"Steve Ackman" wrote in message
rg...
In , on Wed, 2 Sep 2009 12:15:22 -0400,
Ed Huntress, wrote:
snip
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.
So, other people of like mind were NOT intimidated
by your open carry. Therefore carrying a loaded
weapon in and of itself is not intimidating.
Of course not. The whole point was the *situation* in which those characters
were carrying. It was the proximity to the president, and the environment of
a group of political demonstrators, that got them the attention they so
eagerly sought. And they got it, as they know perfectly well, because they
created an ambiguous "message" that implied a threat. That's why the media
were there. And getting attention was their whole point. If there hadn't
been the ambiguity of the "message," including the possibility of a threat,
no one would have paid attention.
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.
If you say it's unsettling TO YOU, I'll have to
grant you that. To omit the caveat is to assume you
know how everyone else is feeling.
If you didn't notice, the question of whether they were threatening
anyone -- the president or the protesters -- received a huge amount of press
and blog attention, by thousands of people who also found it unsettling.
Obviously, the issue was unsettling to far more people than me.
You probably know who Dave Kopel is, every gun nut's favorite researcher.
Here's the comment he made about it:
"While I think it's really paranoid for some of the media to falsely
characterize this as people trying to threaten the president, I think it
shows bad judgement to carry [guns] near a presidential speech," he says.
Protesters are "trying to make a statement about Second Amendment rights,
but they're doing it in a way that probably sets back that cause."
I believe Kopel is right. Most people aren't going to be moved by the
strained arguments like the one you're making here, Steve. You may convince
yourself and fellow gun nutz with your self-defined syllogistic argument but
Kopel has his finger on the political pulse, and he recognizes that the net
effect will probably be negative. In other words, more people will be
alarmed than not. This makes sense to anyone who remembers the two
Kennedy's, Reagan, and Ford.
I'm waiting to see a poll on this but I haven't seen one yet. But I think
the following statement by a former Secret Service agent sums up the typical
reaction:
"'Former Secret Service Agent Joseph Petro, the author of "Standing Next to
History," says gun-wielding protesters do run the risk of distracting local
police and the Secret Service from their job.
"'But he agrees with Levin that greatest concern is the message this sends
to those who would wish to harm the president. "These people could be
stimulating, encouraging, inciting the nut cases on the fringe that might
actually want to do something either against the president or a group of
people," Mr. Petro says. "It's creating a very negative and dangerous
atmosphere at these protests.'"
In terms of political consequences, it isn't a rights issue or a gun-control
issue. It's about the things we've learned about unsuspected killers and
security over the last five or six decades, which is planted deeply in
voters' minds.
The relevant fact about toting guns at such events is that it makes security
practically impossible. Any sensible person recognizes this, which is why
your arguments are not convincing outside of your circle of like-minded
types. Former SS and police security experts have been saying for a week
that the gun-toters will have the inevitable effect of requiring the SS to
expand the gun-free zone around the president.
That's probably a very good idea.
--
Ed Huntress