"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
rg...
In , on Tue, 1 Sep 2009 23:28:41 -0400,
Ed Huntress, wrote:

"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
rg...
In , on Tue, 01 Sep 2009
00:41:24 -0700, Gunner Asch, wrote:

Anyone have a comment one way or the other?

Was the black guy with the AR15 over his shoulder, peacefuly standing
in
an Arizona Tea Party demonstration, along with 15 or 20 other armed
guys, acting like a wack job or not? The Left of course hid the fact
he
was black, and started talking about armed white racism and so forth.

Any comments?

It's ARIZONA! Any day of the week you can go to
an auto parts store in Flag, and find at least 10% of
the customers there with sidearms carried openly. You
can walk down the streets of Sedona and see guys
wearing six-shooters. Are these people ALL trying
to intimidate me? It takes a special kind of
insecurity to make that jump in logic.

People from MN and NJ need to spend a little time
in AZ to see for themselves that there's no more
ill-will behind everyday open carry than there is when
someone walks around with a Leatherman on his belt.
Both are tools, generally carried for the purpose of
"just in case," nothing more.

Was the guy carrying an AR-15 trying to "say"
something? Sure, I imagine so... just like a bumper
sticker, he was advertising his message. I don't have
any bumper stickers, and I don't openly carry. People
who want to do that have every right though, and it
impinges on my rights not one whit.

Talk about responsibility that accompanies rights,
it is YOUR responsibility, New Jersians, Minnesotans,
et al., to respect others' choice to voice their
opinions, whether the voice is in a newspaper editorial,
a blog, a bumper sticker, a town meeting, or even an
open carry. Disagree with the message all you want,
but don't disparage the right to voice it.


A couple of points, Steve. First, I *have* spent some time in Arizona,
and I
have hunted there, north of Ft. Apache,

I lived north of Ft. Apache for a short while. You
might recognize the name Whiteriver.

Yeah. I've hunted on the White Mountain Apache Indian Reservation a couple
of different years. I've also spent weeks in and around Phoenix, and
Scottsdale, where a guy named Huntress used to be the mayor. Yes, he's a
relative.


with a handgun on my hip in open carry, even when I wasn't hunting.

Who were you trying to intimidate?

Nobody. There was no one around to intimidate. No one even knew we were
there, except the Apache reservation officials we called to tell where we
would be camping. I just never took the gun off until I went to bed. And
there were some tin cans to shoot. after I bagged my peeg. g

Did you see anyone else carrying? If so, why did you
feel intimidated?

Two of us in the group of four were carrying, as I recall. We were the two
who were hunting javelina with handguns. We didn't see another person for a
week.

The circumstances -- being out in a remote area with some guys I knew,
hunting -- were hardly intimidating. Attending a political rally of angry
people, some of whom are carrying guns, is a lot more unsettling.

You carry a gun with the intention, or the possibility, that you're going to
shoot it. I was out to shoot a javelina (although I wound up shooting mine
with a rifle because they stayed out of range). What, or whom, was the
gun-toter going to shoot at a political rally in broad daylight, patrolled
by police?

The man was "monitored" by Phoenix police detective J. Oliver, who was
keeping an eye on the gun-toter and also watching for anyone who "would want
to harm him," as the detective said. It was a hot situation. The SS said
that no one was getting into the building where Obama was to attend, with a
gun. They were vigilant for the possibility of a threat. Which man with a
gun might be the threat? How would you know? Do you wait until he shoots?


Second, I have to respect the man's
rights, but I don't have to respect the man's actions.

There's a distinction without a difference. If
we were talking free speech, sure, you can say, "I
respect the man's right to say whatever he wants
even if I disagree with him." Somehow, I can't see
that as analogous to the open carry situation.
Wouldn't it go something like, "I respect the man's
right to carry, but I don't think he should *actually*
carry." ??? How is that "respecting" his right?

