The patrons at Champps, an upscale restaurant and bar chain, were eating ribs and drinking beer on a recent Saturday when customer Bruce Jackson stood up and made an announcement: He was armed, and so were dozens of other patrons.See, this isn't something I would do. I just don't think it helps, it probably scared some, and I also don't think using someone else's property as a public forum for advancing your agenda is appropriate.
By the same token, we've seen what happens when gun owners try to mind their own business.
Still, I think the best path to normalization is just acting normal.
[Via Jeffersonian]
4 comments:
Please see this post.
OK, I saw it.
I think the idea of an open carry protest dinner is fine. If the restaurant manager supported it, a sign outside the door announcing it was going on would have been a courteous and fear-allaying thing to do. The sign could even be inviting, and a draw for the curious: Welcome to Armed Saturday: Come on in and dine with friendly gun owners!
Based on the facts as presented in the story I linked to, if I was in a restaurant and saw armed citizens acting normally, I'd not bat an eye--although I might be inclined to go up and introduce myself. But if I was eating dinner and a stranger stood up and anounced he and others were armed, that would strike me as something outside the normal range of expectation and put me on alert that I might need to take action. And if it was someone not immersed in RKBA, it could be downright scary. I don't see that as enhancing safety or goodwill.
Again, just to be clear--the issue of carrying is something I applaud and welcome. Standing up and announcing it to the uninitiated is not something I would do or recommend.
Now if it was done differently, like I said, with a door sign--and if the initial announcement was to welcome members to a protest dinner and then explain to patrons why they might be seeing armed diners among them, that would be another matter to consider--obviously, "Authorized Journalists" notwithstanding, bloggers must rely to a degree on news accounts being somewhat approximating of reality. Your link gives us background we didn't have before, but I don't see where it alters the essence I was commenting on.
Fair?
Your point is, of course, fair. I just want folks to be aware of the whole story rather than just the elements presented in the newspapers.
Thanks, David.
David, I agree that perhaps this was not the most condiderate thing to do. However, without the announcement, those very people who didn't notice would not have been reached, would not have realized the experience of dining with gun bearers is no more dangerous than not, and would never have the mental opportunity to possibly reflect on just how much safer they may have actually been.
And since they didn't notice and it wouldn't have been brought to their attention they most probably would still support the next anti-gun politician and his agenda. With no basis for comparison between what the gungrabbers claim we do and what we actually do we remain subject to their ignorance of the truth.
Posting signs would have been very courteous, but would have been self defeating, because those very people we would be trying to influence would simply not enter and therefore once again been denied a dose of reality, making them still useful tools of the manipulators.
I am, at present, not advocating for either side of this, because there is merit on both sides, and they are competing merits. On the one hand do we comport ourselves in a manner that displays courtesy and sub rosa exercise of our rights and lose the chance to influence others.
Or do we publicly garner recognition for our argument that we are not to be feared, despite the falsifications of our detractors at the expense of the courtesy and consideration for others.
I tend to lean toward being slightly rude, but am not fully sure I would do the same. I am a big believer in courtesy and consideration. On the flip side, I am also a big believer in not being reactive,only. Sometimes we must initiate action, not just show up late and react.
If the above seems a muddle, that is because it is. I applaud those who did this, but I don't know if I would have approved of it prior.
How's that for wishy-washy? I will think on it more, though, you can be assured. And I will come down on one side or the other.
The problem is your points are valid and so are the points raised by the VCDL.
Post a Comment