Gunslingers coming to Greensboro

And once again, a reporter fails to mention Randy Dye's affiliation with the Tea Party movement:

Randy Dye, a co-organizer of the rally and author of the conservative blog “Randy’s Right,” said he has owned guns nearly all his 58 years. He has openly carried for three years.

Dye, a retired trauma nurse living in Pittsboro, advocates for gun rights and opposes what he considers the federal government’s encroachment of state and individual rights, citing the bank bailout and health care reform as recent examples. The rally’s purpose is to remind people of their right to have guns for self-defense and “to preserve individual freedom.”

Comments

It occurred to me the other day that ...

... the only noun in the 2nd amendment that can carry a gun is "militia". Strict constructionists (Scalia) please take note.
Also, a woman's right to privacy (abortion) and the right to own a gun are both protected freedoms. So why is it ok for states to limit abortion rights, put roadblocks and videos and physicians statements in the way of a woman's right to an abortion, yet the same politicians would make it ok for just about any nutjob to own a gun and wink-nudge at the gun show exemption. The corresponding abortion act would be to have traveling abortion clinics that could operate with impunity, ignoring state restrictions on abortion. Or how about making potential gun owners watch grisly videos of gun violence, accidents and statistics that show that a gun in the home is much more likely to be used on a family member or friend than on an intruder. Mississippi has one abortion clinic in the whole state; how about if they have one gun store just to make things even?
Could it be that guns are a male concern and that abortion is a female concern? Hhhmmmm....

I actively oppose gerrymandering. Do you?

Something just hit me

I hope I don't offend anyone as it is not my intent.

First, I am and VERY strong supporter of the right to bear arms both because it is in the Constitution and because it allows one to take responsibility for their own defense.

I'm a bit torn on the whole open carry issue. I like that it as well as concealed carry (with permit, training, videos, etc.) are legal. That said, I don't know if it is the best idea to have these rallies. It seems to make people uncomfortable and could possibly cause soem backlash. On the other hand, I wont' rule out the possiblity that the right kind of exposure to gun rights may make those unfamiliar with them MORE comfortable.

In thinking about all this, a possible parallel came to mind. Could these rallies in some ways be similar to gay pride parades? As opposed to "concealed carry," most participants are "out there" in their support and/or persuasion. They clearly make some people uncomfortable with their display/exercise of their rights. On the other hand, more exposure may lead to more tolerance and recognition of people's rights.

I strongly support gun rights and gay rights. Am I way off, or are there some strong similarities, both in execution and perception, between an "open carry" rally and a gay pride event? If I am right, perhaps this is an opportunity for some understanding between different parts of the traditional political spectrum.

That's an interesting take.

Except that there is a difference.
As part of the LGBT civil rights movement, gay pride parades and other awarenmess events are helping secure rights (such as the right to marry, domestic partner protections, etc.) that do not exist, or that don't exist every where.

On the other hand, gun owners have always had the right to own their guns. As we all know, it's in the Constitution. I don't think any serious person thinks that anyone is out to take away gun rights.

However, I think it's clear that LBGT individuals in many cases, and in most states, do not have all the same rights (right to marry, right to adopt a child, right to visit a partner in the hospital for example) as their straight counterparts.

Gun owners fear their rights will be taken away. (They won't be.) LGBT/Gay pride parades help bring equal rights to everyone.

Way different if you think about it.

Effectiveness

I agree, but then I don't know if having a bunch of people at a rally with guns on their hips is any more effective at advancing/protecting a cause than it is when one has a gay pride parade with a large number of participants wearing chaps, underwear, etc.(check google images for "gay pride parade" OR "open carry rally"). They are both exercises and declarations of something, but they are also also likely to further turn away those who were least tolerant or least educated about the issues.

You may be in a small minority with this:

I strongly support gun rights and gay rights.

If you held a public rally for people who believe (strongly) in both, one park bench would probably be enough to hold you.

One meaningful connection between guns and gays is the paranoia of conservatives. Thay have an (imo) unnatural fear of being "disarmed" by the government, and the irrational belief that allowing gays to marry would somehow be "an attack" on heterosexual marriage.

