With friends like this: Clayton Cramer attacks open carry

[GunLawyer001]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

. . . .

Didn't quote your lengthy post because, well, it's right there.

I see a difference between "gays" and "gay activists". Same as I see a difference between my neighbor who votes for Democrats, and Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi is a political combatant, and she goes out of her way to be confrontational; that's offensive, and I'm entitled to be offended, and to despise her for her choice of tactics and her message. I don't feel the same about the deluded minions who voted her into office. So am I "anti-Democrat", or just "anti-Democrat leadership"?

So someone who feels offended by ActUp invading a Catholic church, screaming obscenities, and tossing condoms at a Cardinal, is not necessarily "anti-gay" for being disgusted by intentionally provocative behavior. That's why they did it, to offend people and cram their turgid beliefs down the unwilling throats of Catholic boys and girls, then spew their gooey message of "tolerance" into unwilling participants, bypassing the normal channels of debate and using back-door methods.

Seems very odd that a "pro-freedom" forum like PAFOA would buy into the argument that this guy is not allowed to say what he said, even when we acknowledge that most of what he said is either true, or arguably true. But then, I can see the same intolerance from some who hate Glocks, or towards anyone who says "clip" in the wrong context.

Thank God that we live in a society with such material wealth and such freedom that we can become agitated over such minutiae.

[MostlyHarmless]

I think the original article by Clayton Cramer wasn't bad at all. The question really is where do people draw the line? When is "open carry" too open?

I personally don't have the slightest problem with guns carried open. But mind you, I grew up in North Germany, so I don't have the slightest problem with homosexuality or nudity either. If they wanted, I wouldn't mind if homosexuals would carry their genitals open. Whom does a penis, displayed in public, harm? Nobody! If you don't like it, look the other way! But I can hear the outcry: "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!" Well, I have first hand experience with that. Trust me, children at a nude beach are just the same as everywhere else ... they play in the sand and mind their own business. They aren't interested in stuff that is normal and boring. Don't declare it something outrageous and they won't even notice.

I am sure a lot of people will think there is a big difference between the two. Somehow I think Cramer doesn't.


Jan

[d90king]

LRT, I really only want to get your thoughts on one aspect, and that is tactics.

I think the analogy being made is one of tactics and not choices or freedoms. I think what he his trying to illustrate is the aspect of activism that is counterproductive to the actual cause they are fighting for.

Personally speaking I could care less what other people choose to do with their lives as long as it doesn't impact my or my families liberties. That said I have seen from time to time parades or whatever you want to call them where the actions displayed by the attendees is really over the top and in some ways inappropriate. I am talking about when you see guys in latex whipping, etc, etc (fill in the blank for sexual behavior) their partner as they walk down the street by kids, families and the public in general.

The real question is WHY do it? It does nothing to further your cause, and you run a great risk of alienating those who already support your freedoms.

I think his article was poorly written and will have negative consequences. His point could have been made simply enough using different analogies and it wouldn't have alienated part of the very group that he is active in promoting their cause.

In reality he did the same thing that he was ranting against. Shock and awe...

Not a debate, simply my perspective...

[P7hk9]

Originally Posted by ungawa

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.

I get the point he's trying to make. I just think that his own prejudices color the article in a negative way. I could be wrong. I'll give it another chance and read it again tomorrow.

Originally Posted by ungawa

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.

Well said.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

So someone who feels offended by ActUp invading a Catholic church, screaming obscenities, and tossing condoms at a Cardinal, is not necessarily "anti-gay" for being disgusted by intentionally provocative behavior.

just for the record, i would be offended by that as well. but not because they were intentionally being provocative...rather because the trespassed on private property and interfered with the right of the churchgoers to practice their religion.

Seems very odd that a "pro-freedom" forum like PAFOA would buy into the argument that this guy is not allowed to say what he said, even when we acknowledge that most of what he said is either true, or arguably true.

i'm not saying he shouldn't be "allowed" to say it. he should be allowed to say whatever he wants to say.

however, i do feel the article likely hurt the cause of gun owners for the reasons i have outlined. and, thus, i wish he had not said it.

and i disagree with much of what he said (we seem to be focusing on different aspects of the article), so i will not stand beside him.

But then, I can see the same intolerance

i am intolerant of intolerance. i admit it.

but, i do think a key difference is that i do not think his speech should be limited by government. i don't think my intolerance of intolerant speech should be institutionalized and/or enforced by government.

i would be curious to know if cramer thinks gay marriage should be banned (not by churches...they should be free to ban it if they want...but by government)?

if he answered that question no, then i would cut him a lot more slack. but, i would bet a dollar to a donut hole that he would answer that question yes.

and that means he favors using government to enforce his intolerance...and that is wrong, imho--and not something i want to be associated with. and it is not something i think it is good for gun owners in general to be associated with.

(and, of course, the truth is that people should not associate gun owners with the view of an individual, but the fact is that they do when that individual is viewed as somewhat of a spokesman for gun rights.)