The man has a right to defend himself. This wasn't about defending himself.
As several of the gun-toters made plain, they were making a "statement."
What isn't clear is what that "statement" was supposed to be. Whatever it
was, it involved a threat of pulling a trigger. And if he wasn't prepared to
pull a trigger, or to impress people with the possibility that he could pull
a trigger, why was he carrying a gun? It wasn't a fashion accessory.


You say you "imagine" that the man was trying to say something. What do
you
suppose he was trying to "say"?

I don't know exactly. That's the problem with non-
verbal communication, hence the word "imagine."

Yeah, now you're getting it. There's a man with a gun at a political rally,
and you just don't know what he's doing in that situation, do you? Do you
think he's hunting pigs, maybe? Or maybe two-legged game? It isn't likely
he's planning to shoot someone in self-defense, do you think? I don't think
so. That's not what he said, anyway. Neither did the guy in New Hampshire
who gave some interviews.

Most likely he was simply demonstrating that he was
aware of his right, in which case the message might
have read something like, "I LOVE this country we live
in where I have this right! A right not exercised is
a right waived, and I'm making sure *I* won't be part
of those inclined to let such a right lapse."

Maybe we should let random civilian visitors carry when they visit the White
House on tours. You think? I mean, they'd just be exercising their right,
correct?

How about at a high school football game? You have a great view from the
stands. You could adjust the elevation on your 'scope while you watch the
hated opponents score a touchdown. That only makes sense, doesn't it? And it
would make quite a statement to the opposing quarterback.


Or he might have been exhibiting signs of a mid-life
crisis much like other guys might buy a big bike, or a
fast convertible in which case the message might have
been more like, "Hey, look at me... I've got enough
money I can throw it away on a tool that'll probably
never be used in the contingency for which it was
purchased... but dayum, don't I look good carryin' it!"

You never know. And that's the problem. Let's hope he doesn't get all worked
up and angry, attending a highly emotional rally and with all those
two-legged targets out there who (in the Arizona case) are Obama supporters
and who want to...well, you'll see below what he thinks they want to do, and
what he thinks should be done about it.


Or maybe the message was more like, "****, my pickup
died two blocks from here, and I didn't dare leave this
7 lb. invitation to break into the vehicle."

May be. But it wasn't. The ones who were asked, such as William Kostric in
New Hampshire, said they had their guns with them to make a statement.


Or... it might have been whatever nefarious intent
you've ascribed... which is what exactly? You keep
using the word "intimidate" without saying how the
mere presence of a tool is intimidating.

Steve, I'm going to assume you're not a complete naif and we can say some
things about this situation that are obvious to any sentient adult. Let me
preface it by saying that I've been a gun owner for just over 50 years now,
that I was an NRA-certified rifle instructor for 15 years, as well as a DCM
range officer, and that I spent about three years as an editorialist and
volunteer state lobbyist fighting gun control legislation. I'm a current NRA
member.

So, here are the bald facts that only a moron or a juvenile fool would deny.
These "tools," such as the AR15, or William Kostric's 9mm S&W, are designed
to kill people, period. So the rifles don't have select fire -- that's not a
matter of choice by their owners, only the result of an annoying law.
Everything else about them is pure people-killing machine. That's what the
"tool" is for. It wasn't designed for hunting animals. It wasn't designed
for shooting paper targets. Most people limit their actual use to those
functions, but that isn't what the guns were designed to do. It isn't why
they carry handguns on city streets, open or concealed. Oh, and Gunner uses
his for drilling holes in leather belts, but he's kind of strange in more
ways that one, as we know. g

Every normal adult knows this, pro-gun or anti-gun. They also know that this
fact is the basis of any symbolism or "message" involved in carrying one of
those things to a political rally. The people carrying them aren't making a
statement about target shooting, or tool maintenance, or hunting rabbits.
Whatever "statement" they're making hinges on the fact that these "tools"
are for killing people. Period.

