He pretty much nails it. These OC activists are attention whoring crazies who can’t see the damage they do past the shiny pistol on their hip.
I would not say “attention whoring crazies.” Some of them are people who are in love with an ideology that goes:
1. Guns are not evil. Guns are good.
2. Because guns are good, anyone that finds them disturbing or offensive must be evil or stupid.
3. Evil and stupidity must be confronted aggressively, to drive it out.
Except for the extremes with which this is carried out, the syllogism is reasonably valid. But stupidity is, next to hydrogen and helium, the most readily available commodity in the universe, and it decides elections.
The Pajama’s article said it perfectly. Open carry, especially of long arms will never become the norm in all places. In fact, it will be few places. The open carry radicals actually defend the carrying of a shotgun into a library to make a point but I suspect these laptop ninja’s are pretty marginal characters to start with. You would just about have to be to take the position it’s OK.
We have to admit we have our fruitcakes too, just like the anti gun people do.
Amen,
When our side does something so provocative and stupid, we need to say so.
There is a cultural context where open display of long arms is acceptable (like the truck rifle rack in small town Pennsylvania). By being so provocative to ignore context, the inevitable result will be a cultural backlash that will eventually have undesirable political manifestations. The Homosexual marriage analogy in the article is particularly apt. The heartland reacts to what they see on the streets of San Francisco and votes accordingly.
Between the open carry characters and the 3%ers and you regular extremists, I’m excited at the prospect of so much infighting that the rest of us might stand a chance after all.
I think Clayton was exaggerating, something he does quite often, when he said gun control extremists were on the verge of accomplishing all their confiscation plans a while back, but I agree with the second half, that it’s at a low ebb now. You guys have done quite well for yourselves. But considering the considerable momentum, the makeup of the Supreme Court and the ineptitude of your opponents, have you done well enough? I don’t think so. When it comes back around, which I think it will soon, you’re gonna see some mighty changes.
The reason I say that is because your three major factions, the open carry guys, the extreme 3%er types and yourselves, the guys who read and write gun blogs, represent only a minority of the gun owners. The majority agree with the gun control folks about things like background checks, etc. Those truly reasonable gun owners added to the gun control advocates added to whatever percentage of the non-gun-owning public we can rouse, will so far outnumber you that when the makeup of the Supreme Court changes, watch out.
The majority agree with the gun control folks about things like background checks, etc. Those truly reasonable gun owners added to the gun control advocates added to whatever percentage of the non-gun-owning public we can rouse, will so far outnumber you that when the makeup of the Supreme Court changes, watch out.
What? No rainbow farting unicorns? Not a very convincing fairy tale there, mike.
Between the open carry characters and the 3%ers and you regular extremists, I’m excited at the prospect of so much infighting that the rest of us might stand a chance after all.
Don’t get too excited. This is a strategic difference, not an end goal difference.
MikeB, I’m one of those “moderates”; and my end-game is constitutional carry and cash on the barrel-head sales. Just so you know. Because the alternatives don’t work.
I just think we need to avoid a political Market Garden, is all…
Clayton Cramer is demonstrably wrong because he goes completely overboard in saying that we can never normalize open carry. Perhaps we will never normalize open carry of RIFLES, but open carry of pistols is already normal in many parts of the civilized world and had once been normal in America. There’s no reason to believe it won’t be normal again, it’s not like it’s so completely outlandish to open carry a pistol.
>You guys have done quite well for yourselves. But considering the considerable momentum, the makeup of the Supreme Court and the ineptitude of your opponents, have you done well enough? I don’t think so <- Jesus everloving Christ I agree with Mike.
Ian, That’s a good one. You’re a “moderate,” and let’s see, I’m a newly elected member of the College of Cardinals.
Ian is a moderate, as I’ve never heard him claim that citizens should be allowed to own small tactical nukes.
Now me, I’m definitely a radical …
The whole ‘moderate’ shtick is stupid anyway. It’s a false dichotomy. It’s like saying two people are arguing over 5 + 5. The one extremist is saying it’s 6, the other ‘extremist’ is saying it’s 10, and the ‘moderate’ takes the moral high ground by saying 8 is correct.
There is no extremism in being right.
@MikeB: I am not a moderate in my eventual goal, no. What I am moderate in is my willingness to get there by incremental change. I posted publically a suggestion that persons who carry in public might be required to undergo a test of safety and skill before being allowed to do so. That’s about as moderate as you’re likely to find here…
MikeB,
When changing laws or an election, don’t doubt for one minute that a fuddish gun owner like myself won’t side with the OC folks or a threeper over some hoplophobe like you.
