

What Do Guns Say? - callum85
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/04/what-do-guns-say/

======
stcredzero
In a way, this op-ed is begging the question, which could be phrased as:
"Should a citizen carrying a firearm be regarded as an inherently threatening
act that others are entitled to protection from?" Unfortunately, the author
uses the conclusion to answer his own question: "The moral bravery political
protest demands is no longer enough; to protest in response now requires the
physical bravery to face down men with guns." In the society I know, only a
tiny minority of private individuals would commit any kind of lethal violence
in such a context. Basically, the author is (probably unintentionally)
supporting his position based on people's known inaccuracies when estimating
personal risk.

There is no question that any such legislation curtails the freedom of one
party; the question is whether this is proportionate and justified. It will
eventually come down to prevailing social norms. In this, the pro gun forces
are already losing the battle of emotional impressions and imagery across much
of the US. However, this is not uniform across the entire country. Also, as it
is fundamentally a matter of perceptions and social norms, the "debate" has
basically come down to both sides vilifying the other as somehow crazy or
subhuman. The underlying issue is not the threat of violence in the public
square. It's that this country has lost the concept of "loyal opposition" and
real debate in the public sphere.

~~~
hga
" _It will eventually come down to prevailing social norms. In this, the pro
gun forces are already losing the battle of emotional impressions and imagery
across much of the US._ "

Citation needed, I believe.

Outside of the usual suspects, plus very recently and perhaps temporarily,
Colorado, the vector of pro-gun facts on the ground is very strong. Those
states did their usual things in response to Sandy Hook, but at net the
legislation passed has been pro-gun, and hasn't stopped.

Or look at the nationwide sweep of shall issue regimes, 1987-2011, followed by
Illinois, and now California and Hawaii, brought to heel by the courts (if and
when finished, that'll cover 90% of the population).

As for the "debate", there is indeed none. But that's been true for decades,
as or longer than I've been alive, e.g. look at the immediate indictment of
the right after JFK was shot by a Communist who was upset at his policies
towards Cuba (a blast of cognitive dissonance they've never recovered from).

One of the reasons my side is arming ourselves so very thoroughly is that our
opponents are very clear in how they view us, and end game they want. This
recent use of open carry in political speech (well, besides avoiding bashing
by union thugs in that first case of an Obama speech in New Hampshire) is, I
sincerely hope, a clear message that the cost of their implementing their
desires is going to be intolerably high. And perhaps the strongest force in
preventing our cold civil war from turning hot.

Something else occurred to me: the organs of the state routinely carry openly.
I can't see how that isn't itself also political speech, something
particularly obvious when they herd the hoi polli into "First Amendment
Zones", or arrest people at public meeting for speaking more than their
alloted 2 minutes, etc. etc.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, _especially seeing as how
it 's an enumerated Constitutional right!_

~~~
stcredzero
_Citation needed, I believe._

Note that I didn't say who was in the majority. The SF Bay Area has a lot of
people who will hate on someone and, if they can, exercise power to express
their instantaneous displeasure with someone who seems to be pro-gun.

 _One of the reasons my side is arming ourselves..._

Honesty now: Did you jump to a conclusion about which side I'm on? (Also a
question for 3rd party readers.)

 _perhaps the strongest force in preventing our cold civil war from turning
hot._

Color me skeptical. I don't see much in the public sphere that one side or
another doesn't label inflammatory. In fact, much of what I see which is a
fairly neutral attempt at intellectual discussion is immediately pigeonholed
as being on one side or another. If one is indeed interested in "preventing
our cold civil war from turning hot" then there needs to be a concerted effort
in understanding and finding common ground with the other side. I just don't
see it.

 _What 's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander_

So are California and New York's shenanigans with the 2nd amendment a valid
expression of _state 's rights_?

 _especially seeing as how it 's an enumerated Constitutional right!_

Just harping on this (IMO valid) point isn't going to get the point across. At
least, not at this point. The side with the power enforcing its will on the
side with less power isn't a good default mode of operation.

------
Zigurd
I have never heard of a protester getting maced or beaten at a protest where
the protesters are armed. Maybe Occupy needs to learn a lesson from those
"rednecks."

It is a lesson that cuts in both directions: In addition to obviously raising
the stakes for police who might be tempted to provoke unarmed demonstrators,
committing a crime while armed is going to get you much more serious charges,
so one thing you can infer is that armed protesters are going to be more
careful of their behavior.