Now, the gun-toters may be focused on their right to self-defense -- in
other words, their right to shoot certain people under specific
circumstances -- and that's all they think they're "saying" with their guns.
If so, even most people who support that right know that the real issue here
is not that at all. It's about the symbolism of carrying a gun -- and all
guns are loaded, in the classes I taught -- to a heated political event with
a president involved. We have an unfortunate set of memories about guns in
those circumstances. If we have anything like normal emotions, red flags and
hackles go up all over the place when some unknown person is seen packing a
gun at a political rally. (Chris Matthews pressed this point with the NH
gun-toter, who never acknowledged or addressed it. But it was THE reason he
was getting all of the attention.)

And those gun-toters know that. That's the source of the shock value they're
going for, that they're counting on, and that gets them the media attention
that they're seeking. Kostric sounded like he had been practicing his little
speech in front of a mirror for days. He probably had. (Kostric, as you've
probably seen from the several recorded interviews, is a level-headed and
articulate guy who just doesn't get it. Or, rather, he only gets what HE
cares about, and ignores what has caused so many others to care about the
circumstances.)

The NRA has refused comment on the issue, because they know it's a lose-lose
situation for them. They're aware of the negative political fallout they'd
generate if they supported the gun-toters, and the negative effect they'd
have with the hard-core membership if they didn't. So they've just shut up
about it.

The gun-toters are less politically savvy -- or like Gunner, they just say
"**** on 'em." They really don't care what anyone else thinks. This is
perhaps the mildest form of an antisocial personality, but, combined with
guns, it's still an incindiary circumstance. We have here people who are
carrying "tools" designed for killing people in a socially intense
situation, and they don't care what anyone thinks -- except that they want
attention for *their* politics. Whoopie. That really makes those other
people -- the ones the gun-toters don't care about -- pretty damned edgy.

Edgy is not good, in the politics of gun ownership and gun control. We
really don't know anything about those gun-toters, or we didn't before they
thrust themselves and their guns into our attention and our civil lives. Why
should we trust them? We have no reason to trust them at all. All we know
about them is that they don't give a damn what anyone thinks, that they're
packing "tools" designed for killing people at an event in which lots of
people are massed together and arguing and yelling, and that the president
is nearby -- maybe within range of a lucky shot. Whoopie. They may be nuts,
and nuts with guns at political rallies are not good.

And if they're not nuts, how would we know? Human beings survive by making
snap judgments. Life is impossible without them. And the snap judgment that
many will make here is that anyone who doesn't care what others think and
who brings guns to political rallies probably has some loose wiring between
their ears. Loose wiring and guns are not a good combination. Nuts or not,
these gun-toters are a little twitchy.

Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, put it this way:
"I just don't think it's politically intelligent. I would like to see gun
owners think twice before they go to a rally like that with a firearm
strapped on. It doesn't necessarily put our best face forward."

For that, Gottlieb will be awarded the Understatement Award of the Week. g

Now, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you don't have to
be convinced of these things, which are self-evident to anyone who has lived
in the US for a few decades or more and who has normal intelligence and some
sense of the volatility of public opinion. If we aren't in agreement here
you'd might as well stop reading, because any possibility of discussing the
issue intelligently is out the window.


When people speak with loaded firearms in a
crowd,

So, you've somehow determined it was loaded. I didn't
see that in any of the reports I read or youtubed. What
did you see that I didn't?

Christopher Broughton, the AR-15 guy, said his gun was loaded. You should
keep up. The press in Arizona is really having a field day with him, who
said to a Phoenix New Times blogger, about Obama's future death, "However it
happens, I'm going be happy that it happens. I'm gonna be a happy man...I
would rejoice." Broughton says that people who support abortion are
murderers, and that someone should kill them. He also says that it would
have been good if someone had taken out Adolf Hitler when they had the
chance. Then he walks into a rally of mostly Obama supporters, carrying a
loaded AR-15. Hmm....
There's your gun-toting citizen, making his statement.

