Wednesday, July 2, 2014

What David said.

I've not written here about the whole open-carry protest "movement" that seems to be going on these days.  Really, there's a simple reason for that:  it's inherently in the political realm, and I can't really "side" with any of the demonstrators without feeling like I'm somehow legitimizing the underlying politics*.  And I'm sure as hell not going to do that on purpose.

Besides, sometimes others say it better than I ever could.  Today, David Codrea addressed it this way, in re Target:

That first part is all that should matter to us. For a company that never wanted this distraction in their stores and were forced to walk a tightrope, what more do "we" demand from them?

This is no victory for the antis. If they tell people it is, they're liars, which should not come as a big news flash.

If someone doesn't want to fight and is leaving you alone, don't back him into a corner. If you do, expect him to react in his interests, not yours.

If you still don't like it, you don't have to shop there. Me, in the absence of belligerent aggression that invites further observations, I'm moving on.

Magnificent.  Simply magnificent.

I suppose one could gripe that "That first part" implicitly acknowledges the legitimacy of "local laws", but that's not the point David is making.  And anyway he's still spot-on that it is about as respectful a means of declaring "no dog in this fight" as I could imagine.

*Sure, I'd like to see both open and concealed carry normalized and common everywhere, but I can't see winning the hearts and minds of individuals by adopting inherently collective strategy to do it.  I'm much more of the MamaLiberty frame of mind on the matter:  I'm going to do what I do every day, and that is going to be much more authentically "normal" than showing up with a group whose express purpose is to say, "LOOK AT US WE'RE NORMAL!"


You know, in high school I was blessed with an outstanding English teacher who impressed many things on me that really were useful.  Among the strongest was her insistence that there truly is one book that is always worth burning:  your thesaurus.  She said that if we used a thesaurus to help ourselves write a paper, she would be able to tell immediately, because a thesaurus word simply jumps off the page at her.  It is not a word we would use normally, in regular dialogue, but rather it sits there and screams, "I am a word!"  I have no doubt--no doubt at all--that she was being wholly honest about this.

I think a lot about her, when I see people gather together for the specific purpose of making a political point.


MamaLiberty said...


People who think that demonstrations can somehow force others to come around to their way of thinking are literally shooting themselves in the foot.

A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still. No idea who said it first, but it is always true. Even torture can't make anyone actually change their mind... only their speech or action.

So, we come back to two kinds of people: those who think they can/should/must somehow control what others do or think - especially "for their own good" or because they have a "right" of some kind...

And then there are those who follow the non-aggression principle. Live and let live. Respect the authority of others over their own lives and property.

The people who hate and fear guns have as much right to feel that way as anyone who loves and carries one. Neither of them have any legitimate authority to force their position on the other. And that's what too many "gun rights" activists seem to be missing.

Paul X said...

Well, I don't see any force here. What I do see is possibly not understanding the motivations of others.

I have carried openly on occasion, typically "discrete" open carry. I do it because it is more comfortable than IWB holsters. I also do it to affect others.

Saying OC won't affect others who see it is not very plausible. Saying it actually harms or coerces others is not very plausible. Saying it might affect others in a way counter to one's own interest is at least a reasonable argument, and often true. Then the only question is figuring out how to get the good effects and avoid the bad effects.

One reason I carried in Cody, Wyoming was to tell tourists the state is for gun lovers. Those who were gun lovers might think of moving there, while those who weren't might refrain from it.

On the other hand, carrying an AR-15 into a restaurant, much less fiddling with it while there, seems very counterproductive to me. I tend to attribute such things to provocateurs as much as to idiots. Also, the business owners ought to throw anybody out of his shop for any reason or no reason, if they please; that's implied by ownership.