Some of you might not like this post but I find this a troubling trend:
A dozen people carrying guns, including at least two with assault rifles, have been spotted mingling among protesters outside a convention center in Arizona where President Barack Obama was speaking.
Phoenix police said the men carrying guns at Monday’s event did not need permits, as the state of Arizona has an “open carry” law. No crimes were committed, and no one was arrested.
One of the men carrying a rifle declined to be identified but told The Arizona Republic that he was carrying the assault weapon because he could. “In Arizona, I still have some freedoms,” he said.
Yes, you can and yes, you do.
Frankly, though, it is one thing to exercise a right and another to attempt to intimidate those you disagree with. I firmly believe in the right to conceal-carry for self-preservation. 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.
More than that, it provides ammunition to liberals who — rightly or wrongly — claim that “the Right” is preparing to use violence against them and the President.
Sometimes, discretion is the better part of valor.
I’m guessing that some of you will respectfully disagree.
36 Responses to “Rights and Intimidation”
Leave a Reply
(Be sure to answer the anti-spam question!)
on 18 Aug 2009 at 7:54 am # Dwane Brown
sir,
While your opinion is noted, maybe the news media should leave their cameras (still and video), laptops, pens, papers, cell phones, and other paraphernalia at the newsrooms. Those cameras scare me!
on 18 Aug 2009 at 8:21 am # Nicki
Jeff, I have to agree with you 100 percent. Discretion is the better part of valor. It is your right, and you should exercise it. But there’s something to be said for judiciousness. Just because you can, doesn’t mean you don’t need to practice some form of maturity and make judicious decisions as to whether you should or not.
Personally, I think people who are intimidated by law-abiding people carrying guns are idiots and cowards. Idiots and cowards tend to act stupidly and unpredictably when confronted with something that scares them or makes them nervous. I’d rather avoid the situation altogether, instead of shoving my rights down their throats. That’s not going to win anyone any friends.
Again, that is not to say we should be harassed or arrested for exercising our rights. Absolutely not. But a little judiciousness in the way we exercise them goes a long way.
Additionally, tactically it’s not the best plan either.
on 18 Aug 2009 at 8:38 am # Robb Allen
Jeff,
This is one where I disagree with your respectfully but mainly because of projection on my part. It doesn’t matter if you’re carrying a Kimber Ultra Carry II, a Ruger Mark III 22/45, an AR-15 with enough gizmos to make a Swiss army knife jealous, or a Barrett .50BMG. The threat lies with the person, not the tool he carries, and I don’t recall him aiming the weapon at anyone.
Let’s say a body builder with a crew cut walks around a polling place, minding his own business. Is that bad? What if the same guy starts stepping in front of people with his arms crossed and a scowl on his face. Now, the same guy is using intimidation. Just him being there doesn’t mean squat, it is his actions.
I know a lot of people get all squickie over this, and I can understand. It mirrors the gay movement in many ways. You don’t want to be relegated to ‘the closet’, but you can’t be doing the horizontal mambo in a school yard either. And while it might not sit well with the populace, holding hands isn’t threatening at all. That’s how I view this. A little odd, even for us gunnies, to see a guy with an AR strapped to his back NOT at a gun show, but it’s important nonetheless.
on 18 Aug 2009 at 9:04 am # Ron
Often seeing paranoia being used as a tool by the Democrats, one has to wonder if these gun toters aren’t simply “plants” being used by the leftists.
I’ve been in the Phoenix area since 1970, and a shooter since 1974. This is the first time I’ve ever seen anything like this.
on 18 Aug 2009 at 10:13 am # ChrisTheEngineer
Jeff,
While I accept all the expressed concerns and criticisms, I like the open carry in an in-your-face kind of way. We are here and we are free. Get used to it.
Kind of like what Robb said, I guess.
on 18 Aug 2009 at 10:16 am # MScott
You’re right Dwayne . . . in the Kevin Costner movie BODYGUARD, wasn’t the news tv camera the gun?
on 18 Aug 2009 at 10:47 am # Curmudgeon
I definitely agree with you. There’s a time and a place for everything and bringing a gun to a protest will be interpreted as intimidation. While part of me says “Tough noogies”, another part wants the debate to occur without the histrionics and high-emotion, without the name-calling and the shouts of “Nazism” and frankly, without the “I’ve got a gun and I’m not afraid to use it and this is my opinion — in your face.”