And there is Chris Matthews' interview with William Kostric, the New
Hampshire gun-toter (who actually is from Tempe, AZ, which he left for NH a
year ago because he thinks AZ's gun laws are "too restricive," as we've
recently learned, and who belongs to the same anti-government group as
Broughton): "Who would be silly enough to carry an unloaded firearm?"
Kostric said in the interview.

If they were loaded, would you then say they couldn't carry them? Make up
your mind, Steve: they either have the right to carry loaded guns in a
political rally or not. And it's loaded ones you're defending, right? Or are
you only defending carrying unloaded guns? If you'd defend both, then what
is the issue for you, whether his gun is loaded or not? I smell a red
herring in the Arizona desert. g


I'd like to know what their message is.

Really? Even though you weren't there, and the
guy at issue is completely irrelevant to your life.

No he's not. The consequences of what the whack-jobs do has a very
substantial effect on *my* rights. If one of them shoots somebody at a
rally, or if they even brandish a gun and are arrested on a gun charge at
some political gathering, or if they say something threatening and it's
carried on the evening news, watch how fast we're back in the gun-control
battles all over again. I've fought that war once, and I don't want some
nutjob ruining something that many of us have fought so hard for.

You are so insecure that just seeing something on TV
3000 miles away makes you uneasy.

Oh, stuff it. It has nothing to do with my security. It has to do with my
concern for this civil society we all live in.

If you were there,
you could have asked him. If I'd been there, I could
have asked him too, but I wouldn't have. His reasons
are his reasons. None of my business.

Right. You don't care what or whom he might threaten -- or shoot.

Hey, Steve -- it damned well IS your business, and mine, and everyone
else's. This isn't a guy defending his house. It's a guy walking into a
crowded political rally packing a gun. We know what he's equipped to do, but
what is his intention? How do you know?

If we were
having a conversation, the issue would probably have
been broached eventually though. ;-)

The only ones I can think of have to do with
intimidation.

Ah, quite a limited imagination. Yet you carried
a loaded and dangerous handgun in public apparently
without feeling particularly intimidating. Am I
detecting a disconnect?

No, but I'm detecting your imagination running away with you. There was no
"in public." The nearest "public" was probably 10 miles away from where we
were camping.


Can you clear that up for us?

I just did.


Absent the availability of the guy to ask, I can
only imagine his specific motivations and intended
message. If pressed, I'm sure I could imagine more
reasons than those above. But you can't. Strange.

I'll bet you could. And all of them would be wrong -- except for one. Which
one? That's the question. That's what a SS agent is asking himself as he
positions and moves around as necessary to make sure he has a clear shot at
the guy.

There is nothing "strange" about it. The people who have to deal with the
reality of it, the police and SS agents, have to assume he'll threaten or
shoot. Of all of the possibilities, the one with real consequence is that
one. That's why they said he wasn't going to get inside of the "perimeter
they had in mind." One presumes that means they were prepared to stop him in
any way necessary if he tried -- and "any way necessary" expands
significantly if the guy is carrying a gun. And their entire behavior, which
is the one that has to deal with the reality of the situation, is geared
toward taking him out, because they recognize a potential threat when they
see one. They're as expert as one can be on that subject.

That's the "possibility" that matters. That's the one that every sensible
person recognizes. And the gun-toters know it, and they know that is the
implication of their action that's going to get them on the evening news.
And it did.

One final thing: You appear to be missing some of the Broughton material
that's come out over the past two weeks. The guy is a nutjob to the core.
Kostric is a much more complicated case. He's smart and presents himself
well. The hell of it is, when you're dealing with unknown people carrying
guns at political rallies, and there are people around like Broughton who
wish the President was dead, you never know when the two of those things
might come together and present a threat. As we know now, those two things
came together in AR-totin' Christopher Broughton. I hope the SS had him in
their sights and were ready, should he have decided to act on his beliefs.

--
Ed Huntress