Russ Stewart a former Duluth city councilor and gun owner says the new law is needed to give people adequate right to self defense.Be sure and watch the video, as the narrative is a bit sloppy (misspelling "conscience," etc.), and yeah, I got the "give" part...
This is a follow-up to this and this, and I want to use it as an object lesson on how you, as an individual, can affect information the public sees and hears on RKBA--all by your own self, without any direction from anybody else.
When you see something grossly unfair in the media, take the time to contact them, challenge them on it, appeal to their sense of journalistic ethics and professional pride, give them correct information and press for a follow-up with their audience. We're always complaining we don't get equal time and reports are biased, but very few of us take personal action to fight back, or to do so effectively.
Here's a case where all Minnesotans would have seen on this is the "gun control" side unless someone took the time to do this. In this case, it happened to be me, and I was fortunate that Mr. Stewart then stepped up to the plate.
I'd also been in contact with Joel Rosenberg, one of the most knowledgeable authorities on Minnesota gun laws this side of Joseph Olson (who I'm told is up to his neck in things, because I tried tapping him, too) and the reporter spoke with Mr. Rosenberg at length, so we'll see if anything results from that interview. I suspect because it was over the phone she used it for background and to understand the issues, then opted for the guy who could give her face time with a camera.
My point is, every gun owner ought to be acting as a leader, and ought to be banding with his friends as force multipliers. Take it on yourself to take the intiative and challenge your local media when you see something that isn't right. Because if you're going to wait for some guy in a different state to get the ball rolling, it rarely will.
Good job, Russ. I know you had a lot more to say that was edited, and your time was limited by the format, but you not only made an important counterpoint to the original report, both you and Joel have established the credibility with these people to communicate with them on future stories. Both the reporter and her news manager now have a new awareness that this issue requires balance, and they now know where to get it. Plus, it's coming from local citizens, not from a funded lobby group that can be dismissed as a special interest.
Thank you both for speaking out on this. We all benefited from it.
2 comments:
The funny thing about that "give" comment is that the reporter and I talked extensively about the right, or as I described it, "fundamental liberty" to self defense. Of course I tried to convey to her the idea that defending ones' self is a basic right, an all the government can do is impede it to greater or lesser degrees. Of course none of that got into the interview. Apparently she sort of missed the point entirely.
I've started using the word "liberty" instead of "right" because people today seem completely confused about rights vs. entitlements. Like entitlements, they think rights are "given," as in the "right to healthcare." So I use the term liberty as often as I can in the hopes that people will understand that liberty can't be given, only taken away.
On the bright side, the reporter seemed genuinely interested in the issue, had attempted to get up to speed on our side, and in the future will do a better job.
And I guess that's progress. Thanks, David, for you continued good work!
Yup, to all of the above. And thanks.
More generally, when talking to reporters about HF 498 or most of the other stuff I'm involved in, I try to emphasize that this isn't about guns; it's about civil rights -- self-defense, in most cases; the right to be free from unreasonable and excessive government intrusion in others. If HF 498 and its companion bill in the Senate become law -- and they will, whether it's this year or a later session -- it won't change anything about who can own or carry or shoot a gun. It'll just protect some folks who, while going innocently about with their lives, would otherwise be subject to the whims of politically motivated prosecutors.
Sounds like a win to me.
jr
Post a Comment