There's been a lot of comparisons of the OC movement to the Civil Rights or GLBT movements.
Trouble is, those movements were (are) fighting against existing law. The OC movement - specifically those carrying longarms - are within the law but angling for wider acceptance. There's a difference. That's why some have been calling for a more civil tone. Nothing more. If you're not breaking the law, then you're making a point - and there is nothing wrong with that. Just be polite while you're making it. That's all we're saying. Not that you shouldn't make the point, just that you should act as an ambassador for the OC movement.
If you're going to insist on the "OC'ers are the new Rosa Parks", then you have to break an unjust law to complete the analogy. Open carrying where it's legal but rare is raising awareness - to fight the unjust law, it needs to be done somewhere OC is illegal, like Chicago or Texas. Start open carrying there to protest the law if you're going to be using the Civil Rights analogy.
Otherwise, drop the "we're the Rosa Parks of the gun rights movement" argument, because it doesn't fit.
That is all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
23 comments:
Ummm... Hello? Did they pass OC here in Florida while I was asleep?
Sorry, TX came to mind first so I could annoy Alan...
Your heavy sigh just doesn't cut it Robb, sorry...
The comparison falls apart where OCers are still being hassled, detained and arrested all over the country despite the laws being on their side.
The civil rights analogy works more than it doesn't work.
Rich,
I can't address those stories, as I'm not familiar with them. In a general sense, though, if someone is arrested for open-carrying in a location where it's legal, it would seem to me to be an excellent place to levy a wrnogful arrest lawsuit and let the lawyers have a field day...
I've seen the Civil Rights analogy used in the MI Library case where the library is attempting to enforce, shall we say, "extra-legal" measures, claiming that OC is prohibited when it is not. That's not quite the same as coloreds being required by law to sit in the back of the bus or drink from separate fountains...
Doesn't mean it's not BS, don't get me wrong, it's just not the same.
Jay,
I disagree. Having security follow people around simply because they are carrying a firearm or have been known to carry a firearm in the past is very much the same way a black person might have been treated in Alabama.
Sure, things ranged much worse for those that were discriminated against, but then again, many had no issues at all.
BTW, with all due respect, saying that "Oh that is wrongful arrest and will net you a nice lawsuit" feels a bit ignorant to me since I am going through it (although I admit I was just as ignorant to the idea at first as well).
Do you have any idea how much money and work it takes to accomplish this?
Do you know how much pressure and stress a wrongful arrest can put on a relationship, family and friends?
It is not so simple at all, and I have a lot of respect for the people in every state that are fighting back by just being law abiding.
Oh, the thought of lumping Chicago and Texas together for their similar gun laws makes me physically ill. Needless to say, I'm hoping OC comes up during this legislative session here.
tweaker
My roommate is black and a liberal. Let me just state for the record that while race-based comparisons CAN be apt in these discussions one should either steer clear of them or tread lightly.
We often have political and/or gun discussions and you'd be shocked how fast the wall went up when I used a MLK quote in support of gun rights.
Always be mindful of how others, particularly those with different backgrounds will perceive the argument your making. This applies just as well to Open Carry. If you're doing it for activism, be mindful of the role perception plays and of the perceptions that many non-gunnies have.
Bingo!
+5 Insightful, right there. Well done, Jay.
Amen
RichB question were you ignorant of the law you broke or where you just making a statement; as, you made statements on other sites suggesting to other that is what we need to do to fight back.
You lose sympathy points with me if you were just making a point.
Josh
Josh,
Exactly what laws are you accusing me of breaking?
The bad news: There is no "open carry" allowed in Texas (unfortunately) but we are a "shall issue" CHL state with over 1/2 million CHL licenses. The only time open carry is allowed is during the various hunting seasons.
The Good News: There are no restrictions to firearm ownership in Texas. No waiting period, etc. and citizens are always allowed to have a concealed handgun in their vehicle (without a CHL) and can have any long gun in their vehicle loaded and ready.
Jeff,
But certainly you would never have a shotgun in a car loaded and ready, right?
After all, they are not defensive weapons, they are scary offensive weapons!
I have a feeling those who compare OC to Civil Rights or GLBT movements are neither Black nor of an alternative sexual preference...and that really, really irks me.