I’m heartened by the lack of a Secret Service response, but then again, those guys are professionals.
Another thought. This resembles the uproar over the Black Panthers standing outside a polling place during the last election. Certainly they had a right to stand there, and it’s not their fault that they were six-feet something and very threatening looking, and only questioned whites. They were legally allowed to be there and speak to passersby …
Yeah. It’s letter of the law legal but it’s gonna raise hackles. It’s better to win this argument without resorting to immature attempts at mind games.
Just sayin’
on 18 Aug 2009 at 11:16 am # Matt
Actually Jeff, I am going to respectfully disagree with you. Yes, carrying an AR openly in public is rather shocking but based on the most recent article on CNN trying to sensationalize it and induce PSH, it does has a positive side-effect.
That side-effect is that people are getting educated on firearms laws. They are learning that this is legal, if shocking, behavior. If a little shock is going to get people to stop and think for a moment, I am all for it. When they start to realize that the person carrying the firearm was acting peacefully, within the law and not causing problems, it begins to change perspectives on gun ownership. Kind of hard to demonize and marginalize a well-dressed man as a hick redneck and makes him appears as just another average citizen.
Frankly, this is something I would do for exactly those reasons. I am an advocate of open carry because it does get firearms into the public eye and beyond the PSH, in a manner that demonstrates at least a neutral perspective rather than the constant “guns are bad” drumbeat from the media.
Why should we limit rifles slung on our backs to gun shows? Why be, as Joe Huffman puts it, “gun niggers” penned up in our own private ghettos? If nothing else, people who were there who saw this and saw perfectly normal behavior from an armed man may be less inclined to believe the hype about citizens and guns.
on 18 Aug 2009 at 11:27 am # Hartley
One interesting factoid - the fellow in Phoenix with the AR-15 was a well-dressed (white shirt, tie) black man who was adamantly opposed to Obamacare. NOW you know why you didn’t see his face on MSNBC..
on 18 Aug 2009 at 11:53 am # dustydog
Obama, Pelosi and Hoyer, and the MSM have called me a dishonest crazy stupid racist Nazi coward, and I haven’t open carried to a protest. I think this ‘undecided middle’ is a myth, not worth worrying about whether they happen to be paying attention.
The DNC and MSM are very respectful of crazy islamofascists. I have to wonder is more open carry isn’t the way to go.
on 18 Aug 2009 at 11:57 am # Les Nessman
I mostly agree with Jeff.
If you have the RIGHT to ccw or open carry, you still have the CHOICE to carry or not.
Maybe on those rare occasions where it may cause more harm then good, discretion should be used.
Minor quibble with Curmudgeon: “..it’s not their fault that they were six-feet something and very threatening looking, and only questioned whites.”
I agree it’s not their fault how they looked; but if they did in fact only question whites, then that is indeed their fault.
I think the two separate subjects are somewhat related:
We have the right to carry, they have the right to only question whites.
If we choose to carry at a political event, it may reflect badly on our cause; if they choose to only question whites at a polling place, it may reflect badly on their cause.
on 18 Aug 2009 at 2:08 pm # Sigivald
I’m pretty much in agreement, yeah. Bad form.
It’s interesting to see the contrast, however, as Curmudgeon pointed out.
Big black men intimidating white voters doesn’t make our watchdog media upset.
Black men protesting a Democrat president and supposedly intimidating Democrat observers (despite the watchful eye of a bevy of police and Secret Service agents)?
Why, that’s nearly treason.
on 18 Aug 2009 at 3:14 pm # Affe
We’re here, we’re armed, get used to it
Silence = Disarmament
on 18 Aug 2009 at 5:26 pm # wrangler5
While I am a fan of discretion, the left has for decades attempted to marginalize gun owners as some sort of Neanderthals who are far outside the core of society. That effort seems to be failing (nationwide polls over time seem to show increasing interest in being personally armed.)