Thank God that we live in a society with sucj material wealth and such freedom that we can become agitated over such minutiae.

indeed.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by d90king

I think the analogy being made is one of tactics and not choices or freedoms. I think what he his trying to illustrate is the aspect of activism that is counterproductive to the actual cause they are fighting for.

i think he went well beyond that as i have explained above. just wanted to point that out.

now i will try to answer your specific question...

The real question is WHY do it? It does nothing to further your cause, and you run a great risk of alienating those who already support your freedoms.

i actually disagree with that.

i think that it might have that short-term reactionary effect on some people who never really supported your rights in the first place.

but, over the long term, i think it really does desensitize people and, over time, what was once a huge issue becomes a non-issue.

in general, i don't think any right is helped by hiding the exercise thereof. i think, in the long-term, that sort of voluntary self-suppression sets the stage for involuntary government repression.

i don't really follow the gay rights movement at all, so i can't comment on that. however, i do think that, so far at least, activist open carrying has led to a greater social acceptance of guns and, if it has not led to less gun control (it arguably has in virginia), i haven't seen anywhere it has led to more gun control. it has, however, i think, led to, overall, better informed police who are less likely to violate people's rights because they are carrying a gun.

my own personal experiences when talking to my "liberal" and democrat friends about incidents like dickson city is that they view them as police abuse and a civil rights violation. they might think open carrying a gun is stupid, but they are much more upset about the police violating people's rights. they can relate to that because they know it could happen to them for other issues. they aren't going to run out and buy guns anytime soon, but they also aren't calling for laws banning open carry. and, in fact, most of them actually even start to see why we can't let the police have all the guns.

granted, these people were not rabidly anti-gun to begin with, but they are far from "pro-gun", too. however, i think that actually describes the vast majority of the "other side". the rabidly anti-gun people are very loud, but also quite few.

although i do not open carry myself (for my own tactical reasons), i honestly think the activist open carry movement is helping us, not hurting us.

[phillyd2]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

i am intolerant of intolerance

Quoted for excellence.

[Pa. Patriot]

Originally Posted by Mocha Java

Clayton Cramer has done more for gun rights than a whole battalion of John Pierce ankle-biting whiners.

The least you could do is qualify your statement as to why is John Pierce an "ankle-biting whiner".
Is it because he supports the rights of those, namely gays, that Cramer (and presumably you) do not? Or because he has advanced rights you don't like (OC)?
Something else??

It's a serious Q. I just can't see your attack on someone who has not slighted anyone, other than Cramers bigoted statements, as constructive or even relevant to the thread. Seems like a hit-n-run name calling, and that's worse than whining in my book What's your beef with JPierce?

[GunLawyer001]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

. . .

i would be curious to know if cramer thinks gay marriage should be banned (not by churches...they should be free to ban it if they want...but by government)?

if he answered that question no, then i would cut him a lot more slack. but, i would bet a dollar to a donut hole that he would answer that question yes.

and that means he favors using government to enforce his intolerance...and that is wrong, imho--and not something i want to be associated with. and it is not something i think it is good for gun owners in general to be associated with.
. . .

Just to focus on that narrow point of gay marriage and the government: Only one side of this issue is looking to use the power of the government to force everyone to behave in "acceptable" ways. Right now, the sodomy laws have been mooted, gay couples are free to live together, to leave each other all their worldly goods, to grant each other the right to visit in a hospital. It's just that they can't force their families and strangers to treat them like they're married (I assume that their friends will play ball, that's why they're friends.)

If the government declines to redefine marriage so that it's no longer limited to one adult male and one adult female, then there are a lot of mandatory consequences, people being FORCED to do things (first one being, where does it stop? 2 men, one woman? 3 men? 2 men and 1 emancipated teen girl?) It changes divorce, adoption, intestacy laws, retirement benefits, housing, and a host of purely private interactions. And it will be the evil government FORCING other people to treat the couple or trio or whatever as a "marriage".

If the government keeps things as they are, people are free to accept any couple or trio or group as a marriage, if they choose. Nothing is stopping a landlord from renting to a menage a cinq, your employer is free to extend insurance benefits to your dozen Mormon wives if he chooses. The main difference is that government inaction allows other people the freedom to interact with them as something other than a marriage.

Either way, you're going to have some unhappy people, but we should at least agree that it's when the government re-defines "marriage" that you have the most people coerced into doing what they otherwise would not do. That's the whole point of re-defining marriage, so that the government will FORCE everyone to accept these couples, right? If society was warm and fuzzy and accepting, we wouldn't need to change the laws. It's not the "anti-gay bigots" who want to use the government as a hammer here.

It may be good or it may be bad, but the people pushing for the change are the ones seeking to use the big, bad government to enforce how they want people to act.

[synergy]

I'd speak my mind but I don't much feel like playing Leonidas tonight against the Persian empire of OC'ers, here.

<- Tagged to watch how this thread plays out...