imported post
utbagpiper wrote:
For what it's worth, I find using the language and logic of liberals (as most gun grabbers are left of center politically on most issues) against them to be very powerful.
For example, why should law abiding gun owners be force to "stay in the closet" or "ride at the back of the bus" simply because of the "phobias and bigotries" of others. Subtly (or explicitly) invoking images of gay rights parades (or even the civil rights movement) puts things into terms that are more difficult for the typical liberal gun grabber to attack.
It is also interesting to note how 5, 10, 15 years ago CONCEALED carry was being attacked as somehow nefarious when the hoplophobes were trying to prevent passage of shall issue laws for issuance of concealed weapons permits. Now, in many cases, the very persons and institutions that so recently opined AGAINST concealed carry are now demanding that we hide our self defense so as not to offend sensibilities. One wonders how they reacted a generation ago when certain persons suggested that large black men ought not share classrooms with lovely young white maidens.
Not only does pointing these things out and using the language of the left make it more difficult for them to attack us, but it also makes clear to the anti-OC members of the RKBA community that OC provides a bulwark against infringement of CC and other rights, just as Class III and 50 cal and CC provide a bulwark against having Deer and Duck guns seized. We can hang together, or we will surely hang separately.
Charles
*nods* This is also one of the reasons why members of this community who are the typical "left of center" are the best arguers for our cause. When you send someone into the lions den, to argue in debate with an anti-gunner, you don't send the flannel clad (no offense to those who wear it) conservative, you send someone like me in there. Hard to argue against another liberal who won't back down from the bulwark, as much as many of them argue 4th amendment and 5th amendment personal rights as strongly.
I once had a debate/argument with a gun owner who moved up here to Washington from California. *cue eye roll Unfortunately, he's not as "pro-gun" as I am, and suggested a handgun licensing scheme to require a license possessed in order to transfer handguns, buy them, and even possess (with fees, mind you).
I told him three things.
1) California does not require a license to possess anyway, so your idea is beyond your former state's requirement.
2) A carbon copy of this proposal was put on the ballot back in 1997 and voted down by a 71 percent no vote (with subsequent news blackout). My understanding is that there was already a lawsuit waiting to be filed against it the minute it was declared a win, but luckily it didn't get that far.
3) He would do best to remember that Washington has a state constitution that states "The right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be impaired". California has no provision in it's state constitution. If he wants to be more in tune with the populace, stay out of the gun control business entirely, as it's easy for an ex-Californian to suggest it. I basically told him to stick to some of his other ideas, such as allowing private sales of hard liquor outside of the state owned stores.
The anti-OC people of the RKBA community generally make me violently ill. They slit their own throats and don't even realize it. I've seen a huge amount of that in Washington due the 270 effect here, and we've finally turned the tide.
It is open carriers, not concealed carriers, who find out first about localities and authorities that violate state preemption statutes with impunity, while concealed carriers just carry concealed and never take even a token effort.
Typically (I don't mean all of them), the concealed carry only crowd will token contact the parks department or the city/county and ask them about the law. They'll get the response back saying "Ok, we know it's invalid, just carry concealed and no one will know anyway". That's not good enough.
In terms of sounding the alarm over harassment, intimidation, and threatening by "opinion enforcement officers", we are the bigger canaries in the coal mine in terms of gauging the respect of the officers towards civil liberties of law abiding citizens, because we, as a group, want to do something that can commonly do without a question.