So reader Beans took affront on that post about incrementalism success and made his displease known in a long comment.
And of course, I must reply.
Yes, incremental steps towards the correct interpretation of the 2nd Amendment work.
I was not aware of any other direction.
But… They only work when there is a group shouting for complete and utter destruction of any and all arms control laws.
No, that is not how it works. The moment you start shouting, people stop listening and reach for the ignore button. Does it look like these peaceful protesters made their point and convinced their patrons of the sanctity and righteousness of their cause or just ended up branding themselves idiotic annoyances to be ignored?
Just like the Gays, who argued and fought for their ‘rights’ and acceptance by both incremental means and by being loud and obnoxious and in everyone’s faces.
The gay community never had a full on media covering them as the worst thing on Earth responsible for killing busload of nurses and school children every week. At best they were seen as entertaining and at worst they were seen as deviants easy to stomp. As far as I know, we do not play the Victim Card.
So… Poo on you all who only want incremental changes.
So much for helping each other, but that is par for your side of the club.
If you only want incremental changes, only want a slow and miniscule creep towards arms freedom, you are pandering to the leftist arms-control movement. “Oh, they only want this, well, we’ll make it ten times harder to try the next time.”
It seems your little club is the one pandering to the Gun Control movement and actually helping them. You act like the caricature they keep playing about us and your side has had ZERO positive effect on legislatures. And in this blog, we have talked about the negative effects of your posturing on getting the Second Amendment advanced.
And… if you are one of the jackalopes who is screaming that the 2A is all about guns, well, you are a French Shower Sack.
I admit I had to google that one. Camp shower? That one flew past the nest.
Because the 2A is about all arms. You know, weapons and arms and armor and the whole shebang. Brass knuckles, swords, switchblades, guns, cannon, body armor, household armor, car armor, armed ships, armed planes the whole everything.
Hmmm, let me see. I can only speak for Florida, but we “incrementalists” have already covered a lot of that territory. Check Statutes 790 when you can. I still want me a Scottish dirk to carry.
But your continued focus on only Gunz, Gunz, Gunz… see the previous paragraph. You are playing into the Leftists’ control plan. Ban everything and then give them bupkis and squat in return.
Huh? What in the name of your medicinal marijuana prescription gave you the idea we support bans?
For Pete’s sake, We should collectively be all standing up and shouting “The Full 2A! The Full 2A!” But because We aren’t, and when part of us does say TF2A! and another part of us says “We thing those creeps are wrong and bad and we won’t listen to anything they say” the leftists are taking more and more and more and more.
There you go with the shouting again. I like pragmatic approaches like engaging with legislators and public in general and convince them of my point of view so they can vote the way I want them. Somehow a bullhorn to their faces tends to have the effect of them getting to shut down at what I would have to say and ignoring what I want. I am a sucker for results.
The control freaks are losing in many of the states. But they are winning in many others, and winning on the Federal level and winning on the financial level (attacks on arms suppliers and buyers by the banks and such) and winning on the Media front and winning in the public education front and and and…
I believe we are pretty aware of what’s going on. But never forget one truthful axiom: All politics are local. If you do not take care of your house, what happens in DC will be the least of your worries.
Doesn’t matter what we do incrementally if the overall goal of us isn’t full restoration. Doesn’t matter what we do incrementally if the controllers are winning everywhere else.
Again, you have yourself believing that we do not have the same goal for some deluded reason. It seems that you find our methods too slow for your taste, but we dislike yours a bit more: Your batting average is ZERO when it comes to the defense of the Second Amendment.
I need to know how do you travel? I don’t believe transport beams are a thing just yet so you must go out of your mind travelling from point ‘A’ to point ‘B’ at regular speeds. Does shouting make you go faster?
Mayhaps you , dear host, and others like you could quit screwing it up for the rest of us, maybe even join us and stand united.
If screwing it for the rest of you means I stop making fun of your idiotic parades fully kitted like you were some NPC character in Call of Duty, I am afraid that not only will not stop but I will become incrementally a bigger asshole just become I can. You have proven to be a failure in advancing the Second Amendment and at times, you have also proven to be a detriment.
Of course, if you like to share the video of your interaction with the legislators in Tallahassee or a subcommittee meeting in the capitol and showing us how your shouting and overall assholery actually produced results, I will be more than happy to post them here.
Or you can always ask Dudley Brown for advice.
Beans needs to calm down.
And yeah, I’d like to get the whole enchilada at once too. But I am content with steadily grinding down gun control till one day the gun-grabbers wake up and find they have no way to grab guns.
