Monday, October 10, 2011
This morning I read the news that Governor Moonbeam Brown in
California signed off on legislation that prohibits the open carry
of handguns (even if unloaded) by the general populous. Given that
some of the more vociferous proponents of OC were from CA, it would
seem that their “in your face” methods may have
backfired.
While I don't live in that state and thus may not be intimately
familiar with the timelines involved, it seems that OC came onto
the legislative radar when local news outlets got wind of the
movement via confrontational videos posted on YouTube. From there
it was a short step to getting lawmakers to deal with this major
"problem".
Despite my general objection to the way that OC is
promoted in certain circles, I take no pleasure in
their predicament. It seems to me, though, that if you poke the
bear hard enough sooner or later he's going to bite - and the bite
is sadly predictable.
It will be interesting to see if those OC advocates who arrogantly
compared themselves to Rosa Parks will actually dare to do what she
did now that their opportunity is at hand.
As my Dad once told me: nothing good comes from frightening the
herd. I just hope this doesn’t spread to other states. (Even
as I write this I know the absurdity of that statement.)
---
On the opposite end of the spectrum...who would think that
firearms would make an appearance
on a seemingly
left-leaning design blog?
---
Over the weekend I had a talk with a relative who was interested in
the possibility of rechambering his rifle to something a little
more potent than the .30-06 it currently fires. I found myself
recommending the .35 Whelen. His eyebrows darted skyward,
amazed that I wasn't recommending some sort of
SuperTinyShortenedUltraPowerful Magnum.
Though I've never owned one, I have passing familiarity with the
Whelen. It is just a good, effective caliber that's not going to
beat the shooter up nor destroy half the animal being shot. Someone
once told me that it was "superbly balanced", which I understood to
mean that it occupied a serendipitous intersection of power,
accuracy, and shootability. It's capable of taking any North
American game and doing so without excessive chamber pressure or
throat erosion.
(The short-action version, the .358 Winchester, shares those same
attributes and is one I've wanted for a while now. Someday I'll
find a Savage 99 in .358, though I'd settle for a Browning
BLR.)
This is evidence that I've come full circle on rifle calibers. When
I was younger and convinced that more power was the answer to
everything, I thought fire-breathing Magnums were the way to go. As
I've grown up and gotten some experience under my belt I've come to
appreciate the cartridges that have been well tested over many
years and lots of game: the .30-30 Winchester. The 6.5 Swedish
Mauser. The .30-06. Yes, the .35 Whelen.
There are more, but you get the idea. As I said recently on my
Facebook page: Sometimes newer is in fact better. Sometimes not.
The key is knowing why.
-=[
Grant ]=-
Tags: bloggers, prohibitionists
Wednesday, September 07, 2011
On Monday, Rob Pincus posted a note on the I.C.E. Training Facebook page
about his
opposition to open carry (OC). This is one of Rob's personal 'hot
button' issues, and he doesn't shy away from the debate. (Rob
doesn't shy away from much, actually, but particularly so with
regards to this topic.) It garnered a lot of attention, making the
cut at both Gunnuts and Say Uncle (amongst others.)
Given my association with Rob and I.C.E., it wasn't terribly
surprising that I should receive an email asking, in essence, if I
agree with everything he says. Sometimes yes, sometimes a little
less so, but not for the reasons you might think.
On the self defense aspects, I think OC when concealed carry (CC)
is available (which is darned near all of the country these days)
is silly. I won't debate that point of view at this time, but for
now I'll just say that I don't believe OC has any advantage over CC
from a tactical standpoint.
On the social and political fronts the situation is a little less
clear. I often wonder if the civil rights activists of the 1960s
and the gay rights activists of more recent memory would have made
the gains they did without their open and sometimes controversial
exercise of their rights. Just fifty years ago restaurants and
theaters were routinely segregated; thanks to the confrontational
activities of civil rights advocates, today integration is so
normal that we don't even think about it. The same could be said
for abortions and being openly gay.
Whether you agree or disagree with those subjects isn't important
to this discussion - what is important is that what was normal was
changed, thanks to people who were willing to stand up for their
rights and risk ridicule and arrest to mold society's
opinions.
To say that such activity was acceptable for them, but not for
Second Amendment advocates, seems on the surface to be a little
inconsistent.
OC activists insist they're doing the same things for the same
reasons, and on the surface it's a hard argument to dismiss. I do
think, however, that there is a big difference between open
carriers and civil rights marchers: the rights being defended here
are already well established (if not in fashion), and are subject
to a different standard of comportment. It's called "just because
you can, doesn't mean you should."
Rosa Parks was doing something that the law said she couldn't. Open
carriers are doing something that the law already says they can.
That doesn't seem like a huge difference, but it is.
If OC advocates were carrying guns in areas where laws unjustly say
they can't, then I'd support them fully. The problem is they're
not, and in my opinion that removes the civil rights rationale from
their argument. Carrying a gun openly in a city like Portland,
where it is against the law, is advocating for change and pushing
people to recognize other's civil rights. Doing it in an area where
it's allowed, even if uncommon and misunderstood, is usually just
grandstanding.
I understand the argument that rights which are not exercised are
ripe for abrogation, and that OC is a strong exercise of Second
Amendment rights. That doesn't mean one needs to do so from a
posture of defiant confrontation, which seems to be the norm for
open carriers. We already possess those rights, and it's incumbent
upon us to exercise them responsibly and intelligently. Like it or
not, that means not scaring the public.
Yes, people who are scared of the sight of guns are irrational. I
agree. Yes, cops who don't know the nuances of the law are
ignorant. I agree. Getting belligerent in public isn't going to
change either of those. Want to advocate for actual social change?
Open carry in a city where it's illegal; get arrested like the
civil right marchers did, then use that to help publicize your case
for the repeal of unjust and unconstitutional laws.
