Ammo For Sale

« « Poor guys | Home | Speaking of race comparisions » »


One of the interesting things at the Gunblogger Rendezvous was Joe Huffman’s presentation on the future of gun rights and the present discrimination by companies against gun owners. He’s summarized his thoughts here. He gives some examples:

In Utah AOL employees were fired for transferring guns from one car to another in the parking lot before going to the range. They sued and lost their case.

In Oklahoma Weyerhaeuser brought “drug sniffing” dogs into the parking lot on the first day of hunting season. The dogs were also trained to alert on guns. Employees who refused to allow searches of their vehicles after a dog alerted on them were told they would be fired on the spot. The searches that resulted in guns also resulted in people getting fired. They sued and lost their case.

A friend of mine started having “weird things” happen to her at work. In essence she was demoted and previous work from home accommodations were terminated. Things were being made very difficult for her and she didn’t understand why. Independently I noticed that I was getting hits on my web sites from Google searches for her name. They spent a lot of time on my websites looking at her gun owner rights activities and I told her about my discovery. Ahhh haaa!!! So that is what is going on. She left the company on terms of her own choosing.

After taking a group of people to the range, where a good time was had by all, another friend was accused by some gun fearing woman of intimidating her in the hallway. My friends contract was terminated early without ever being asked his side of the story. The women later bragged about getting rid of the gun nut and was fired for dishonest.

Joe also has a plan that, while not guaranteed, is worth trying. My thoughts are that gun rights are civil rights and should be treated as such. Gun owners (and the NRA) should hammer that point home. I’m not sure that comparing anti-gunners to the KKK is the best plan. Though it is absolutely correct, it would not endear us to many people. So, call the antis out on it but I’d likely avoid such comparisons.

7 Responses to “Offensive”

  1. Sebastian Says:

    Yeah… comparing our struggle to blacks and calling the anti-gun people the KKK is one of those argument I alluded to in a previous comment that make other people look at us and think “nutjob”. It’s natural for people to get emotional about the things they care about, but we have to remain cognizant of how we’re coming off to people who have not thought much about this stuff.

  2. Joe Huffman Says:

    I realize the KKK connection is going to be going to be a tough sell in a lot of cases. A person has to use their best judgement for that particular audience. But the ultimate goal is the same.

    Except in the examples of AOL and Weyerhaeuser the company property issue didn’t even apply. The others were all off hours “events” that resulted in termination of employement by the bigots. We have to win at some level and build from there. Part of the work involves public education about the bigotry.

  3. Sebastian Says:

    I agree with you Joe. I just think we need to take care in the metaphors we use. Most people who aren’t gun folk, and even some who are, aren’t going to accept equating being fired from a job for bringing a gun to work, or having to leave the gun in the car because the local mall prohibits concealed carry equivalent to the miserable treatment of blacks in the pre-civil rights South, who had no choice in being born black. And to the best of my knowledge, the Brady’s and their ilk have lied, misrepresented data, deceived, and tried to pull the wool over people’s eyes, but as far as I know, they’ve never gone out looking for gun owners to string up from the nearest tree, or burnt anything on any of our lawns.

    I completely agree with you that societies treatment of people who carry guns is a form of prejudice that we need to address, but I just don’t think that metaphor really holds, and I think most people are liable to stop listening at that point. So how can we counter that as a community? I’ve given a fair amount of thought to this, and the best I can come up with is to not be the stereotype; that is don’t feed their prejudice.

    Where I’m from, which is the Philadelphia suburbs, most people who have negative attitudes about gun owners have never met one, or don’t know they’ve met one. It’s particularly common in professional circles for people to have no familiarity at all with the gun culture, and those of us who do tend to keep quiet about it. I generally try to let people get to know me before I start talking about my enthusiasm for shooting and collecting. Usually by that time I don’t get many negative reactions. I get some questions, and some comments, but they are usually respectful, and I try my best to explain my point of view. You won’t win converts overnight this way, but I think it’s important for people to have positive examples of gun owners around them. Familiarity I think is the best way to break down prejudice, it’s slow, but that’s where you have to start.

    Breaking down barriers to concealed carry is a bit harder, but the same principles apply. I think it’s a bad idea to let people know if you go about armed, but I don’t think it’s a bad idea to let people know you’re licensed to do so. The typical reaction you’ll get from most people is “Why do you feel like you have to carry a gun around with you?”, which is a rather difficult mentality to overcome, and tough question to answer, because that answer can’t be boiled down to a convenient meme, and comes with a whole array of prejudices that you have to deal with.

  4. Heartless Libertarian Says:

    Problem is, property rights are civil rights, too.

  5. Joe Says:

    Even bigger problem…giving faceless mega-corporations the same or greater rights than human beings.

  6. Ron W Says:

    I tell people I keep and carry guns the same reason they lock the doors on their homes and cars, have homeowner’s and vehicle insurance and that exercising the CHOICE of armed self-defense is a basic human RIGHT. It’s something you do (like other self-protection measures) which you hope to never need, but when and if you do need it, you need it now.

    I also point out that guns carried by peaceable, law-abiding citizens are not a threat to others, but only to the criminal element.

    But most people are, in my experience, open to the idea of the choice of exercising a right, especially that of choosing the right of self-defense.

  7. Joe Huffman Says:

    True, the anti-gun activists don’t lynch people. But the anti-gun government types gave us Ruby Ridge, Waco, and dozens of other events that resulted in the deaths of dozens if not hundreds of people. The anti-gun activists enable them and even cheer them on (listen to Senator Schumer in the Ruby Ridge and Waco hearings).

    And that doesn’t even include the people that are killed, raped, mugged, and permanently injuried because they were disarmed.