“Because the 2A is about all arms. You know, weapons and arms and armor and the whole shebang. Brass knuckles, swords, switchblades, guns, cannon, body armor, household armor, car armor, armed ships, armed planes the whole everything.”
No, it isn’t. Sorry. Not about guns, or arms, or knives, knees, or harsh language.
The 2nd Amendment is about the fundamental human right for self defense against threats, both personal and political. Bearing arms, was at the time, and still is, the most effective way of ensuring that right to self protection. Preventing the government from restricting arms ownership is the point and intent of the 2nd.
But, I am sure that Beans will tell me I am wrong because self defense is not mentioned in the amendment. It does not have to be.
Incremental changes over time:
http://www.gun-nuttery.com/rtc.php
1986: http://www.gun-nuttery.com/maps/1986.gif
2021: http://www.gun-nuttery.com/maps/2021.gif
A research project, for those inclined. Notice what the states with Constitutional Carry did to get it legally recognized.
Usually, it was an incremental approach, usually after a decade or more of Shall Issue carry permits and people coming to understand that a Shall Issue carry permit didn’t result in Blood In the Streets! After a few decades of that, the voters were a whole lot more willing to recognize the rights the Constitution granted them, and vote accordingly.
A little off topic, but there’s an idea in American law that carrying a knife as a weapon means that you intend to use it on someone. An offensive weapon, if you will. A gun, on the other hand, is seen as a defensive weapon. I’m sure there’s a historical reason for it, but it escapes me.
P.S. I want to carry my kukri as a back up.
JFM
JFM, here in TN you can legally carry any blade open or concealed since 2014. A good blade and some spare mags balance out the load nicely.
I never understood that distinction in the law either. Here in CT, you can get a permit easily and carry a concealed firearm, but even after being permitted you still can’t carry brass knuckles, a black jack, a stun gun, taser, switch blade/stiletto/automatic knife, knife over 4″, or dagger (I’m sure I missed at least one); those are all considered dangerous weapons and cannot legally be carried at any point for any purpose other than bringing them to a dealer, a show, martial arts event, or for repair.
Edit to say, its kind of like the argument you see sometimes about concealed carry. If the firearm is concealed the intention is obviously no good, but if it is openly displayed, the intention is obviously good.
Beans isn’t totally wrong, although the argument he’s trying to make mostly is.
Where he’s really wrong is in assuming that because our methods are different, our goals must be different. Both “all or nothing” and incrementalists want to see a fully-restored Second Amendment; where we differ is in deciding how to get there.
Incrementalism works. Beans is wrong on this point. The last couple decades of steadily expanding gun rights have shown that. Gun rights weren’t eroded in one fell swoop (though the antis certainly tried! “Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ’em all in,” anyone?), and so it’s unreasonable to expect they’ll be restored in one fell swoop.
However, “all or nothing” people do serve a purpose. Beans is correct here. “All or nothing” people keep the Overton window focused where we need it. (If you don’t want to click through, the Overton window is the area on the spectrum of policy that is acceptable to moderate discourse. Extremes on both sides are present, but not considered acceptable to moderates; they’re outside the window.)
It’s that extreme pro-gun view that keeps incrementalism within moderate discourse and allows it to work. Without it, pro-gun incrementalists are the most extreme, and the Overton window shifts the discussion to favor gun control.
Put another way, having the “all or nothing” people out there gives incrementalists something to point at and say, “See? We’re not that extreme. At least we’re willing to listen to your concerns.” By comparison, incrementalism does less to “scare the straights” (to borrow a phrase from the LGBT movement) and is downright reasonable!
Indeed, if incrementalism weren’t such a threat to the antis, they wouldn’t work so hard to portray us as extremists (and thus shift the Overton window toward their view). Having actual extremists to point to strengthens the perception that we’re reasonable, even as we share the long-term goal of “shall not be infringed.”
Beans’ argument that “all or nothing” pro-gun people are necessary for the pro-gun movement is correct, but not for the reasons he thinks or states.
I’m heartened to see I’m not the only one that recognizes incrementalists and absolutists are most effective when they work together instead of ripping each other’s throats out.
As for the chest beaters on each “side”? Get down off your crosses and use the wood to make a bridge and get over yourselves.
Your infighting does more damage to 2A issues than either of you could achieve individually.
In an odd way, the best thing to happen to gun rights was the 94 AWB. It hit just as Shall Issue was becoming a thing and as the A Team generation was getting old enough to buy their first firearms. Which meant that the annoyance of stupid style restrictions, mag caps, and paying $120 for a standard cap magazine personally hit a lot more people than it would have back in the early 80’s.
We took it personally.
That Reno, Clinton, and the rest of the crew wanted to keep going with restrictions really imperative to get involved.