Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc. (VCDL)

Virginia Citizens Defense League, Inc.
PO. Box 513, Newington, VA 22122 • 804-639-0600 • 703-372-3285 • 757-271-3705 • 540-446-5783

08/31/09 - VCDL President's editorial rebuttal in USA Today

Abbreviations used in VA-ALERT: http://www.vcdl.org/help/abbr.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I was given the opportunity to provide the opposing view to a USA Today editorial which says that no good can come from gun owners carrying at political events. The article is in today's edition. Thanks to Saundra Torry with USA Today for her professionalism shepherding me though the submission process. First link is the the USA Today position, followed by my opposing view: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/?loc=interstitialskip Our view on firearms and crowds: Guns at political events stir up a volatile brew There's something happening here =97 and nothing good can= come of it. When a man with a gun strapped to his leg showed up outside a presidential town hall meeting in Portsmouth, N.H., this month, and a dozen protesters =97 including one man with an AR-15 rifle slung over his shoulder =97 repeated the performance in Phoenix, shrill and overly = simplistic rhetoric ricocheted around the nation for days. Those on the left decried the incidents, many suggesting that anyone who would carry a gun to a presidential event must be nuts, potentially violent or both. Conservatives parried that this was nothing more than Second Amendment advocates asserting their rights to = self-protection. But a funny thing happened amid the all-too-predictable din. A couple of advocates =97 polar opposites in the gun debate =97 found a kernel of = common ground that holds a ton of common sense. Their bottom line: Carrying guns openly outside presidential events may be legal in many states, but it sure isn't smart. Press both advocates and their reasoning gets very different, very fast. Alan Gottlieb, of the Second Amendment Foundation, argues that openly carrying a gun in this situation is politically foolish. It intimidates people and turns them off to the gun-rights cause. Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, argues that loaded firearms in such situations stifle debate and endanger everyone involved. [PVC: I'll bet Alan is a bit unconformable being on the same side as Paul.] The fact is, all are solid reasons to leave guns at home when going to = presidential venues, or political events of any kind. And on websites and Internet discussion groups, many gun owners made that point. For starters, the mood at some of this summer's health care town hall meetings has been disturbing enough without the addition of weapons. Some have degenerated into furious shouting matches. Opponents of reform have whipped up anger. A few protesters outside have carried signs likening President Obama to Hitler. No good can come from adding = weapons to the mix. [PVC: If you are about to be murdered by some lunatic-gone-berserk at a political event, no good can come from trying to save your own life?] For every reason that gun advocates proffer for why they want to carry = firearms, there's a wiser alternative. [PVC: If someone is trying to = kill you, I would love to see what the "better alternative" to self- defense might be!] Want to protest? Carry a sign or get a bumper sticker. Your cause is a = lot more likely to win adherents. Worried that violence might break out? That's unlikely, given that police and Secret Service are all over the place. If it did, would shooting a gun in a crowd really be the best remedy? Or is some innocent person more likely to get killed that way? [PVC: What?! I would only shoot if I was about to be murdered. How can I possibly have a "better" remedy in a life or death encounter like that? An innocent person IS about to be murdered - ME!] And there's this. In the week that Sen. Edward Kennedy was laid to rest =97 the only Kennedy brother to die of natural causes =97 it's tough= to argue that bringing a gun to political events is just a benign act of protest. It's playing with fire in a nation where so many political = figures have been killed or maimed by bullets. [PVC: So my life is now worthless because of some assassinations back in the 1960s? No, I = refuse to give up my rights.] The Secret Service says none of the incidents endangered Obama. If necessary, the Secret Service can expand the safety perimeter around the president, regardless of state law. But why tempt fate? The surest way to curb this dangerous trend is for gun owners to do it = themselves. For years, they and their advocacy groups have argued that = gun owners are responsible with their weapons, that they're owned for sport and self-defense. Neither is reason to bring guns to a political protest. The best way for gun owners to make their case is to leave the heat at home. Open carry These 11 states have the nation's most expansive "open-carry" laws, allowing anyone who can legally own a gun to openly carry it virtually = anywhere: -- Alaska -- Arizona -- Idaho -- Kentucky -- Montana -- New Mexico -- Nevada -- South Dakota -- Vermont -- Virginia -- Wyoming Source: Second Amendment Foundation -- Opposing view: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/08/opposing-view-guns-prevent-confronta= tions.html#more Opposing view: Guns prevent confrontations We have the right to self- defense anywhere our lives are at risk.By Philip Van Cleave Logic 101 teaches that if you start with a false premise you can prove = anything. The assumption that no good can come from someone carrying a = gun lawfully at a political event is a classic example of such a false = premise. Our lives are no less valuable at political events than they are while = we are shopping, jogging or watching television at home. Yet I'm being = told that while I can defend myself at home or at the grocery store, if I cross a line and go to a political event and someone gets violent, I can't defend myself by carrying a gun. That makes no sense. = We have the right to defend ourselves anywhere our lives could be threatened. As for the arguments of gun critics, they don't hold up: "Who needs a gun at a political event with all the police around?" A video of a gun owner and others being confronted by a large, muscular man outside the presidential town hall meeting in Portsmouth, N.H., makes the point nicely. At one point, the man spits at someone holding = a camera. Someone yells for help from police, but by the time an officer responds, the large man is leaving the scene. Indeed, crime can happen anywhere, at any time, even with the police a short distance off. If someone had pulled out a knife and started stabbing people, it seems clear that police would have arrived too late. Often when a crime occurs, you have only seconds to respond. No time to call 911, or to wait for the police to arrive as you scream for your life. At the Portsmouth event, the gun was not brandished or even = touched. The president was never in danger, and neither was anyone in the crowd. But I believe the large man moved on because of the power of a firearm to stave off confrontations. "Political events can be too emotionally charged to have people carrying guns." If I am carrying a gun at a place so dangerous that somebody might start killing people over politics or another reason, then I absolutely want to be armed to protect myself. Police don't get = special training on carrying guns in emotionally charged atmospheres. I know; I was a deputy sheriff for six years. The muscular man in New Hampshire, pushing emotions to the limit, did not get shot. That's because gun owners, like police, know that a gun is to be used only in the gravest circumstances. Philip Van Cleave is president of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, a non-partisan advocacy group for gun owners' rights. ------------------------------------------- ***************************************************************************