Ammo For Sale

« « Speaking of | Home | Good for President Obama » »

Gunman opens ire

Dissension in the ranks!

A black man lawfully carries his AR-15 at a political rally. The press loses its collective shit, tossing it over in the corner with its objectivity. And the reactions from the pro-gun side are varied. I’m on record as saying it’s a poor marketing decision. Some say it’s good. Others say it was a bad thing. First, the scenario:

those open carry advocates at yesterday’s event in Arizona arranged for a police liaison the day before the event, and were constantly afforded security by the Phoenix Police Department and had at least one known Secret Service agent shadowing them to assure they were following the law. These citizens were never anywhere near the President, nor did they attempt to go anywhere near the Secret Service’s security perimeter that cordoned off the event and the building in which it was held.

A rather different picture than the one painted by the press who acted as though the situation was out of control. The press never tried to interview the guy. Rather, just displayed their ire and distrust of a black man with a gun.

Several gun bloggers also thought it was a bad idea:

Sebastian: part of breaking down stereotypes and misconceptions about gun owners being deviant or abnormal is to act normal. Normal people do not walk around with AR-15s slung over their shoulders

Jeffy Weffy: I have to waver, though, on slinging on a rifle as you protest an event — regardless of who the speaker is — because it naturally coarsens the conversation and serves no justifiable purpose other than to attempt, by visual means, to silence the other side by an implied threat that you will use whatever means possible to achieve your side’s goal.

David: I can’t say as I’m fond of the idea — the media is quick to portray gun rights activists as menacing or intimidating, and there’s no reason to set the stage for just that.

Conversely, other gun bloggers disagree. Commenter Steve says: How long will it be before the public starts to think, “Wow, this is about the tenth/hundredth/millionth time somebody wore a gun to an event……AND NOTHING HAPPENED!!! It’s news because it’s unusual. Once it’s usual, it will stop being news.

Well, it just takes once. Robb addresses the marketing aspect: 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.

Linoge brings the civil rights analogies.

And Oleg offers: Showing up with openly carried arms took bravery and preparation. I am sure that the people using their Constitutional rights would have been molested had it not been for the media and individual attention. The admission by the various reporters that open carry is legal in many states is the payoff from the calculated risk taken by the demonstrators.

Sebastian rounds up reaction.

As for what I think? It’s good and bad for the reasons outlined above. The question is was it more good than bad? Frankly, your average non-gun-nut that I have discussed this with seems unconcerned by the whole idea. And, as long as there’s no violence, will remain unconcerned. Seems like a win to me.

14 Responses to “Gunman opens ire”

  1. Caleb Says:

    “opens ire”…oh you and your puns.

  2. JKB Says:

    Can’t say I’d seen much coverage that this was an organized group The media has tried to present it as lone nuts. Last night when the Jon Stewart tried to make fun of it. I think he failed to really damage the statement being made. Especially, since he highlighted there was more than one guy. The media is actually damaging their theme by presenting these people with guns mingling with the President and nothing happening.

  3. Taylor Says:

    “people with guns mingling with the President”

    They weren’t anywhere near the president, unless you’re talking about the Secret Service…

  4. Wanda Says:

    As far as the idea “Wow, this is about the tenth/hundredth/millionth time somebody wore a gun to an event……AND NOTHING HAPPENED!!!” goes…

    This is great until something happens. Remember, for decades, people carried boxcutters on airplanes and nothing happened. It only took one incident of “something happened” to ban boxcutters from commercial flights.

    If you can guarantee that nothing will ever happen with people wearing guns to events, then all is good.

  5. steve Says:

    Wanda, Wanda, Wanda. Where in life anywhere is there a guarantee? I also will suggest you compare the amount of shootings in “unarmed victim zones” to those at scheduled “open carry” events.

    Does this suggest anything to you?

    sv

  6. Ride Fast Says:

    […] Open carry debate on proximity to controversy […]

  7. AntiCitizenOne Says:

    You want to guarantee that no violence will ever break out at these protests?

    Tie everyone’s hands and feet together.

    But if it saves one life!

  8. steve Says:

    Another Question for Wanda:

    More children drown every year in five gallon plastic buckets than are killed by gunshot. Why do I not see you crusading against the “killer assault buckets?”

    sv

  9. Steve Says:

    Considering the union violence and intimidation that has been going on at these anti-Obama events it seems to me that open carry might be a good way to see to it that the SEIU thugs mind their manners.

  10. Linoge Says:

    Well, when it comes to publicity and public debate, this guy has pretty much generated it.

    Now it is incumbent upon us to capitalize on it, improve on it, and make something of it, rather than piss and moan over how it “could have been”.

  11. Wanda Says:

    Who’s talking about “scheduled open carry events”? I’m talking about if everybody decides to come to these events armed: Supporters, protestors, undecideds. First you got the guys with the handguns, now you’ve gotten the guys with the AR-15s. Next they’ll up the ante and we’ll see more interesting types of weaponry coming out (Let’s see that Thompson!) and it’ll be fun to watch, via the media, of course. After all, legal weapons are legal weapons.

  12. workinwifdakids Says:

    There isn’t anything more advanced than the AR-15 here in the U.S. We shipped everything better off to Mexico.

  13. steve Says:

    And?

    Wanda, did I miss the part about how all those guns cast an evil spell over those who carry? Does the evil spell force people to do bad things? How far does the evil spell work? Can it affect me if I’m standing next to someone with a gun?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

    sv, III

  14. Spook Says:

    Nothing wrong with Black Panthers standing around armed at the polls during elections though.

    Now, that’s just exercising their rights and was NOT intended to intimidate or influence the outcome of the election. Oh, hell no!

    Everyone please read “Unintended Consequences” by John Ross, reflect on your position and access, and let’s return our Republic to its founding principles.