Are threats and intimidation the M.O. of gun rights activists? Chris Hicke delves into one of the more divisive topics facing our nation today.
Guns are a touchy subject. Spend five minutes reading the comments on any internet content related to the topic, and you’ll likely find yourself questioning the sanity of the human race. Political discourse in America has come to treat compromise as some kind of dirty, foreign concept, and nowhere is this more prevalent than the debate over gun control.
The Second Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
This lone sentence is one of the most debated lines in all American law. The contested points appear to be the “well regulated” and “shall not be infringed” sections, with their importance depending on which side of the debate you align with. The pro regulation side argues that the Second Amendment should be subject to the same reasonable restrictions that all other laws and Constitutional Amendments are subjected to, while the anti-regulation crowd generally views any such laws as an infringement on their rights to own any firearm they desire.
—
A prime example of the latter’s opposition to any kind of gun regulation, or even the discussion thereof, is their treatment of Dick Metcalf, a former gun journalist who had the audacity to suggest that the Second Amendment should be subject to the same rules and regulations of other laws, including the rest of the Bill of Rights. Metcalf’s piece, a one page editorial viewable here, states that, much as you cannot yell “Fire!” in a crowded theatre to incite unnecessary panic or practice human sacrifice as part of a religious ceremony, in spite of the wording of the First Amendment, it is not unreasonable to require 16 hours of training before receiving a concealed carry license, in a fashion similar to what everyone must undergo to be allowed to drive.
The backlash from the gun community included readers of Guns and Ammo (where the editorial was published), gun manufacturers, and the NRA, and culminated in Metcalf losing his work with not only Guns and Ammo, but several other gun-related publications with which he was involved. A call for a rational debate and discussion, instead of being answered with thought out and reasoned dissent was simply shut down.
What’s worse is that ending Metcalf’s career appears to be, if not par for the course, one of the better outcomes for those who suggest that gun regulation isn’t an inherently bad thing. In another instance of what can, at best, be characterized as a gross overreaction by guns rights advocates, a group called Open Carry Texas publicly released the personal information of a woman who called 911 on them for openly carrying their weapons. Open Carry Texas said they were demonstrating their right to bear arms in public, to which the woman in question responded by calling the police, as she presumably did not know their intent and feared for her safety. Instead of explaining the situation and apologizing, OCT retaliated by releasing the woman’s information online, including her personal phone number, leading to such a degree of threats and harassment that the number has since been disconnected.
Similar tactics were used against Belinda Padilla, CEO of gun manufacturer Armatrix’s U.S. branch, because of a new type of firearm the company put on the market. What was this new weapon that so appalled and disgusted gun enthusiasts? A “smart” handgun that can only be fired by its owner. By attempting to reduce the deaths caused by stolen weapons, Padilla set herself up for harassment ranging from threatening phone calls to publicly released images of her home. Again, one might assume that the rational approach to this product would be to simply not purchase it, but that kind of non-threatening behavior does not appear to be within the realm of possibilities for gun enthusiasts.
And then there are the actions by gun owners that border on the truly terrifying. As if in an attempt to justify every possible fear of the pro regulation crowd, a man in Georgia recently waved his handgun around at a children’s baseball game while declaring that, due to the state’s new open carry law, there was nothing anybody could do to stop him. As is to be expected, the police received close to two dozen calls about the incident, only to have the officers who were sent to the scene say that they could, in fact, do nothing to stop this man from pointlessly terrorizing the park. The incident wasn’t even a response to anything, it was simply a guy with a gun being a complete asshole.
—
Of course, no discussion about firearms nowadays is complete without referencing the Bundy Ranch incident, which is apparently ongoing. Residents of towns near the Bundy Ranch say they are being subjected to a disturbing militia presence. According to Rep. Steven Horsford, the militia who came to “defend” Cliven Bundy from the BLM have set up checkpoints along the roads, demanding that anyone passing through prove they are local residents, and have established additional armed presences within the community. Regardless of the situation pertaining to Bundy’s refusal to pay one million plus dollars in grazing fees, these are not the actions of people who have any respect for others, or are interested in winning people over to their side of the argument through peaceful means.
These actions are terrorism, pure and simple. I realize that the actions of these militia groups do not reflect on all gun owners, and that many such people keep firearms around for the same off-chance reason homes contain smoke detectors; a just-in-case precaution against uninvited tragedy. These people, however, who see the need to threaten and intimidate those who disagree with them, are textbook examples of terrorists, employing fear to further their agenda. Their seeming inability to have a rational discussion on this issue or any discussion at all for that matter, only serves to justify the reason why so many people want to regulate the sale, use, and ownership of firearms.