The next step, which are being taken by these “protesters,” is to SHOW the world that gun owners are real people and are NOT threats to civil peace. If people had been showing up armed at mass meetings for decades with no resulting “trouble,” this would not be worthy of comment. The fact that this is the first time is what makes it newsworthy now.
I think the hazard is that the left will begin to send in armed folks who WILL start trouble, so that the “leaders” can stand back and say “see, it’s those evil guns, that we now have to ban.”
on 18 Aug 2009 at 6:09 pm # PawPaw
I’m trying to draw a parallel between the civil rights movement of the 1960s and the civil rights action taken in Arizona.
How would the civil rights movement of the ’60s have advanced without people willing to get in the media over desegregation. It made some people uncomfortable, yet is now seen as historic.
Or, we could perhaps draw parallels to the gay pride marches. That could certainly be considered “in your face”.
It’s something to think about. In the meantime, while we have this conversation, I’ll come down firmly in favor of all our enumerated rights.
on 18 Aug 2009 at 6:29 pm # Dr. T
Matt said: “…When they start to realize that the person carrying the firearm was acting peacefully, within the law and not causing problems, it begins to change perspectives on gun ownership….”
At least 95% of the reporting in the USA is done by our left-wing, liberal, anti-gun mainstream media. Do you think they are going to give objective reports of the gun-carrying outside the town hall meeting? No, they applied as much slant as possible to make the gun carriers look like crazies who could start mowing down the crowd with their automatic assault rifles at any second. That’s why this was a bad idea. If objective reporting had been guaranteed, there was a slight possibility of some good press. Regardless, I thought it was a stupid idea. What does the right to bear arms have to do with a debate about the federal government’s role in health care?
on 18 Aug 2009 at 6:36 pm # Peter
Jeff,
The problem is that folks are getting upset at the sight of a citizen carrying an AR, not that he was carrying it.
That’s a serious problem, if you ask me. Had he been waving it around and espousing some variant of ‘it’s time to shoot the b@stards’, then I’m sure we’d all agree that he did the wrong thing. But simply carrying a rifle is not a big deal, regardless of circumstances. Even if the President is gonna be there. The rifle had the magazine fitted: does anyone know if there were, you know, cartridges in there? That would be something if everyone is getting their knickers twisted over a plastic and aluminium club….
PS: Gracie wants some fried chicken.
on 18 Aug 2009 at 6:40 pm # Robb Allen
Dr T.
When you can point to the press giving good coverage to peaceful gun owners, then I’ll agree with you. Until then, all our press is going to be bad. The good point is that people are starting to see through the MSM’s facade. It’s why their numbers are dropping considerably. Tell me, how many open carry events make the national news?
If we sit back and do nothing, fail to engage the public ON OUR TERMS, then we have lost. It also comes down to intent. If you let other people define your intent (just like many people are assigning their intent to the AR guy), then you’ve lost before the battle has even been declared.
Was this a stunt? Sure. Is it something us gunnies should be getting our panties in a wad over? No.
I can’t believe I’m having this conversation with GUN people. The same people who ostensibly stand beside me and chant “It’s not the tool, it’s the person” but now turn around and say “Well, not THAT tool!”.
on 18 Aug 2009 at 6:55 pm # HTownTejas
I have to respectfully disagree.
His purpose in taking the AR-15 was to illustrate his point that if our public servants keep usurping our wealth to further restrict our freedoms, we will have to reverse that with force. It’s better for the political class and their admirers to realize what they’re heading this country towards.
I think the gentleman with the AR-15 is a good representative of those of us who value freedom and want to restore it peacefully by reminding our servants that we will take it forcefully if we have to.
Interview with the guy here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63GiXzpfGhA
on 18 Aug 2009 at 8:20 pm # Hank
Jeff, you wouldn’t do it and I wouldn’t do it. But thank G*d that somebody has the balls to do it. He’s making a point, and he’s perfectly legal to do so. Are you saying that a legal act is not okay? Just because you’re squeamish doesn’t mean he has to be squeamish.
You wouldn’t do it for reason X. I wouldn’t do it because I’m not interested in losing my job at this time to prove a point. Otherwise, I assure you, I would. And I’m in the vicinity.