I honestly don't know the answer to this question: has a person ever been raped, tortured, murdered, or mutilated for owning a firearm? I believe the answer is no, but again, I don't know this for a fact. In any case, until this happens, the OC movement is at a different level from the other two. Owning a gun is a choice, while one cannot change the color of their skin NOR can they just change their sexual preferences. Comparing them is like apples and oranges; sure, you're fighting for your rights (and I will never say this is a wrong or bad thing), but it's just not the same.
Unfortunately, I know that none of those people will see this comment...and more's the pity for it.
Faln,
People have definitely been raped, tortured, murdered and mutilated for NOT owning a weapon.
Slaves - in ancient Rome and Egypt, in the US South, and current day (human trafficking in the US and over seas) were/are forbidden from having weapons. They and their quarters are searched, and they are punished (death, beatings, torture, starvation).
A quick internet search for 'prostitute' and 'in her words' will bring up multiple stories from escaped slaves, and how they were treated by their pimps.
RichB - "BTW, with all due respect, saying that "Oh that is wrongful arrest and will net you a nice lawsuit" feels a bit ignorant to me since I am going through it (although I admit I was just as ignorant to the idea at first as well)."
The "since I am going through it" to me implies that you are going through or dealing with a legal issue.
So I was just wondering. This smacked of an emotional plea to garner suport for your arguement.
I have said the before if a state or the fed pass a law it is the law of the land until one of two things happen.
The legislators change the law to better reflect the constitutions (The U.S. & State) or the court system strikes it down as unlawful. You a a citizen do not get to choose which laws you will follow or not.
Josh
@dusty - Very true. but firearms owners have not, correct?
In any case, it's a sticky issue...but comparing themselves to people who've fought for rights simply due to their skin tone or sexual proclivities really doesn't fit at all. You can opt to own a gun or not. You cannot opt to change your skin color or your sexual proclivities.
You can opt to own a gun or not. You can opt to go back to Africa if your are black, or opt to go to Denmark if you are gay. See how silly that seems, when other rights issues are addressed?
You can opt to allow yourself to be beaten to death by an ex-boyfriend with issuues, or raped by some guy who asked you out on a date, or you can try to exercise your inherent right to self defense.
The point is, if one was black in 1960 Alabama, exercising one's inherent individual rights was a problem. And in 2011 in New Jersey, New York, California, Illinois, etc., if one is interested in exercising one's inherent human right to self defense, it is a problem.
The parallel between cases is not the level of suffering or the manner of oppression or the nature of the right exercised, the parallel between these examples is that prior groups had problems exercising their rights then, and we gun owners have problems exercising our rights today.
Josh,
I have no idea what you are talking about. Sounds like you are just making things up now.
I am a law abiding citizen. Always have been, always plan to be.
Jay, just because something is lawful doesn't mean people don't get harassed for doing in in different situations. Remember the VCDL incident in Manassas a few years ago?
That's not the only incident of cops harassing law abiding citizens. The Georgia Oconee County Sheriff's office policy, is, where Open carry is unusual but lawful, a decided rarity.
Too many cops think, "That guy has a gun, that's grounds for a Tier II encounter". It's not. US v Ubiles is VERY clear on that point.
When something is lawful and police violate your 4th and 5th amendment rights because they don't like the behavior, it's precisely like what Rosa Parks dealt with.
Violation of rights under color of law is violation of rights under color of law.
PERIOD.
For an example of being murdered because you are a gun owner do a little research into Ruby Ridge and Waco then get back to me.
How many people have ended up face down on the pavement because they were legally carrying a firearm?
What if the discrimination was because you were in a interracial marriage? Would you tell them, "I don't see what the problem is. You chose to be married. You could chose to not be married."?
I agree the degree of the discrimination against gun owners is not equal to the peak of the discrimination against blacks or gays. But I think the comparison is a lot better than most people think it is at first thought.
The quotes of yours I pulled are from your post at February 17, 2011 2:38 PM. So I'm not make anything up. I was asking for a clarification and stating an opinion the first post, and the second post I was post the quotes from 2:38 PM.
Needing some clarity,
Josh
Oops that last post of mine was @ RichB.
@Josh:
I am a law abiding citizen and I do not promote the breaking of laws. Nothing you are going to quote will prove anything different.
Post a Comment