I love the verbiage at the end of this post at Sebastian’s; and I agree that a lot of the time some of the rhetoric that you see in the blog community can have the effect of making us look bad. I’ve stated my opinion several times about how I feel about extremist positions in the Pro-2A community. While I understand where they’re coming from, and usually agree with the sentiment, I often find myself disagreeing with the execution of the actions.
For example, Sebastian agrees with David Cordea (as do I) that more transparency in the government would be a good thing. However, Sebastian doesn’t think that David’s idea of anti-ATF Minutemen is such a great idea; and for the record neither do I.
Now, I’m not trying to pick squares with David – I like War on Guns and I think he is a great blogger that’s doing a good thing. So, I don’t want this to be perceived as a personal attack. My problem with some of the more “extreme” 2A advocates is that they place everyone in the country into one of two categories: “With us” or “Against us”. I think that kind of black and white distinction does a lot of damage to the pro-gun movement, actually.
The “us vs. them” attitude of Pro-2A advocacy shows a lack of strategic thinking to me. By taking the hard line position, you unintentionally force people that might be sympathetic to your cause to the other side. We may deride the Fudds and the Suzy Soccermoms, but those are the exact people that we need to embrace and educate.
I want a culture of self-defense, a culture where firearms aren’t stigmatized as evil, a country where I could freely and openly carry a firearm where ever I please. But if we alienate the moderates, the people who don’t mind a revolver for home defense, or a rifle for hunting, we are going to loose. I still believe that the key to preserving our rights as firearms owners lies in educating, not shocking, the Fudds and the Soccermoms.