I didn’t hear a single damn thing he said that I’d disagree with. My only problem with him is that I wish he would not have been chewing gum. I felt he was doing that to cover nervousness. He may not have been chewing gum for that reason, but that’s the reason that sticks with me.
It has been pointed out that he has allowed the fact that this is not unlawful behavior to be promulgated to a large segment of the population. This is a fact that is sometimes unknown to law enforcement personnel, and the problems that ensue from that ignorance are legion and of general negative consequence.
Please, Jeff, don’t disparage this guy for what he did. He’s a hero, and we should all acknowledge this of him. We need people who are willing to get out on the bleeding edge. If nobody ever did, we’d still be living in caves.
Hank
on 18 Aug 2009 at 9:16 pm # Oakenheart
You know, I think it’s great that he was chewing gum. you know what they say - I’m here to kick ass and chew gum-but I’m all out of gum - at least he still had the requisite material to exercise the peaceful option ;P
For real though, I can’t find fault in what he did at all. I’m certainly not going to take issue with someone doing something that is perfectly legal.
on 18 Aug 2009 at 10:13 pm # xmonkeydr
I think that folks open carrying is a good trend; but balancing out scaring the liberals into wetting themselves with being an obviously good citizen is a better way to do it. There are many YouTube videos of open carry litter pick-ups in New Hampshire (see http://ridleyreport.com/). I see the cognitive dissonance between “guns are bad” and “people picking up litter for free” as a great teachable moment.
While I feel more secure around other gun owners carrying, I think a less “in your face” approach is likely to change more minds. On the other hand, nothing says, “you work for us” like open carry at a political event. I think it depends on whether one wants to change minds or warn the government; and I’m in favor of both.
on 18 Aug 2009 at 10:25 pm # Will
Conservative black man with a gun…cool.
I can see your point that it inflames the left, (they will be inflamed regardless) but one thing it did was to get the guy noticed. Would they have shown a conservatively dressed black man in opposition to Obamacare if he hadn’t had the gun?
I don’t think he was intimidating at all. He merely demonstrated that he had rights and that was shown to be all the more true in that he was not arrested. I think we gun rights advocates tend to recoil lest we be branded as extremists. Perhaps that is one of our problems, when we carry openly or demonstrate for our rights we feel guilty, like we have done something wrong…
Maybe he is secure in his rights and isn’t afraid to show it. Can we learn from him????
on 19 Aug 2009 at 12:08 am # Jim
Hell, if I had my way, we’d all walk at “shoulder-arms” at our own Million (armed) Man & Woman march on D.C.
Not much I wouldn’t do to get to take part in that in my lifetime.
Jim
Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX
on 19 Aug 2009 at 12:30 am # Dave Lincoln
Great comments by Hank, Will and others. I also disagree with you, Jeff.
I don’t usually paste others’ words in, but here is another take on the matter (from the Lew Rockwell website, a guy named Butler Shaffer):
**********************************************
Those who are getting their diapers in a knot over the appearance of a man with an assault rifle at an Obama event need a little perspective. To begin with, they might recall the day, back in the 1960s, when a contingent of Black Panthers walked into the California State Legislative chambers with rifles and shotguns – while the legislature was in session – to make a political statement. No shots were fired; no one was injured; but the incident was intended to remind government officials of the purpose of the Second Amendment. Ordinary people – not the state’s police and military – are to have the ultimate power in a free society. It is this reminder – not the gun – that most terrifies members of the media, academia, etc. I suspect there were numerous government agents at this event with weapons more powerful than what this one man carried: why was there no outrage over their armed presence? The political scientist who worried that the carrying of guns at such events “creates a chilling effect” on members of the public might ask, if he is sincere, whether armed functionaries of the state might produce the same effect.
The fear that the ultimate political authority may be decentralizing into the hands of private persons is more than the statist faithful can tolerate. To paraphrase the anti-war bumper-sticker from the 1960s: “what if they gave a democracy and EVERYBODY showed up?”
