Linking "gun enthusiasts" to "anti-government militias"

[A-R]

Thought I'd start this broad thread to discuss a trend I'm seeing popping up with more frequency in the news media recently: The subtle (or sometimes not so subtle) linking of "gun enthusiasts" and other supports of 2A and RKBA with "anti-government" milias and groups and "home grown terrorists". I remember the similar links during the Clinton years, and of course the ugly fallout from tragedies like Ruby Ridge, Waco/Branch Davidians, and of course the Oklahoma City bombing (15th anniversary of OKC, and 17th of Waco, is today), not to mention copious gun control proposals and legislation (Brady Bill, Assault Weapon Ban etc.)

I'm very troubled by this trend. Was just watching a news report over an early lunch and the cable news anchor showed a gun-support rally at a National Park in Virginia and a RKBA rally in Washington DC, then (perhaps because it is the anniversary of Waco and OKC) they segued directly into a discussion of the anniversaries and "new threats" from "home grown terrorists" and "militias" and such and of course had some quotes lined up from Janet Napolitano.

This all strikes me as highly manipulative and deceptive to link RKBA supporters with anti-government groups. Not saying the two aren't linked in some way with a few similar core beliefs and even some people who believe in both causes. But the two broadly defined groups certainly are not in lock step with each other. And one does not necessarily lead to the other.

I remember first detecting some of these subtle hints during the ruckus a few months back when some people were videod open carrying near Presidential events during the health care reform debate. And, of course, Napolitano has thrust the whole "right wing radical" issue to the forefront with her own fear mongering.

It's sort of obvious to see the liberal fear mongering machine start rolling down the tracks. And I think the RKBA/2A crowd should sharply distance itself from the true anti-government radicals. Sure, as RKBA supporters we are against government intrusion and overstepping. But not to the extend of radicalized views and plans to overthrow the government through violence. If actually shooting a gun to defend yourself from a violent attack is a last resort as I believe most here universally acknowledge, then a violent overthrow of a government (no matter how much you may disagree with and despise that government) is also an absolute last resort and not something that should be promoted or even hinted at while we still enjoy most of our rights. Everyone has to define this for themselves, of course. And I'm not trying to define for anyone else what constitutes enough government intrusion to make a call for rebellion worthwhile.

But I don't think - at this point - any clear link between supporting RKBA and supporting anti-government rebellion is beneficial to RKBA at all. In fact, it will prove highly detrimental if Obama and Dems retain control after the mid-terms and especially if Obama is re-elected. I truly believe Obama will wait until a second term before pushing any gun control policies. If the liberals succeed in painting gun supporters with the same brush as anti-government radicals, he will have a MUCH easier time passing gun control legislation (just as Clinton did).

I also continue to find it interesting how liberals/Democrats always raise more concerns with "home grown terrorists" while conservatives/Republicans will always find a foreign boogey man to fear. Not attempting to state a reason for this so please don't insert one in my mouth; I just find it odd and interesting and will leave it at that.

Anyway, just thought I'd share some random "brain droppings" (thanks to George Carlin for that description). And now I yield the floor to my esteemed forum members ....

[OldCannon]

Today's "reporting" is about making money by entertaining, and scaring readers is good business.

Saying "Gun owners exercised their rights peacefully today" doesn't sell.

[Douva]

Part of the problem is that RKBA groups are, traditionally, not very good at public relations. Rather than constantly playing the victim card and whining about the liberal media, we need to learn to make winning hands from the cards we've been dealt.

For example, rather than making a smart PR move like scheduling the Second Amendment March to fall on a day that isn't the fifteenth anniversary of the Oklahoma City Bombing, gun rights advocates chose to schedule the march on that anniversary because it also happens to be the anniversary of the firing of the first shots at Concord. Those same gun rights advocates then acted shocked and appalled when the media, which has always had a love/hate relationship with gun owners, focused on the date being the anniversary of America's deadliest act of domestic terrorism, rather than on the date corresponding to a little-celebrated milestone from the American Revolution.

If we're going to act like we're above playing the public relations game, we have no right to act offended when our opponents, who have no problem playing the game, manage to portray us as a bunch of dangerous, ignorant nuts.

Another example of gun rights advocates not understanding and/or refusing to play the public relations game is open carry rallies, such as the one occurring today on the Virginia side of the Potomac. Gun owners trying to win gun rights by publicly carrying guns en masse is comparable to gay men trying to win gay rights by dressing up in leather thongs and making out en masse. It accomplishes nothing beyond irritating opponents and alienating fence sitters who otherwise might choose to side with us. I'm not saying we don't have or shouldn't have the right to carry guns en masse; I'm saying that we do harm to the cause when we choose to.

A third example of the way gun rights advocates play into the hands of opponents is by arguing their case either entirely on the basis of the Second Amendment--thereby reinforcing the stereotype that proponents of gun rights have no practical defense for their positions, beyond a 200-year-old document--or on the basis of flawed, inaccurate, or incomplete information--thereby reinforcing the stereotype that proponents of gun rights are ignorant and uneducated.

The U.S. Constitution is a wonderful document, without which we might have lost our gun rights years ago, but citing it neither wins supporters nor discredits opponents. Doing so simply perpetuates the notion that we have nothing more to contribute to the debate.

