of affection backfire on gays" and then actually provided some documentation that PDAs by gays has actually led to less rights for gays, that would be fine, imho. but that isn't what he did.

Not sure about blacks and Muslims, do we have a mandatory "gun owner's viewpoint" on them yet?

nope. nor do i think that there is a "mandatory gun owner's viewpoint" on gays either.

however, i personally will not stand with someone who calls for restricting the rights or freedoms of gays, blacks, or muslims anymore than i will stand with someone calling for restricting the right or freedom to keep and bear arms.

i'm a firm believer that trying to pick and choose which, or whose, rights and freedoms to support and which, or whose, to suppress (in addition to just being morally wrong) eventually leads to an infringement of everyone's rights and freedoms. and i will point that out whenever i think it needs pointing out.

We are expected to castigate Ted Kennedy's corpse the day after he died, or we're weak.

i don't expect that. in fact, i was a bit disgusted by the way some gun owners were dancing around his corpse. i didn't like his politics at all. and i am glad that influence is removed from the senate. but i do not celebrate his death at all. i feel sorry for the man and his family just as i would feel sorry for anyone who died of brain cancer and their family.

The truth (as I see it) is that militant gays with public displays of affection will alienate people who were supportive of them in the abstract. And that parallel truth can shed light on the open carry situation, because the first impulse of open carry folks is to say "there's no law against it".

see, i have no problem with that statement. i'm not sure i agree with it, but i do not have any problem with it. cramer went way beyond that, though.

We don't change reality by shunning anyone on our side of the Dodgeball line who fails to parrot only from the approved party line.

no, but we do help ourselves by disassociating ourselves with stuff like gay bashing, racism, etc. we help ourselves, imho, by portraying our plight as a civil rights issue...which is kinda hard when people who are perceived as speaking for us rail against other civil rights.

In the absence of negative reactions, does it matter if I OC while wearing my baseball cap sideways, with my pants hanging mid-thigh, wearing a T-shirt that says "WHEN I WANT YOUR OPINION I'LL BEAT IT OUT OF YOU"?

i think that someone doing that does hurt us. but, people do have the right to do it. if, however, that person is someone who is perceived to be speaking for gun owners (like cramer and other gun rag writers are...rightly or wrongly), i would call him on it and suggest he might stop wearing that shirt.

In short, are we "allowed" to have that conversation about whether it's possible to damage our cause with some methods of OC?

yes, but, again, cramer went way beyond that, imho. and he is perceived by many as speaking for all gun owners.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by Mocha Java

Clayton Cramer has done more for gun rights

which is exactly why this article has the potential to do so much damage the cause of gun rights.

cramer speaks not only for himself, but, in the eyes of many, for all gun owners.

and that article will not cause many to view gun rights as a civil rights issue. rather, it may push them to view us all as a bunch of homophobes (they'll probably infer racists as well) wanting guns for who knows what (but probably something to do with a homophobic, white supremacist agenda).

[GunLawyer001]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

there is a link to cramer's article in the OP article if you want to read it.
. . .

Ah, so there is. Here's the text; I think it's a whole lot more offensive to gay activists than to sensible gun owners.

He was absolutely clear that he was "disgusted" not by gays, but by gay pride parades, despite homosexuality being something that he doesn't "approve" of. (I don't need anyone to "approve" of any of my rights, as long as they don't "infringe" them. I don't need the neighbors to clap me on the back about my AK, they just need to leave me alone.)

I've seen some of the worst of the "gay pride" parades, and to be disgusted by an obese, pasty man in crotchless leather chaps in the back seat of a convertible who is licking the sweat from the ass of another man wearing a pink tutu, is not exactly the height of Neanderthalic thinking. Nor does it say anything about one's feelings about the quiet gay couple going about their business next door.


How To Lose Friends

Perhaps this column will be an example of how to lose friends–but this is really important. There are times that being right isn't as important as being tactful. Over the last few weeks, as I write this column, there have been at least two incidents where those showing up at political events to protest Obama's health care reform program have been openly armed–one of them at an event in Phoenix where President Obama was speaking. 1

People who have not had anything to say about guns suddenly are asking questions such as, "Do Guns At Political Events Disturb You? Then Consider Skipping Arizona For Now." 2

Now, I am aware that the man carrying an AR-15 slung over his back in Phoenix didn't fit the redneck stereotype that news accounts tried to portray–many of which implied that the armed protesters were upset about a black man was in the White House. (The man with the AR-15 was about as black as his rifle.) 3

And yes, in both these situations, in Phoenix, and in New Hampshire, open carry is not just completely legal–the courts of the respective states have recognized that open carry is protected by the right to keep and bear arms provisions of the respective state constitutions.

