October 2009 – Page 14 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Getting a Long Gun

SayUncle probably does a better job of laying out what I was trying to say than I did, which wasn’t really that people should “stop open carrying, right now, all of you!” but more making the point that it doesn’t seem to me to be remarkably effective at carrying the pro-gun message. My style is more aggressive and confrontational than Uncle’s, which is probably why I get more hate coming my way when I post this stuff. But I do think having the debate is important for the community.

This is one of those cases where we all just have an opinion. No one has ever focus grouped open carry to see how people perceive it, and I don’t know if anyone ever will, so that means we’re not arguing based on hard facts and data.Â Since this movement has started in a period where gun control is on the decline, and public opinions about guns are drastically improving, I believe we will very likely be proven wrong if we predict dire legislative consequences arising out of this issue. To some degree, I should just be happy we’re in such a favorable environment that we don’t have to worry as much about a backlash.

But the pro-gun movement was flying pretty well from the passage of FOPA, until the assault weapons issue hit like the hammer of Thor in the late 80s and early 90s, and we weren’t really prepared to deal with it. Sometimes it can be hard to predict what the other side will get traction on, and that’s something I spend a good deal of time worrying about.

Creigh Deeds was Better as a Moderate

After Jim Geraghty wrote about the Deeds campaignÂ doubling down on the negative campaign â€“ and being called out in the media for it â€“ I really started to think about why Deeds seems to be flailing so much more now than he was in 2005. Sure, there are national trends to consider, but Iâ€™m not sure thatâ€™s it. The more I think about how I would be voting if I still lived in Virginia, the less convinced I am that it is playing a huge role.

Full disclosure, I voted for Creigh Deeds in 2005. So did most other voters since he onlyÂ lost by about 325 votes in a statewide election with nearly 2 million voters. At that time, he not only had the NRA endorsement, but I knew he was willing to step up as a Democratic leader for sportsmen. He was running on his own record, one that a non-affiliated, Republican-leaning, little-l libertarian, could generally get behind. I realized that we may not agree on everything, but for the issues I cared about, he was slightly better than McDonnell at the time.

By the time the 2009 primary rolled around and he had run a little left. He didnâ€™t run far left, mind you, but a little left. Deeds threw gun controllers a bone while McDonnell had strengthened his record â€“ a feat hard to do in the position of Attorney General where you generally shy away from policy. DeedsÂ canâ€™t keep it straight when it comes to tax policy.

Needless to say, this kind of stuff turns independent/crossing-the-aisle voters off. On a few issues, he has gone just far enough to the left without going far, far left to make Bob McDonnell the preferred candidate. And now, rather than being within a polling range of ~325 votes,Â heâ€™s falling far behind McDonnell for Round 2 of their match-up.

TheÂ NYT believes if Democratic votersÂ would have chosen a more liberal Terry McAuliffethat he would stand a better shot against McDonnell. I would venture to say that if Creigh Deeds stayed true to himself, history shows that he might be better off for a more competitive race. Sure, there are other factors to consider like a general backlash against Democrats, but some of those factors were in play in 2005 against McDonnell. Thereâ€™s also a money game. But I do have to consider that there are people like my mom and grandmother who were willing to back Deeds in the primary, hoping for the candidate of 2005 once the primary was over, but who are now voting McDonnell because of the slight swerve to the left by Deeds and all of the negative commercials.

Caring What Other People Think

I was thinking of an idea for a post, but as I was thinking it up, I got that dejavu feeling you get if you’ve been blogging a while “I know I’ve blogged about this before.” So rather than revisit the topic again, I’ll just link to it. Why you don’t have the option of not caring what other people think about your movement. I think a lot of gun owners are independent minded libertarian types that ideally prefer to do what they want, and screw what other people think. In a world dedicated to libertarian principles (i.e. not the world we live in) you could get away with that. But in a world where a minority is trying to convince a majority to accept its culture and habits, you have to care what the average joe thinks. It’s tempting to believe the average joe accepts what you do, or doesn’t care, and that might even be the case, but the fact that I know I need Joe’s consent to continue doing what I do is one of the reasons I get paranoid about this stuff.

The media environment has changed greatly for us in the past decade, and it’s largely been in our favor. I know it sounds crazy to believe, because a lot of gun owners believe the media just hates us, and we shouldn’t care what they think, but that’s courting disaster. If the media’s treatment of the gun issue today turns your stomach, it would have given you a full case of dysentery in the 90s. One of the reasons I’m skeptical of open carry as activism is every time I read coverage of the issue in the media, it reminds me of the 1990s media, and I don’t want to go back to that. In addition to that, in various reports or commentary, you’ll notice plenty of gun owners who aren’t particularly enamored with the practice. It’s not like some of the places where open carry has created a backlash in Pennsylvania are hotbeds of anti-gun sentiment — it’s coming from very pro-gun areas. Then you have incidents like in Idaho. Idaho! You don’t get a much more pro-gun culture than that. If all this were limited to anti-gun urban areas where I’d expect people to freak out, I wouldn’t worry as much, but when I start seeing people freak out in Idaho, I wonder whether we may be pushing the issue a bit beyond what we can defend in the public space.

You can disagree with me about open carry, and think I might be worrying too much, but I think it’s hard to argue there’s absolutely no cause for concern at all.

Worse Than Just Ammo

Thirdpower points out that the bill Governor Ahnold just signed covers a lot more than just loaded ammunition, it would appear to affect bullets too, magazines, clips, and speed loaders. Because you know the gang bangers are all about loading their own bullets and use clips and speed loaders.