That's a shame

Neither the right to bear arms nor gay rights inherently infringe upon the rights of others. They should be equally protected and/or advanced. I have always been baffled by the Left's wide interpretation of all of the bill of rights except for the 2nd amendment.

I think the post on KOS from the other day, Why liberals should love the Second Amendment, argues things pretty well.

Pink Pistols

If you held a public rally for people who believe (strongly) in both, one park bench would probably be enough to hold you.

You might be surprised. I've heard of a group called Pink Pistols that is into just that. I don't know much about them, but here is a little info I found on their site & the wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_pistols

The Pink Pistols are a gay gun rights organization in the United States and Canada. Their mottos are "Pick on someone your own caliber" and "Armed gays don't get bashed." Inspired by a Salon.com article written by Jonathan Rauch,[1] Doug Krick, a libertarian activist from Massachusetts, founded the Pink Pistols in July 2000. The organization now has 60 Chapters in 33 states and three countries that are principally made up of gun-owning LGBT individuals, though neither status is mandatory for membership.

http://www.pinkpistols.org/index2.html

Looks like they have a couple of chapters in NC. A few pics from their site:

I don't know about those other Leftists,

but my interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is fairly broad. Meaning, the "militia" mentioned isn't confined to National Guard/Reserves, it applies to all law-abiding citizens. The militia might have been "trained up" into various levels of discipline, but if most of them hadn't brought their own rifles, we would have been screwed to the fencepost.

I also believe the government (Federal, state and local) has the authority and responsibility to determine what the parameters of "well-regulated" mean, in the society of today.

If the state believes convicted felons should not be allowed to purchase firearms, then that is a regulatory judgment. If the City of King decides private citizens taking their weapons outside their homes during a snowstorm is not in the public's best interest, then that is a regulatory judgment. If the will of the people determine those regulations are too harsh, the democratic process provides a route to change them.

Wide interpretation?

I have always been baffled by the Left's wide interpretation of all of the bill of rights except for the 2nd amendment.

And I have always been baffled by the Right's insistence on "strict construction" for all of the bill of rights except for the "well regulated militia" clause.

______________________________________________________________________

The measure of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little. - FDR

Relevance?

Just going back to the original post, why exactly does it matter that the article fails to mention Dye's Tea Party affiliation? Considering the article makes no mention of any particular political affiliation, how would a reference to Dye's affiliation be relevant?

Cheers,

The Black Sheep

Cheers,

The Black Sheep

He's not just affiliated

with the Tea Party, he's an active organizer and outspoken mouthpiece. Not pointing this out is not unlike doing an article on one of Reverend Barber's sermons and not mentioning he's the NC President of the NAACP.

It's an omission, and I think it has to do with the Tea Party's concern that they've been associated with racism and (potential) violent resistance to government. So they're trying to keep these two issues (anti-tax & guns) separate, and it looks (to me) like the mainstream media is helping them do such.

Affiliation vs. (Relevant) Identifying Characteristics

I understand your point, scharrison, and it's a valid one. But I still don't see that the omission was egregious or indicative that the mainstream media is now in cahoots with the Tea Party. Mind, I don't think it would have been wrong to include his status as a Tea Party supporter; I just don't see anything wrong with the omission either. I don't see the information as relevant to this article.

The reason I don't see it as relevant is because Dye's active affiliation with the Tea Party is not connected to this gun rally, nor does it seem to be his day job. Technically he's retired, but his fame (or notoriety, depending on your perspective) seems to be predicated upon his blog, Randy's Right. This would seem to be his defining feature in the political landscape. And the article identifies him by this feature, just as an article covering a sermon by Reverend Barber would correctly identify him by his most well-known identifying feature: as the NC President of the NAACP. I'm new to NC, so I honestly know nothing about Barber (or Dye for that matter). But say, for the sake of argument, that Barber gives a sermon on affirmative action. An article covering the sermon identifies him as the NC President of the NAACP and an active environmentalist. I wouldn't think the identification as an environmentalist would be wrong. Just irrelevant to the subject of the article.

Cheers,

The Black Sheep

Cheers,

The Black Sheep