But I want you to think back to some television commercials run some years back that emphasized the importance of both defensive driving, and being a bit less aggressive in your driving style. They emphasized that, "You may be clearly in the right in an accident you are involved in, dead right." This is one of those times.

Americans have become very squeamish about guns over the last several decades–and it isn't just because the mass media have been propagandizing for gun control. There are a lot of people who have been victims of violence, or who are next of kin of victims of violence. In my experience, survivors of violent gun crimes respond in one of two ways: "Guns are evil. They must be banned!" or "I will be armed next time, and that monster won't survive." The reactions, in both cases, tend to be quite strong.

You and I can engage the first point of view with rational discussion of the failure of gun control laws to disarm the bad guys, and over time, we may be successful in persuading such a person that restrictive gun control doesn't work. But even if we win them over to our side, do not expect someone who has looked down the barrel of a gun wielded by a criminal to react dispassionately to seeing a gun over which he or she has no control in a public place. The next of kin of victims of violent gun crimes seem to be far more likely to respond with the first reaction than with the second–and it is part of the reason that under the best of conditions, gun control groups seem to have so many grieving parents and siblings in them.

I've had my share of conversations with gun control advocates over the years, and I've listened to their stories. Overwhelmingly, they didn't just wake up one morning and decide that guns were bad. There's usually a tragedy that struck close to home. You and I can look at their reaction and see that they came to the wrong conclusion–but you can understand that once someone has come to that wrong conclusion, seeing guns is going to provoke a strong and negative emotional response.

I have long felt that open carry, if you have some other choice, is a political mistake, and for this very reason. There are lots of Americans who have discomfort or misgivings about gun ownership. They may know that lots of Americans have concealed handgun permits, and that they are probably walking the streets with people that are armed. But it isn't obvious; the gun isn't proclaiming its presence. The visceral reaction that some Americans have to seeing people openly armed is not going to win you any friends–and may turn some people against gun ownership.

Let me draw an analogy that a lot of you may find unpleasant. About 3% of Americans are homosexuals. I don't approve of homosexuality, for a variety of reasons. I know that a pretty sizeable fraction of Americans share my views on this. We know what homosexuals are doing behind closed doors, and we generally accept that, however much we disapprove of that conduct, it isn't the government's job to tell consenting adults what they can do in private. Most homosexuals in America appear to know this; like you and me, they are more interested in living their lives than they are in making political points.

A small number of homosexual activists make rather a point of going the opposite direction. They hold "kiss-ins," with very public displays of affection, intended to desensitize straight America. I used to be pretty open-minded about homosexuality, but living in the San Francisco Bay Area, and seeing video of the San Francisco gay pride parades, so shocked and disgusted me that I am now pretty strongly disapproving. (And my guess is that many of you who are as open-minded as I was, would probably change your opinion, if you saw those videos.)

Open carry in an urban setting, when you have some realistic alternative available (such as concealed carry), is rather like a homosexual "kiss-in." The supporters are convinced that doing so makes Americans more tolerant and open-minded to the subject. I'm convinced that for every person who gets used to it, there are two who are repelled. In July of 2008, one of the open carry advocacy groups held an open carry event at the Zoo here in Boise, carrying loaded and holstered firearms. This is about as gun friendly a city as probably exists in the USA–and the reaction to it was about the same as if a bunch of same-sex couples had started passionately kissing and necking in front of the monkey cage. It wasn't illegal–but it sure took people that didn't think about the issue much, and made them unhappy.

Carrying a holstered handgun in Phoenix is apparently pretty common. It isn't the norm, but it isn't particularly shocking. Carrying an AR-15 slung over your back in Phoenix, however, I'm guessing is pretty unusual. Carrying one outside an event where President Obama is speaking? This is equivalent to some of the really disgusting stuff that you see in gay pride parades.

It is shocking and disturbing not because President Obama is black, but because there is a long history of assassination attempts on the President, starting with the January 30, 1835 attempt on Andrew Jackson's life,4 on former President Teddy Roosevelt,5 on President Truman, President Nixon,6 President Reagan, and former President George H. W. Bush. 7 All of the successful assassinations–such as the deaths of Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, and Kennedy–were carried out with guns.

There are places where open carry is perfectly sensible. No one is terribly shocked to see Americans armed while hunting, while target shooting, or in rural areas, in many states. I can remember a time when I would hike in the forests or the deserts of California with a Colt Government Model in a hip holster.

There are circumstances where concealed carry is not legal, but open carry is allowed. In some states, people started to carry openly as a way to remind the legislature that it needed to pass a concealed carry permit law. In a few cases, I know of people who were over 18, but under 21, and thus ineligible for a concealed carry permit. Yet they had reason to be concerned with their safety, and chose to carry openly, because they had no legal alternative. I'm not talking about those situations when I criticize open carry–I'm talking about the situations where open carry is considered disturbing, you have the option of having your gun concealed, and you choose to carry openly.