That's real political activism. Being a contentious loudmouth on
YouTube isn’t.
-=[
Grant ]=-
Tags: bloggers, rob.pincus, ccw
Monday, February 14, 2011
Our illustrious legislature, in their zeal to protect all
Oregonians from any perceived harm, has introduced a bill that would essentially
eliminate gunsmithing in this state.
I'm hoping that by the time counsel is done with it, it will die on
the floor. But given the make-up of our new legislature, heavily
populated by prohibitionists of the left-wing variety (who hate
guns, as opposed to prohibitionists of the right-wing variety who
hate fun) it's possible that it may make it further into the
machinery.
(In Oregon, the legislature is made up of committees. A committee
will sponsor a bill, which can be written by a committee member or
by a citizen. The bill then goes to the legislative counsel, which
does the actual drafting. From there it goes to the floor, where it
is officially introduced. In this case, the Senate President would
assign it to a committee, which holds hearings and makes amendments
and votes to send it back to the floor. Then it gets passed around,
voted on, read several times, then goes to the other chamber where
the process is repeated. Luckily there are enough nooks and
crannies into which a bill can fall, but some weird stuff has made
it through the process.)
With any luck we can derail this thing before it gets up to
speed.
-=[
Grant ]=-
Tags: prohibitionists
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Lots of linking to avoid thinking on my own!
---
Xavier recently posted a letter
from - and his
response to - one of his readers. The exchange (and the comments
that follow) bring up important issues in the area of Second
Amendment activism. It isn't always black-and-white.
---
When you've finished reading Xavier, pop over to Breda's place and
read this related article she posted about a month
ago. (I realize it's a bit late, and I'd meant to bring it up
earlier, but just kept forgetting.)
---
Rob Pincus is one of the more thoughtful trainers working today.
He's got a great post up on the Breach-Bang-Clear blog about
putting techniques on
pedestals. Highly recommended
read.
---
Speaking of Rob, I discovered that he has a blog of his
own.
Good stuff.
---
Not just techniques get put on pedestals; equipment does too. There
are the 1911 people, the Glock folks, the "any caliber as long as
it begins with '4' " crowd, and so on. I suppose one could accuse
me of doing the same thing with wheelguns (retro pedestal?), but
I'm on record as saying - more than once - that the revolver isn't
the perfect tool for everyone and every purpose.
For example, a number of years ago I was engaged in an activity of
some risk. For that, I forsook my beloved revolver for a Glock and
all the high capacity magazines I could fit under a suit coat. I
believe in picking the right tool for the job; it just so happens
that, for some jobs, the revolver is at least one of the right
tools.
---
Rejoice! Tam has finally posted a new article
over at The Arms Room. (I was beginning to think
she'd given up writing about guns...)
-=[
Grant ]=-
Tags:
bloggers, rob.pincus, dogma
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
At
first, I wasn't going to comment on the sad crime perpetrated on
the campus of Virginia Tech this week. I figured that everyone,
everywhere, was going to do so (with varying degrees of erudition
and insight.) I decided there wasn't anything I could add.
Until...
Listening to the news on the radio, I heard an interview with two
students who said that they were in "the room where he was
shooting." According to these people, students and faculty were
hiding under and behind anything in the room that they felt would
provide them some protection, or flat on the floor in the absence
of same.
It's what they said next that prompted me to comment: as the gunman
shot, he naturally ran out of ammunition, and had to stop to refill
his magazines. After taking the time to refill then reload his
weapon, he continued his unfettered spree.
He was out of ammunition, and had stopped to reload - why didn't
someone, anyone,
in the room take that golden opportunity to tackle the murderer? At
that point the criminal couldn't shoot anyone, and the risk even to
the person who would choose that course of action would have been
relatively minor compared to letting him get his firearm back up
and running.
The answer is as obvious as it is sad: our society has fully
inculcated the victimhood and helplessness mentalities into the
last several generations of people. They didn't do anything because
they have been taught their entire lives to rely on someone -
anyone - else for their safety and well being.
This is what the nanny state has given us. This is what our
Founding Fathers, I think, understood when they listed the natural
right to keep and bear arms in their Constitution: yes, it's about
the ability to resist tyrannical governments. More importantly,
though, is the choice
inherent in the
right.
You see, it's not the exercise of the right in and of itself that
matters; it's the existence of the choice
to exercise the right
that is so very important. Even if one chooses not to exercise the
right, in making the choice one has experienced the
self-actualization that leads to great inner strength and a
heightened sense of self-worth. The very personal decision - no
matter what the decision itself is - is what makes for citizens who
are self reliant, who can think for themselves, and cannot be
corralled like sheep.
When the "transaction cost" of the individual choice is raised -
when the ability to decide for oneself is restricted or controlled
in any manner - the choice is made not by the individual, but by
someone else. The benefits of making the decision are denied the
individual, and he/she learns (bit by bit) how to be a subject
rather than a sovereign individual. Given long enough, an entire
people is conditioned to be subordinate themselves to authority
figures; when the "badge" of "authority" is the firearm, the people
will prostrate themselves to anyone who wields one. Even a crazed
killer.
Milton Friedman was right.
-=[ Grant
]=-
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Tamara K., over at her blog The View
From The Porch, says this:
"For what it's worth, I don't carry a gun to protect me from
muggers at the mall. I don't even carry a gun to protect me,
period. I carry a gun every day despite living in an area where I'm
more likely to be hit by an asteroid than attacked by a mugger as a
symbol of my refusal to buy into this culture of teat-sucking
victimhood for one day longer. I carry it because I
can."
Recite this, word for word, next time some busybody asks (with the
inevitable sneer) why you need to carry a gun.
-=[ Grant ]=-