I’m not a big fan of cowardice or compromise. I’ve been very critical of the NRA in the past for its gradualist approach to restoring and protecting our gun rights, and anyone who has been reading this blog for any amount of time knows how I feel about infringements on our rights.
But you all also know that I favor common sense. I favor exhausting all options before starting an all out war with our opponents. I don’t believe it’s time for the ammo box.
I also believe in using all strategies when fighting for our gun rights. I believe in fighting smart. Sometimes that battle does require “in-your-face” tactics, and when that is the case, I’m all for it. I absolutely support the Second Amendment March. I support the efforts of VCDL when they work to protect those who choose to open carry their firearms and educate the “powers that be” about gun rights. I support the right of law-abiding citizens to carry firearms in any manner they desire – whether in the open or concealed.
But I don’t believe in creating problems where there are none. I don’t believe, for example, in provoking police into action like some groups do, where one open carries and a friend calls the cops and acts frantic that there’s someone with a gun in the vicinity, prompting police action against the carrying individual.
Yes, the gay rights movement has had great success with in your face tactics. They’ve done well with pride parades and other efforts. But I would also submit that when they specifically target churches, stage boycotts and pressure businesses that oppose them they’re not winning themselves too many supporters.
I spent a good part of my life in Europe. The first time I saw two women walking down the street hand-in-hand and kiss, I was a bit shocked. I stared. I couldn’t believe it. After a while, it didn’t matter. I no longer considered it shocking. It was just something people did when they cared about one another – they sometimes walked while holding hands, and they sometimes kissed. And it was no big deal.
So it is with gun rights. I’ve seen some criticism about my blog post about the group in Arizona whose members showed up at an Obama event carrying guns, with one guy sporting an AR (and no, it’s not a friggin’ automatic killing machine sported by racists, MSNBC!). As I said before, legally I have no problem with what this group did. They had every right to do so, and the law enforcement authorities in the area knew and understood that.
But was it a smart strategy?
On one hand, the group showed a large crowd of people that they had nothing to fear from protesters, even if they were armed. They exhibited no overtly threatening or obnoxious behavior. This was a good thing.
On the other hand, they deliberately stepped into an already volatile situation in an effort to draw attention to themselves. They succeeded.
Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) called on the Homeland SecurityDepartment and the U.S. Secret Service on Wednesday to provide tighterrestrictions on citizens carrying weapons, openly or concealed, whilein the vicinity of President Barack Obama.
Norton, who sits on the Homeland Security Committee, made therequest after numerous news reports have shown groups of peoplebrandishing firearms while outside of events held by Obama over thepast several weeks.
Here’s the problem. Right now, anyone who opposes the liberal agenda is considered a nut, an extremist, a racist, a Nazi and even a terrorist! They have majorities on the Hill, and one of their own in the White House. They have the power and authority – if they wanted – to impose further controls. And they need very little excuse to do so.
They need little reason to bring out the race card or foment panic by implying that there could be assassination attempts on the President’s life by those who oppose his agenda.
Recently, MSNBC host David Shustersimilarly saw protesters at health care town hall meetings as a threatto the President’s life, asking Democratic Congressman Jim Moran: “Isthis putting our president in some sort of danger because of some wackothat will see this stuff and say, ‘oh, yes, it’s fascism and the way wedealt with Adolf Hitler was to try to kill him, so therefore, let’s dothis with our president.’”
Is the media right? Of course not! MSNBC has reached new lows with their implications that the group in Arizona had racist motivations and attempting to hide the fact that the man carrying the rifle was actually black.
But will they cover this story with all the implications of assassinations and racism and terrorism they can possibly evoke? Yes, they will. They will foment as much anger and panic as possible, and I guarandamntee you that in the end, their attempts at portraying law-abiding gun owners as a threat to the president will result in more restrictions for gun owners who do wish to carry their firearms in or near the President or any of the legisleeches.
Sometimes I carry open, and sometimes I carry concealed, depending on what I’m wearing that day. I don’t make a big deal out of it. It’s not a political statement on my part. It’s just what I do. People see it. I’ve never had a problem. I can see that it bothers no one to see a woman go about her business peaceably, shopping with her kids, going to the movies, etc. while carrying a gun. It’s just not a problem. My purpose is not to deliberately shove the fact that I have a right to carry in the faces of others. My purpose is simply to do it.
It’s a subtle distinction, but it’s an important one.
There’s a time and a place to make your point.
Would I choose to open carry into a situation already fraught with massive amounts of emotion, knowing the media and politicians will exploit any opposition to the liberal agenda as racist, terrorist and dangerous, whether it’s true or not? No. I don’t think it’s wise.
While the folks in Arizona were well-spoken and peaceable. They exercised their rights. They brought attention to the fact that the citizenry has nothing to fear from armed people.
But on the other hand, they may have caused something that wasn’t a problem, according to the Secret Service, to become a problem. While Eleanor Holmes Norton’s demand that regulations on carrying firearms be tightened around her Marxists Messiah may be viewed as little to no threat, that demand combined with constant media screeching about possible dangers to the President’s life, the parade of Southern Poverty Law Center “experts” yapping about racism, could lead to tighter restrictions.
I sincerely hope it doesn’t, but there’s a good chance it will.
And the unintended consequence of this group’s tactics could be more restriction not less.