**********************************************
Think about it, there are hundreds of guns around the POS (or whatever they call the president nowadays) at all times. If you think secret service or the cops can be trusted more with weapons than an average citizen, then you don’t get out much.
on 19 Aug 2009 at 12:39 am # straightarrow
I must disagree also, if people are not made aware of other people carrying guns, lawfully, peacefully, without bloodshed, how on earth are we ever going to convince them that it is a right all free men have the option of exercising?
If we really feel we must hide it, then haven’t we tacitly agreed with the anti’s that we are dangerous and bloodthirsty and not to be trusted, and therefore should not have that right to exercise?
As someone above alluded to, the civil rights movement made a great many people very uncomfortable, they were wrong, but would you suggest in the interest of public comfort that black folks should have quietly talked among themselves and never made any public display that made the mistaken uncomfortabel?
One difference between the civil rights movement and our part of it (yes, this is a civil rights movement) is that our part of it is being won without violence. Violence was quite prevalent in the movement of the 60’s, mostly started by those who were uncomfortable that black people thought they were people too.
Well, we are people too, and we are endowed by our creator with “certain unalienable rights”. If we hide the exercise of them, how do we ever expect our due?
on 19 Aug 2009 at 1:45 am # J C
I think if people want open carry to be interpreted as something other than intimidation, they should open carry in their everyday lives where possible, and not just to town hall meetings with federal politicians, as some (though not all) seem to be doing. People might react differently if there were more peaceful gun owners doing this on a regular basis, so that people know that bad things won’t happen whenever they see an armed civilian.
on 19 Aug 2009 at 3:06 am # Old Dog
Sorry Jeff,
I ahve d to disagree with you for one basic underlying reason.
Your point is allowing the other side to shape the rules of the debate. If our side does not break nor bend any Laws, why should their “FEELINGS” even matter?
The basic problem in open debate has become just that, it no longer matters what the LAW is; just what some PSH Liberal “FEELS”. The Law is mine to obey, your FEELINGS are yours to live with. Your FEELINGS do not rule my life.
Note: the You and Yours here a Liberals not Jeff!
on 19 Aug 2009 at 3:25 am # robert
I said it brfore i’ll say it again. If two gay guys can stand on a corner holding hands legally then shouldn’t we be able to stand on the same corner with a gun if it is legal?
on 19 Aug 2009 at 5:51 am # Keith
The British Experience (How the battle was lost there):
Following the shooting of primary school children in ‘97, the gun rights organisations “kept a respectful silence” which allowed every size and shape of anti gun muppet unchallenged bullshitting time in the media - BIG MISTAKE.
With hind sight, the organizations were all too ready to “feed others to the crocodile in the hope that they’d be last to be eaten”, they were also pissing in the establishment pot and cautious of upsetting their politician friends.
A few gun owners got together for limited protest marches in London, most of us were afraid to, as there are rent-a-mob groups who are very adept at hijacking rallies and degenerating them into riots. The marches were small, well organised and well marshalled, the mistake was they were too small.
Many of the organisers of the marches suffered police searches of their homes which pulled up floor boards, stripped plaster off the walls etc (all in the name of seeing if they had something the shouldn’t have had).
Most gun owners were keeping a low profile and following the police “crime prevention” advice of not letting people know they had guns locked away incase someone came to steal the guns, they were also afraid of doing anything which may jeopardise getting their firearm certificates renewed.
One of the main methods of communication at that time, “Guns review” magazine’s publisher was bought out by Tory minister Michael Hesletine, and closed down (expect simillar attempts to cut communications and get several none blog means of communication set up!)
The small gun marches were the inspiration for the big pro fox hunting marches, which had upwards of 600,000 in London, they were peaceful well marshalled and even picked up the litter!
Unlike shooting, fox hunting is expensive and for that reason, not open to the majority of people.
With CCW and open carry, you will never convince the hard line oponents (even those with ccw themselves), but you need to be wooing the majority of the population,
how about cutting the media out of the chain and holding local information rallies? get sympathetic local cops involved, as the more decent people carrying, the less likely a scum bag is to risk attacking a cop or anyone else. We have common interest with the cops on this.
As Mao said, “we need to swim as fish, in the sea of people”
Keith
on 19 Aug 2009 at 6:01 am # Keith
Part 2
The guys openly carrying are only a small part of raising awareness.
