Much has been said about a certain person carrying an AR-15 type rifle openly near where Obama was going to be speaking. Surprisingly, many of those I consider like minded speak derisively of this man and his actions. What is about to follow is my view on this, but I have to give a disclaimer.
I'm tired as hell, I'm already grumpy from other stuff from my day, and writing longish posts is hard for me. I'll be all over the place using bad language, worse grammar, and more than likely looking like I'm trying to pick a fight. So, read the following with that in mind before you let loose (grammar Nazis will have their comments edited to indicate their preference for ponies and flavored lubricants).
I am floored to see others on my side pooping their bloomers over this. I wholeheartedly disagree with Sebastian on this issue. Murdoc isn't too happy about it. Jeff Soyer is unsure. Mostly Genius mostly hates it.
On the other hand, Caleb seems to it's a cool idea but can't figure out what type of gamerfag rig to carry to the next protest. IDPA type gear for Tea Parties, but the race gun for Town Halls?
There are almost too many points to cover, so I'm going to try to outline them here so I don't forget them all. The complaints seem to be
To #1, all I can say is No Shit. What do you think I do here on my blog every single day? What do you think I am doing every time I engage someone who might not be familiar with firearms? I am LOUD AND PROUD at work about my hobby. I don't get in people's faces, but I never back down from talking about what I enjoy.
However, the gentleman carrying the AR was making no more of a statement than those carrying pistols. None. Zilch. And somehow, everyone's fixated on the evil black rifle.
Which leads to #2. Open carrying of ANY weapon isn't considered normal. And honestly, I don't give two shits if people consider it normal or not, I just want it accepted to the point of being left alone. Biracial marriages (like what I'm a product of) are still not "normal", but they are accepted.
You have to push people's comfort levels. Yes, there is a large, fuzzy gray area before you get into the "OK, that's a little bit too much" and we can (and are currently) arguing about that. But the trick is to push, and from what others are saying, we shouldn't do anything that might make gun owners look bad.
Which segues nicely into point 3. THE MEDIA HATES US. Get used to it. We will never get good, national coverage. To worry about how the media is going to portray us is asinine. Because of their inability to remain objective, more and more people are no longer trusting the MSM, but that's still going to be a thorn in the side of gun owners for decades to come.
The point is that nothing we can do will garner us good, national media attention. Luckily, we are no longer constrained to the dinosaur media, we have our own megaphones. Small as they may be, they are effective.
See, I believe in the free exchange of ideas and that yes, even the loony people should speak and show themselves. I believe that people aren't quite as dumb as we want to pretend everyone else must be (or the world would be more like how we think it should). I don't argue the points on gun ownership with people online to change their minds, I do it to persuade those who might be reading. The same goes here. You're going to have people who feel differently than you do about how to best go about getting their message across and if you work hard to marginalize them because their message isn't your message, you're going to find yourself fighting battles by yourself.
Point 4 is utter horse shit. First, name a few high profile shootings from the past month or so. Easy, right? You've got your L.A. Fitness, the Holocaust memorial, etc. Now, name a few gun fights that have broken out at gun shows / NRA Conventions / Open Carry picnics / Open Carry church events or what have you from….oh… ever. Harder to do right?
We already have enough problems with other people misusing guns. Us getting together or not is irrelevant to an anti gun person who wants to make a statement by going nutso. Hell, we've already heard about black Obama supporters pretending to be white supremacists on Facebook or other supporters carrying Nazi signs to Tea Parties, and they're not having much of an effect. You can't live in fear of that and I wouldn't put much weight on that as a factor.
Point 5 is the main one and really the only one I could ostensibly see as valid. Remember, there's a large, fuzzy gray area. We're never going to agree on that. But what pisses me off to no end are my fellow gunnies who are saying "Well, X are ok but not Y!". Would those who are against this fellow be looking down on someone for carrying a S&W 500? How about someone with a Glock and a high capacity magazine? I spend all this time arguing that it's not the tool but rather the person and now the same people who I thought agreed with me have found a nice black and white demarcation line of exactly what too much weapon is.
Finally (at least for now) is the absurd statement that there is a right time and place to carry a weapon. Again, I argue until I'm blue that imaginary lines drawn around certain areas has no effect on if a person is going to be violent or not. To say that carrying at a specific place carries an implied threat is to say that carrying a weapon anywhere can imply a threat.
Horseshit.
I carry to church, to my daughter's play, to the library, playgrounds, and to restaurants. I've carried to friends houses and to places I'm not familiar with. I've had a 10mm Glock on my person at children's soccer games, at parks, on the beach, and at little children's birthday parties. And yes, I've carried multiple weapons to a political rally. At no time have I ever implied any sort of threat, regardless of how much you might want to paint me with that brush.
The real threat is the Second Amendment. It is not only implied, it's spelled out quite clearly. Its purpose is to remind the government that the people have the means to resist tyranny. A shirt with the 2A printed on it is just as threatening as carrying a rifle if you want to view it from that perspective.
Is open carrying a rifle a great idea? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. There is no black and white answer. From a tactical perspective, I believe that a pistol is a better tool for the vast majority of scenarios you'd rarely find yourself in anyway.
As for a political statement?
Well, isn't that the conversation we're having now?
To recap – I don't see the problem. Yes, it's going to jar a few people viscerally. Sometimes you have to take that risk. It's legal and poses no threat to anyone any more than a handgun. We're going to be portrayed by the legacy media in a particular way regardless, so let's start pushing the conversation onto our terms while they lose their grip on the 'truth'. And finally, this is a sore spot subject for me. For those I may have come across as a bit of an ass… well, that's par for the course for me. Realize I'm just passionate about this and I don't really want to fight amongst my allies.
It's a lot harder for the media to convince the fence-sitters of the "OMG, crazy man with a gun" theme if the guy is wearing dress pants, dress shirt, and a tie.
Rob, thanks for this post. It really needed to be said.
A political rally is, almost by definition, a heated argument and so the probabilities are not the same as a normal day going about your business.
People disagreed, sometimes vociferously, but almost always logically; and reasonably well-thought-out.