"Again, this is not a good public face for political opposition. Once again, context matters. The people getting hysterical about this might be wrong, but I would point out that I got this from an anti-gun twitter feed. They know a public relations mistake when they see one, and this is."
And his comments from the comments section:
"Sebastian Said,
August 17th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
We need to normalize the sight of firearms again. Just why should we hide them away? Is it something to be ashamed of?
Let me rephrase that in a different context.
We need to normalize the sight of female breasts again. Just why should we hide them away? Is it something to be ashamed of?
Personally, I would have no problems in a society where guns and boobies were openly on display, but how do you think Americans would react to a feminist group that promoted the latter?"
How trivial of him. Is this seriously his reasoning? Here is a very vocal gun-rights activist and he's saying we shouldn't openly display our guns, a calculated move designed to de-sensitize the public to the sight of a gun and to make them feel more comfortable around guns, because it's bad PR.
Of COURSE it's bad PR, to those who already hate guns and have an agenda against them. But, we're not trying to change their minds, we're trying to change the minds of the majority of Americans who are still open-minded. Duh.
Besides, is Sebastian ashamed to be carrying guns? Then he has already bought into the emotional argument that guns are evil. One cannot play by their rules and in their stadium and expect to win.
I'm liking Sebastian less and less.
Here is my comment on Mike Vanderboegh's post on this subject:
"That, plus the story of the black guy in AZ with a shouldered AR-15 at the Obama rally thing, and this could be the start of a very GOOD trend, Sebastian. We shouldn't care whether the Left went ape-shit over it - we're not trying to change their minds regarding guns. We're trying to change the minds of fence-sitters. We need to show them that we will exercise our rights, and that no one suffers or gets injured when we exercise those rights.
Think of these open-carry protests as further warnings in the same line as letting congressmen and agency personnel know that we have taken firearm classes, we have caches of supplies hidden across the country, and have our ammo in bandoleers so they can be quickly grabbed and utilized. It lets those in power, on the left and right, know that there are still some Adults in this country. Adults who have the tools to defend against tyranny, and who have the stones to do things like show up at presidential rallies and meetings armed."
Don't listen to Sebastian for advice on gun-rights. Unless he changes his tune, and I would applaud him for it, he is being counter-productive.
2 comments:
I won't speak badly about Sebastian simply because he seems to be a good person and does a lot of work for gun rights. He's well spoken and intelligent on the subject he deals with.
With that said I do disagree with him on this subject. I understand where he's coming from, he knows the only way to win the gun debate is to put on a good face for those on the fence. Likewise a person carrying a gun at a protest can been seen as putting on a bad case and gives ammunition to the anti-gunner side. Of course I'm of the opinion that open carry is a great means of political expression. It shows that the criminals and police aren't the only people carrying guns. Yes the sight of an AR-15 may be shocking to many, especially on the left, but so long as he's using the rifle peacefully what does it matter?
Handguns are getting less and less scary to many people as polls have showed. Many people are now in support of the right to carry. Meanwhile guns labeled as "assault weapons" by the anti-gunners are still scary. I believe a huge part of this has to do with the fact as more and more people get carry licenses handguns are being see more often. Exposure lessens shock value. I'm sure if people started carrying around AR style rifles they would being to appear less scary.
Although public relations are important in the fight to abolish gun restrictions sacrificing your base principals isn't going to help accomplish your goal. I feel this was a big issue with the NRA, they sacrificed too much to appeal to the middle. Dumb little things like not allowing ranges that receive NRA funding to use human silhouette targets, or having students refer to their handgun as weapons in their personal protection instructor class appeases the middle but also says that self defense isn't a fundamental issue to the organization. They seem to be slowly correcting this, and they do more for gun rights than anybody else, but it's a good example to make.
Sacrificing principals to gain support weakens your movement. We must avoid doing any such thing. Likewise not getting the middle on our side will weaken our movement and cause us to lose. Finding the middle is hard and I believe Sebastian understands that and is looking for the optimal balance, and that's what shapes his opinion on this matter. We need people like that to convince the middle, and we need people unwilling to sacrifice any core principal to keep the movement strong and focuses. I'm on the side of those unwilling to make concessions to appease the middle but also understands the need for people who will make concessions to appease the middle.
Yes, you're right.
Okay, I'll retract a little bit of my dislike for Sebastian. He is smart and brings a lot of attention to issues that need it. But, his overall plan is a little bit naive, I think.
He supports peaceful resistance to bring about change. So do I. He thinks fighting lawsuits and crimes in court is the way to go. So do I - but only as long as the court system itself is just and fair, and our court system is becoming more unfair and unjust every single day. The best recent example of that is the Olofson 'machine gun' case.
Judges are supposed to be impartial, and they're not. Presidents nominate federal court justices for their views, not their dedication to judicial principles (read: Sotomayor). Judges and juries are also supposed to judge the law as well as the crime. They don't.
When we're supposed to rely on the judicial and legislative systems to succeed, and they are being rigged against us, the system has failed.
Nonviolent resistance is not the last line of defense, it's the second to the last line of defense. The last line is what these whole arguments are about - guns.
People like Helmke, Pelosi, Brady, Schumer, etc., are fast making nonviolent resistance impossible, or at least unworkable. And this goes beyond the gun issue, which is just one facet of it, and is instead a conflict of how people view the world. They believe that the control of people, even violently, is necessary for "civilization". That, or they just want to control people for power and money. They're misguided or they're tyrants, but both are evil. They do not want to "live and let live" like people like you or I want.
I'm not saying that all of them feel that the removal of guns is necessary for their world vision to succeed (although it is), but only some of them view this. Others simply believe that guns cause violence and they want a peaceful, nonviolent society, but are unable to see the consequences. And there are other views, but these two are the most prominent in my rather un-researched opinion.
For Brady, Pelosi, Helmke, Schumer, it really chaps their asses to know that there are some people who choose to not live their lives by Washington's leave.
They don't hate our guns, they hate us and our way of looking at the world.
Post a Comment