You Might Be Surprised, But I Agree

Robb makes an argument against my open carry post from earlier by transposing it into a different context:

Maybe Sebastian should take down his blog. I am not in any way, shape or form advocating free speech being illegal. I think it should be legal in all 50 states. Iâ€™m just saying if Sebastian does it, he shouldn’t pretend like he’s doing something great for the Second Amendment, because I donâ€™t think he is.

I actually think that would be a perfectly valid opinion, and I agree that operating a blog is not a particularly stellar contribution to the cause of the Second Amendment. I would rank it somewhere north of donating a nice chunk of money to a local pro-gun campaign, even for blogs that have a good bit of reach. I think the big political blogs like Instapundit, the legal blogs like Volokh, and long time activists like Dave Hardy have done more within the blogosphere to advance the Second Amendment than I ever will. I would never presume Snowflakes in Hell is a great contribution to the movement, because I don’t think it is. I’m actually more proud of some of the things we’ve been able to do locally than anything I may or may not have contributed on here.

That’s why a year and a half ago I decided that I wasn’t happy with just running a blog as my contribution, and started getting more involved volunteering with NRA, inserting our issue into state and local politics, and getting more involved in the local shooting culture. Now that Bitter is up here too, she’s also helping out by taking over EVC duties for the neighboring Congressional district. It’s not a major contribution, certainly not even close to on par with guys like Dave Hardy, Dave Kopel, Clayton Cramer, Alan Gura, Harlon Carter, nor any of the other people I consider heros of the movement. But I consider that work more important than what I’m doing on this blog.

The plan we formulated with PAFOA to go after the Bloomberg Mayors was just reported here, most of the actual work in formulating a plan to try to convince Mayors to leave, and to get people to complain happened behind the scenes. It attracted some notice in the media, but not much. But I’m proud that at least one Mayor felt the need to respond publicly in the media. I was also happy to give information and ideas to folks I know at NRA to help them with their efforts. Overall, a very minor contribution, but still something.

But probably the best non-internet activism feedback I’ve gotten is from local pro-gun candidates who appreciate seeing someone working to support them in return for their support on this issue. We’re a long way from reversing the slide of this area into the other camp, but we’ve been noticed at least, and a few weeks ago managed to help elevate a pro-gun state rep to the state Senate, and been thanked for our efforts.

This is not aggressive, in your face activism, but I do think it makes a difference, and is the type of activism I try to make a case for. I give the open carry guys a lot of credit for showing up in Scranton and getting the City Council to think a little, but that had nothing to do with open carry, and everything to do with showing up. As I said, that puts them ahead of 98% of gun owners, and they deserve credit for that. But I think there would have been a better outcome if they had just gone concealed at the meeting. I can’t and don’t expect to force anyone to cover up, I’m just asking people to think about how they might make their activism more effective. I’d like to think it’s a subject I know a little about, at least.

Get Better

Wyatt has been diagnosed with skin cancer. Fortunately, it’s a treatable variety. We wish him a speedy recovery.

Modern Pop Culture Quote of the Day

From Tam:

Bobbi’s comment this morning was “So you see an upside to five hundred channels and nothing on?”

“Sure,” I replied, “instead of ninety percent of America listening to three guys telling them what to think every night, now we’ve got seventy percent of America listening to five hundred guys telling them what to think, twenty percent playing video games or watching DVDs, and ten percent chatting about what they think on internet forums. You can’t get a good pre-genocide NÃ¼rnberg pep rally going if half your audience is listening to shortwave rants about flouride in the water, cheering for the opposition, or playing World of Warcraft.“

As Long as I’m Zumboing Out …

… I might as well go all the way. I have to agree with Steve here.

Something to Think About

On the idea that you can promote social change through shocking behavior, the analogy to homosexuality is probably a bit overwrought, so I’ll put it in a different context. If there was a proposal to close down a sex shop in some given town, and a local S&M club took exception to this, and showed up at the meeting in full blown leather, with the women on a leash and with whips in their hand, while one of their spokesman got up to speak against the ordinance to close the sex shop, would you consider that to be just as effective than if they had all shown up in business suits? Would it change anything if you pointed out they go around in full leather all the time, and it’s their right?

I agree it’s their right, and they can’t, and shouldn’t be arrested for it. But people will spend more time listening and considering to what they have to say if they are dressed in business suits. The media isn’t going to be distracted by the spectacle, and you’re message isn’t going to get muddled and confused. It also definitely wouldn’t help if the town council decided maybe they’ll let the sex shop stay open, but we might want to look into that leather shop down the street too.

People have similar attitudes toward S&M as they do toward guns. Some people are unabashedly in favor of it, or practice it. Some people think it’s weird, but accept it. Others aren’t sure what they think, and might vague support sexual freedom, but aren’t sure about S&M, and still others are just downright offended or put off by it. You don’t want to piss off the middle two groups, and don’t want to give ammunition to the latter group to use to make arguments against sexual freedom.

The sexual freedom argument is probably going to keep the sex shop open, but S&M turns some people off if they think that’s what sexual freedom is going to mean. If you want to make an argument for social change through shock therapy, you can do so, it just seems like a weak case to me.

Winning Hearts and Minds in Scranton

Glad to see the open carry folks winning over more hearts and minds in Scranton. Whatever they had to say about lost and stolen was lost in the distraction of having a need to open carry firearms, no matter what the circumstance.

For a while I started to be brought around, but I’m becoming more convinced it’s just damaging the movement. I will continue to support open carry being legal, I just don’t think it has any place in Second Amendment activism. Open carry activists have a lot of energy, and they are willing to show up, and that alone puts them ahead of 98% of gun owners. But I think the open carry shit is distracting, and is taking away from what otherwise would be amazingly effective activism. Instead of having media stories about gun owners opposing lost and stolen, you have media stories about people showing up openly armed.