If we reach the point where we need to be armed to engage in the terrifying scenario that the Second Amendment was written to make possible–the overthrow of a tyrannical government–then I expect everyone who loves his country to be armed and ready. But as a form of political statement, in cities, and especially in proximity to the President–this is just dumb. It makes gun owners look crazy, and drives some people who are indifferent into opposition to gun ownership. Don't be stupid.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

I think it's a whole lot more offensive to gay activists

to me, that makes it offensive to anyone who values individual liberty and rights.

He was absolutely clear that he was "disgusted" not by gays,

...as long as they stay hidden in their closets.

i think it is clear he is not just against "gay pride parades" (which frankly, if they have a permit, who cares? if you don't like them, don't watch them), but that he against any displays of gay affection that are not "behind closed doors".

i have a problem with that.

i wonder if he is disgusted by heterosexual public displays of affection?

...to be disgusted by an obese, pasty man in crotchless leather chaps in the back seat of a convertible who is licking the sweat from the ass of another man wearing a pink tutu,

so don't look.

i mean, i certainly do not find that appealing (and wouldn't even if one of the participants were a woman...now, if they were both hot women, well...), but i'm not "disgusted" by it. what's there really to be disgusted about? it doesn't actually effect me in anyway. i just ignore it.

people get "disgusted" way too easily, imho. just ignore it.

(i've also seen the gay pride parades. i happened to be in san fran visiting a couple college buddies during gay pride week one year, and we went down to whatever the gay district is called--can't remember it offhand--just to see the spectacle. it's certainly not for me, but all i had to do was leave...which we did after a few minutes.)

at any rate, imho, he is saying that gays should stay "behind closed doors". i don't think anyone (gays, gun owners, or anyone else) should have to hide behind closed doors just to make sure they do not offend the delicate sensibilities of others.

if he had stuck to "the unfortunate reality is that not hiding behind closed doors might cause the nanny state to outlaw guns and/or gays, so maybe both we and gays should stay behind closed doors in order to not have the nanny state infringe our rights to own guns or be gay" and then offered some evidence that that might actually happen, i think it would be fine. i would disagree, but i could respect his argument.

imho, though, he did not do that. he basically said "gays should stay behind closed doors because i am disgusted by them". that is a completely different message...one i cannot support and one that paints gun owners (since he is perceived as speaking for us) in a bad light, imho.

[P7hk9]

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

IThat being said, when did we gun folks develop a code of Political Correctness? Apparently, we must unthinkingly support open carry, gays, and Republicans (nothing wrong with supporting all 3, and in fact I do, but is UNTHINKING support required?).

I have always believed in every individual's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." If some people find happiness in a same-sex relationship, I don't have to agree with them, I just need to accept that their choice isn't hurting anyone, and it's what works for them. I don't feel that way because it's PC, I just feel that way.

What I got from Cramer's article was that "We all hate the gays for being wrong, and here's why OC is like that." I disagree with both aspects of that sentiment, and I believe that his article is written in a manner that suggests most gun owners feel the same way.

/My $.02

[ungawa]

Originally Posted by P7hk9

What I got from Cramer's article was that "We all hate the gays for being wrong, and here's why OC is like that." I disagree with both aspects of that sentiment, and I believe that his article is written in a manner that suggests most gun owners feel the same way.

/My $.02

I didn't get that at all. The guy clearly has a problem with gays, I don't. What he said was there are some people that have a problem with the gay lifestyle. Or worse. And there are many more people that are ambivalent but find it disturbing when gay sexual acts are forced in their faces for political reasons. I think this is correct.

He compared this to open carry or open carry at events involving the president. I think this was valid as well.

These are truths. Truths because there are a lot of idiots like the author, and even more (like he said) that are somewhat less idiotic but nonetheless disturbed by people openly carrying firearms or committing real/simulated sexual acts in public.

That doesn't mean we should follow his advice, clearly. In my opinion, we should not be ruled by the sensibilities of the ignorant or their petty prejudices. We are to lead to what is right, not patronize those that are wrong or mislead.

[gnbrotz]

So I guess if a gay couple were publicly displaying their affection AND happened to be OC at the time, that would really make his head explode.

[GunLawyer001]

Originally Posted by gnbrotz

So I guess if a gay couple were publicly displaying their affection AND happened to be OC at the time, that would really make his head explode.

Yes, but he would be disgusted very quietly.

It's a truism that totalitarian regimes have no history of rounding up armed victims. Being armed may not eliminate prejudice, but it's the next best thing.

[ungawa]

Originally Posted by gnbrotz

So I guess if a gay couple were publicly displaying their affection AND happened to be OC at the time, that would really make his head explode.

At an Obama speech (aka "rally")