Many gun rights advocates get in the habit of citing rumors and half-truths as factual evidence, as a way of besting friends and acquaintances in casual debates. This tends to backfire when you do it on national TV (or any form of published media). For example, I once heard someone on Fox News say that Charles Whitman, the perpetrator of the 1966 University of Texas sniper attack, was shot by an armed professor. Whitman was actually shot by a police officer. That kind of nonsense makes us look like we have to make up "facts" to support our positions.

[The Annoyed Man]

I forget which channel it is when I'm watching it that they intersperse the programming with really long commercials for shows like "24" and "Law and Order". Those commercials drive me crazy because they are about 4 times as long as regular commercials, and they play the same ones over and over again. Anyway, one of those shows they are pushing has a segment where the good guys are trying to apprehend some murderer at a home in a rural setting. The two good guys (a beautiful woman and a handsome guy who supposedly have some sexual tension between them, but neither of whom were given any reliable instruction from the props department on how to properly handle a firearm) are talking about the bad guy who is holed up, and one of them describes him to the other as "one of those second amendment don't tread on me types."

It makes me want to shoot the writer and then stomp him into the dirt.

[Douva]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/right- ... _rall.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[PSLOwner]

I forget which channel it is when I'm watching it that they intersperse the programming with really long commercials for shows like "24" and "Law and Order". Those commercials drive me crazy because they are about 4 times as long as regular commercials, and they play the same ones over and over again. Anyway, one of those shows they are pushing has a segment where the good guys are trying to apprehend some murderer at a home in a rural setting. The two good guys (a beautiful woman and a handsome guy who supposedly have some sexual tension between them, but neither of whom were given any reliable instruction from the props department on how to properly handle a firearm) are talking about the bad guy who is holed up, and one of them describes him to the other as "one of those second amendment don't tread on me types."

It makes me want to shoot the writer and then stomp him into the dirt.

[mctowalot]

Remember that old "School House Rock" American Revolution clip? Are they still teaching the kids about that incident or just the OKC bombing?

[Douva]

Remember that old "School House Rock" American Revolution clip? Are they still teaching the kids about that incident or just the OKC bombing?

I'd be willing to bet that only a small fraction of college freshmen could pass a test over the material covered by School House Rock. A couple of years ago, I had to post the "I'm Just a Bill" video to the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus Facebook page.

[Kythas]

Remember that old "School House Rock" American Revolution clip? Are they still teaching the kids about that incident or just the OKC bombing?

You talking about this one? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofYmhlclqr4

Or this one? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNb9AoY5 ... re=related

Or maybe this one? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--VMlvbk ... re=related

[PSLOwner]

Remember that old "School House Rock" American Revolution clip? Are they still teaching the kids about that incident or just the OKC bombing?

I'd be willing to bet that only a small fraction of college freshmen could pass a test over the material covered by School House Rock. A couple of years ago, I had to post the "I'm Just a Bill" video to the Students for Concealed Carry on Campus Facebook page.

God, I am so old I remember "I'm a Bill".

[boomerang]

Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote a poem about "anti-government militias"

By the rude bridge that arched the flood
Their flag to April's breeze unfurled
Here once the embattled farmers stood
And fired the shot heard round the world.

[G.A. Heath]

From what I heard, April 19 was the only day the Second Amendment March people could get a permit from the National Park Service around tax day for the rally. Maybe next year they can get a permit for a better date.

[A-R]

Interesting video. Never heard of this book store before. Any of my Austin area neighbors been down there?

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Fangs]

Here's the address for "Brave New Books"

http://www.bravenewbookstore.com/

1904 Guadalupe Street
Suite B (Downstairs), Austin, TX 78705-5640
(512) 480-2503

I'll prolly swing by next time I'm in the area. Might be interesting.

[Joe Skeptical]

The frequent use (or misuse) of the word “militia” all over the media (radio, TV, newspapers, news websites etc) is a concern.

Do the users of this word mean the “militia” referred to in the US Constitution four times? I don’t think so. (Article 1 Section 8, Article 2 Section 2, First Amendment and Fifth Amendment)

A quick dictionary check gives a few definitions:

1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

I haven’t ever found a dictionary that defines a “militia” as anything other than a group of private citizens that come together for common defense and protection, such as above. There are other definitions, but y’all get the idea.
Opponents of firearms miss the most obvious point of the Second Amendment; if we as INDIVIDUALS cannot keep and bear arms for our INDIVIDUAL protection, then we as individual citizens cannot ever come together for collective, COMMON defense and protection. That’s what James Madison said so clearly; we must maintain the INDIVIDUAL right to have the COLLECTIVE ability. We can’t depend on a central authority to do it for us, lest they not do it, or do it TO us.
I am concerned the meaning of the word has been twisted all the way backwards, and it’s flipped around somewhat recklessly. A group of people making pipe bombs in Michigan is a “militia”?? (worse yet, it’s a “Christian” militia?) Doesn’t sound very Christian to me, and certainly not a group of people interested in common defense.
We’re on the road to perdition. If we get stuffed with a financial overhaul law, cap & tax on energy and immigration amnesty, I am CONVINCED we are going to see SIGNIFICANT attempts to nullify our Second Amendment rights – pronto, kimosabe!