If it isn’t clear yet, I am in favor of firearm regulation. This does not mean I advocate an outright ban; I would much rather treat firearms the same way we do motor vehicles, as Metcalf suggested. Both are tools that serve specific purposes and require training to use properly and safely (though anyone who’s been on the freeway can attest to the fact that this is not always sufficient). Vehicles must be registered to their owners in a database that can be accessed nationally, so that they can be traced if lost or stolen, and any transfer of ownership must be reported to the relevant agency (DMV). While this overarching system is in place, individual states are still given a degree of autonomy regarding individual laws. Is this necessarily what the Founding Fathers meant by “well regulated”? Who knows. They lived in a time where a rifle was limited to firing a shot per minute, and automobiles weren’t even an idea on a drawing board; to say that a 200+ year old document could have ever anticipated 100 round drums or automatic weaponry is patently absurd.
My interpretation of the Second Amendment (of which there are thousands of possible interpretations) is that guns kept for home defense and, to the extent possible/necessary in the modern world, hunting, is permissible, but that openly carrying firearms is generally unnecessary. Carrying weapons in public is unnecessary for the same reason nobody carries fire extinguishers everywhere they go; it might be helpful, but it’s generally advisable to evacuate the affected area and call in the proper emergency services to deal with the problem. If the instances cited above are any indication, the average person is, at best, suspicious of anyone who feels the need to display their weapons in public; without knowing the intention behind such actions they are easily interpreted as threatening or hostile, and therefore incite undue panic, much as the aforementioned shouting “Fire!” in a theatre.
There’s bound to be disagreement with this interpretation, and I’m wholly expecting some rather unpleasant responses. Hell, given the cited cases above, part of me is concerned about being harassed for these opinions. It may be a pointless concern, but I would like to point out that every citation here is from sources that have crossed my path over the past day. I have done no extra digging of any kind to write these articles; I could easily find dozens of other stories and statistics to make the case that many groups of gun enthusiasts are at best, wholly unwilling to discuss the issue and, at worst, domestic terrorists who only seek to uphold laws that favor their personal agendas.
Photo:Flickr/Richard Loyal French
Featured Image Photo:Flickr/Chris Yarzab
” According to Rep. Steven Horsford, the militia who came to “defend” Cliven Bundy from the BLM have set up checkpoints along the roads, demanding that anyone passing through prove they are local residents, and have established additional armed presences within the community. Regardless of the situation pertaining to Bundy’s refusal to pay one million plus dollars in grazing fees, these are not the actions of people who have any respect for others.” My mentee has the solution. He’s about to join the army rangers. What he’s about to do in his final swearing in this month is swear to… Read more »
Ask your mentee if he will obey orders to disarm or detain American citizens. If he says yes, refer him to the Oath Keepers organization. Then ask him if he would wear a UN beret or take orders from foreign officers.
The NRA were pro regulation when black people were fighting for Civil Rights none of them were calling out the FBI for illegal spying. Liberty and justice arguments weren’t being raised then. They were all for registration and even confiscation. Where was the righteous indignation then? Hypocrites.
http://www.salon.com/2013/01/14/the_nra_once_supported_gun_control/
Yes, how dare an organization’s positions evolve from 50 years ago. Most of those folks are probably dead from old age now. I hope that quells your outrage.
I’m a gun owner and believer in 2nd amendment rights, and I think this is a pretty level headed assessment. Sure, I don’t agree with some of it, but this is the real discussion that needs to be had. Let’s recall, first of all, that gun laws in the USA (both permissive AND restrictive) have not been associated with ANY reduction in violent crime, murders, etc. Having more or fewer legal guns doesn’t seem to make a dent – very unfortunately. Here in Maryland, our most fervent gun control advocates themselves have concealed carry permits (general citizens cannot get one).… Read more »
Some basic points for the writer and others who believe the “Guns Gone Wild” liberal narrative: #1. Driving a motor vehicle is not a constitutional right. The comparison shows a lack of basic understanding of the issue. I won’t go further into why such a statement is ridiculous. #2. Guns are already one of the most regulated consumer product in America. That’s not to say they shouldn’t be, but your article implies there is little regulation regarding guns which is blatantly false. #3. It is accepted by gun rights groups (including the NRA) that the 2nd amendment is limited (just… Read more »
Actually, one can own an automatic machine (it’s a lot of hassle and paper-work but it can be done, legally.)
I agree with all your other statements.
The unlawful use of force or violence, committed by a group(s) of two or more individuals, against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives That’s Terrorism. Waving a guns around at a kids baseball game shouting about the Second Amendment or packing heat at at a Newton Connecticut Starbucks on the anniversary of the shooting may not be Oklahoma City, or Fort Hood (twice) shooting or Boston Bombing but It’s using physical intimidation (guns) to push a political agenda which shouldn’t be condoned. Sensible… Read more »
Gun owners do not trust people like the author to define “sensible” regulation due to their ignorance on the subject, their clear bigotry and their reliance on emotive reasoning. You don’t collaborate with someone who looks at you like that.
If one wishes to understand their ideological opponents one should attempt to dialogue rather than wrapping themselves in the warm and fuzzy softness of loony tune echo chambers like “forwardprogressives” home of such well reasoned articles as “Dear Conservatives, Thanks for Being Horrible!”
Funny thing. Vagina Owners feel the exact same way about conservative men.