We need to engage as large a section of society as we can.
Introduction of CCW laws leads to proven reductions in violent crime, and no one has been able to show any increase in total homicide (there may be a small increase in death by shooting which the media WILL play on, but total homicide is invariably reduced).
People need to hear the message that THEY TOO can carry and the more people who carry, the safer everyone is from scum bag predators.
Gun rights is not some priviliged entry by invitation only club.
Keith
on 19 Aug 2009 at 9:48 am # LI Mike
Jeff I “kind of” disagree with you on this one. When the presidential protective agents have a venue that is public space then they have the option of telling the President the risk level is too high and he should not appear. Unlike the children’s story (the name of which I can’t remember) you can’t round up all the citizens, push them inside their homes and lock the window shutters, etc.
But on the other hand when the venue is closed and private (like the 2008 NRA annual meeting where McCain and other candidates spoke) then the tables get switched. The Secret Service simply informed everyone beforehand that CCW would NOT be permitted inside the hall where they would speak. That in my opinion is also fair. Remember Ronald Reagan when he said “I’ve paid for this microphone” ? In that case we all had the option again of simply not attending the event.
on 19 Aug 2009 at 12:20 pm # Mike W.
I respectfully disagree. A gun is a gun. If an AR slung over the shoulder is an “implied threat” then so too is a little .22 pistol on the hip.
Absent the carrying of arms, did he do anything threatening or intimidating? No. If anything he was friendly, personable and engaging from what I saw.
Should we have to hide our guns for fear that others might be intimidated by inanimate objects? I don’t think so. Some people might be intimidated by large black men, but that doesn’t mean they should refrain from going to public protests lest their presence scares or intimidates someone.
on 20 Aug 2009 at 2:26 am # perlhaqr
As much as I disagree with Jeff here, Dave Lincoln, your example sucks. There is a strong suggestion that those very Black Panther demonstrations are what has led to the current state of California gun law. Scaring the white people tends to have deleterious effect on one’s ability to legally exercise one’s rights, as opposed to ethically exercising them.
I agree fully that we all need to make a conscious effort to make open carry a more commonplace thing, so that it’s less startling to the bed-wetters when they see it.
Starting with heavy machine guns may lead to more backlash than we want. Incrementalism has gotten us where we are. Without denying that there may come a day when we need to blow the covers, we may be well served to use that same incrementalism to regain the ground we’ve lost.
In a particularly American analogy, it took the Wehrmacht 4 months to roll up to Paris (IIRC.) We’d have been flat fucked if we just dropped all our troops on Berlin, instead of Normandy Beach. It can be important to recognize the intermediate territory. (I can’t believe that I am arguing for moderation…)
on 20 Aug 2009 at 6:29 am # Dave Lincoln
OK, Perl Hacker, first of all the example wasn’t mine, but I pasted in the text to make one point: The secret service carry many guns, I would imagine more than one per man, and there are hundreds of them around. There is nothing that makes gives them more judgment than the average CW carrier or actually any citizen that takes the responsibility of carrying openly either (you could say “background check”, but I’m sure Obama got a background check too, and look at him - he’s a freakin’ neurotic. tool).
So, guns are always around the POS, in the hundreds. Why do a few more matter? That was the point of my paste job, but I’ve got to give the black panthers some credit for trying to intimidate the gov’t of California. All governments need intimidation, though I do understand your point about one step at a time.
on 20 Aug 2009 at 6:38 am # Dave Lincoln
“…If two gay guys can stand on a corner holding hands legally then shouldn’t we be able to stand on the same corner with a gun if it is legal?”
Heck, why shouldn’t two gay guys be able to stand on the corner holding hands and holding 30.06’s in their other hands?
Why not go all out? 2 gay guys holding hands, holding 30.06’s and reciting the US Constitution? That ought to put the fear of God into some people.
and, very good comments, Keith, about England. That is indeed a good lesson. Trying to compromise and voting for worthless losers who like to “reach across the aisle” has been bad policy for conservatives and libertarians for a long time. It’d be best to lose that attitude, before you have nothing left to give up in a compromise.