Richard, I think you’re in a minority among hunters and gun owners at large. Most of you guys are closer to the gun control side than you are to these extremists.
Most of you guys are closer to the gun control side than you are to these extremists
He pretty much nails it. These OC activists are attention whoring crazies who can’t see the damage they do past the shiny pistol on their hip.
I would not say “attention whoring crazies.” Some of them are people who are in love with an ideology that goes:
1. Guns are not evil. Guns are good.
2. Because guns are good, anyone that finds them disturbing or offensive must be evil or stupid.
3. Evil and stupidity must be confronted aggressively, to drive it out.
Except for the extremes with which this is carried out, the syllogism is reasonably valid. But stupidity is, next to hydrogen and helium, the most readily available commodity in the universe, and it decides elections.
The Pajama’s article said it perfectly. Open carry, especially of long arms will never become the norm in all places. In fact, it will be few places. The open carry radicals actually defend the carrying of a shotgun into a library to make a point but I suspect these laptop ninja’s are pretty marginal characters to start with. You would just about have to be to take the position it’s OK.
We have to admit we have our fruitcakes too, just like the anti gun people do.
Amen,
When our side does something so provocative and stupid, we need to say so.
There is a cultural context where open display of long arms is acceptable (like the truck rifle rack in small town Pennsylvania). By being so provocative to ignore context, the inevitable result will be a cultural backlash that will eventually have undesirable political manifestations. The Homosexual marriage analogy in the article is particularly apt. The heartland reacts to what they see on the streets of San Francisco and votes accordingly.
Between the open carry characters and the 3%ers and you regular extremists, I’m excited at the prospect of so much infighting that the rest of us might stand a chance after all.
I think Clayton was exaggerating, something he does quite often, when he said gun control extremists were on the verge of accomplishing all their confiscation plans a while back, but I agree with the second half, that it’s at a low ebb now. You guys have done quite well for yourselves. But considering the considerable momentum, the makeup of the Supreme Court and the ineptitude of your opponents, have you done well enough? I don’t think so. When it comes back around, which I think it will soon, you’re gonna see some mighty changes.
The reason I say that is because your three major factions, the open carry guys, the extreme 3%er types and yourselves, the guys who read and write gun blogs, represent only a minority of the gun owners. The majority agree with the gun control folks about things like background checks, etc. Those truly reasonable gun owners added to the gun control advocates added to whatever percentage of the non-gun-owning public we can rouse, will so far outnumber you that when the makeup of the Supreme Court changes, watch out.
What? No rainbow farting unicorns? Not a very convincing fairy tale there, mike.
Between the open carry characters and the 3%ers and you regular extremists, I’m excited at the prospect of so much infighting that the rest of us might stand a chance after all.
Don’t get too excited. This is a strategic difference, not an end goal difference.
MikeB, I’m one of those “moderates”; and my end-game is constitutional carry and cash on the barrel-head sales. Just so you know. Because the alternatives don’t work.
I just think we need to avoid a political Market Garden, is all…
Clayton Cramer is demonstrably wrong because he goes completely overboard in saying that we can never normalize open carry. Perhaps we will never normalize open carry of RIFLES, but open carry of pistols is already normal in many parts of the civilized world and had once been normal in America. There’s no reason to believe it won’t be normal again, it’s not like it’s so completely outlandish to open carry a pistol.
>You guys have done quite well for yourselves. But considering the considerable momentum, the makeup of the Supreme Court and the ineptitude of your opponents, have you done well enough? I don’t think so <- Jesus everloving Christ I agree with Mike.
Ian, That’s a good one. You’re a “moderate,” and let’s see, I’m a newly elected member of the College of Cardinals.
Ian is a moderate, as I’ve never heard him claim that citizens should be allowed to own small tactical nukes.
Now me, I’m definitely a radical …
The whole ‘moderate’ shtick is stupid anyway. It’s a false dichotomy. It’s like saying two people are arguing over 5 + 5. The one extremist is saying it’s 6, the other ‘extremist’ is saying it’s 10, and the ‘moderate’ takes the moral high ground by saying 8 is correct.
There is no extremism in being right.
@MikeB: I am not a moderate in my eventual goal, no. What I am moderate in is my willingness to get there by incremental change. I posted publically a suggestion that persons who carry in public might be required to undergo a test of safety and skill before being allowed to do so. That’s about as moderate as you’re likely to find here…
MikeB,
When changing laws or an election, don’t doubt for one minute that a fuddish gun owner like myself won’t side with the OC folks or a threeper over some hoplophobe like you.
Richard, I think you’re in a minority among hunters and gun owners at large. Most of you guys are closer to the gun control side than you are to these extremists.
Holy crap, you truly ARE deluded, aren’t you?