The fact is most NRA members agree with reasonable regulations.
http://t.usnews.com/a40885?src=usn_tw
Awful lot of pro-life women out there as well as pro-life men who are not mysogynistic in the least
That doesn’t mean they would trust people like the authors of this piece to define them.
Check your history. The NRA opposed Ronald Reagan’s plan to abolish the BATF. They also supported the 1968 Gun Control Act which was a word for word rewrite of the one Hitler used in Germany.
I don’t think that POLITICIANS should be making gun regulations… Especially those that are currently in office. I don’t trust the lot of them. What do I think? I think that local or state level policies should be shown to the public in the english language and not the legalese crap that takes 236 people (using my state as an example) to decipher. Let the gun-toting old west open carry folks work with the folks who do not think that a gun is the solution for every problem and come up with something sensible… If We The People can’t come… Read more »
I understand people not liking guns, but how is hypocrisy any better? Dianne Feinstein has a concealed carry permit for a pistol and armed bodyguards and is one of the most antigun politicians. Lt Col Robert Bateman is an Army officer who says Americans should be disarmed because only soldiers are qualified to handle weapons, despite three shootings on military bases. If we are going to have “gun control”, let’s have the same rules for everyone. Restrict cops and Federal Agents to semi-auto pistols and shotguns that the average citizen can buy in a gun store. No full-auto military weapons… Read more »
I love this idea. Demilitarize the police please.
Well, just ask the British. Our police have no guns (and actively oppose calls to arm them) unless they belong to a specialist unit, most of our criminals have no guns, our politicians have no guns. You know what else we don’t have? Gun crime on the same level as nations who arm their police… There’s a brilliant fallacy about taking weapons from the populace (like we did, twice, like the Australian government did, twice) leading to only criminals having guns and that’s kind of missing the point; if nobody has a gun, nobody needs a gun. Any discussion of… Read more »
So your politicians have no armed bodyguards at all? Or the SAS would never be used against British citizens?
Questions for the author- how much time have you spent with gun owners or hunters? What does “extent possible/necessary in the modern world, hunting, is permissible” even mean considering the vast majority of people are not subsistence hunting anyway? Ever spent much time in non-urban flyover country? SoCal is pretty nice but its not exactly representative. May you one day experience minor car trouble in a rural area of an open carry state (how about Eastern North Carolina?) during deer season. I hope a well meaning, christian, older white man, his son and his grandson (maybe granddaughter?) stop to help… Read more »
heck, I hope they invite you to join em for BBQ while waiting for the tow truck.
Every time I hear that people carry weapons for “protection”…how exactly is that protection? If the answer is “it scares away the criminals”, understand that your strategy is based on Intimidation and Fear. That is not protection.
Guns, like all other weapons, serve only one single purpose, to kill a person. The fact that you are willing to wave it around and parade it openly simply proves you are not responsible enough to own one.
How do you feel about Tasers? 9-11 could have been just another day if the crew and passengers on those planes had been allowed to carry them. Responsible gun owners never pull a weapon unless they mean to use it. If cops wave their guns around, does that mean they are not responsible enough to carry them? Because they never shoot the wrong person?
In the immortal words of Boon “Forget it, he’s rolling.”
Are you serious? It’s a tool that can be used for self-defense, can be used for target shooting, can be used to kill or simply to shoot at paper for sport.
Not many people will go at you if you whip out a gun…
Call me old-fashioned, but waving a gun around at a kid’s baseball game seems contrary to the spirit of a “well-regulated militia.” It’s poor weapon discipline, extremely poor military-civilian relations, and it undermines tactical surprise. I’d be willing to accept a broad interpretation of the rights part if we actually HAD a WELL-regulated militia….
I agree with you, especially about how many NRA enthusiasts over-react, athough I would probably support stricter regs than you would. Meanwhile, I’m not sure the fire extinguisher metaphor quite works. It’s perfectly legal to carry a fire extinguisher around with you in public. I’d like there to be much stricter laws for firearms than fire extinguishers. Also, I think there are consumer forces at work here. The percentage of Americans owning guns has been going down for 40 years (on the whole). Meanwhile, the number of guns owned by each gun-owner has been going up. On average, Americans today… Read more »
I used the idea of carrying a fire extinguisher in public to demonstrate the relative absurdity of feeling like you “need” a gun on you 24/7. Yeah, there’s always the chance of coming across a fire that needs to be put out, but its such a small one in most places that carrying an extinguisher is largely unnecessary. It’d be almost comical if the repercussions were less severe.
It’s not really that absurd though to want to be armed depending on where you live. Not everyone has the luxury of relative safety. If I lived in a dangerous area, I’d want a firearm for damn sure. I’ve had far more assaults against me than seeing random fires where I’d need an extinguisher. Personally I’d rather a non-lethal weapon that could incapacitate someone for a short while if I need defense, and if they can make it reliable with trigger safety where it only works for the user or a sub-group of users (eg my brother, etc) then I’d… Read more »