The very serious, not-at-all-racist Open Carry Texas SXSW “demonstration” got a certain amount of discussion in the comments today. It’s barely news, but it does have some inadvertent entertainment value. Here is Sam Biddle, at Gawker, “The Armed Open Carry Zealots Roaming SXSW Don’t Care If They Make You Uncomfortable”:
This year’s annual “South By Southwest” conference of upper-middle tier social media managers and brand ambassadors will be interesting for two reasons: Barack Obama will be there to get out of going to Nancy Reagan’s funeral, and there will simultaneously be a lot of men with handguns.
Open Carry Texas is a group whose mission is as simple as its name. They believe that as many people as possible should own and carry loaded weapons. One of the larger, non-legislative obstacles to this ideal is the fact that many Americans have the deeply rational stance that guns are dangerous, in that they make it very easy to murder someone and also pose a great risk of accidentally murdering someone. According to OCT, people only believe that because most people are not around guns very often—and if you force people to be exposed to guns, they’ll gradually lose their natural fear.
This plan was complicated when a member of OCT’s 28,000-strong closed Facebook group posted a threat against Obama…
Reached by phone, [OTC group leader C.J.] Grisham* downplayed both Kriss Elliott’s comments and his own, saying that the former was probably an outsider “plant” placed by anti-gun activists, and that his own “this may get interesting” remark referred to nothing more than Obama-induced traffic jams in Austin…
He was also quick to point out that this will be the third year OCT attends SXSW—so why the fuss now? This year is the first since Texas legalized the open carry of handguns, sure. But the piqued national interest is probably because, no matter the reasoning, a group of (largely if not entirely white) armed men who despise Obama showing up to a place Obama is visiting is generally Not A Good Look…
You can read the whole story at the link, but mostly I wanted to highlight the very first comment:
As a San Franciscan, this feels a lot like when we have the Folsom Street Fair and a bunch of older white guys are walking around with their junk hanging out.
Whip ’em out, fellers! Show us whacha got!
wmd
While on the subject of firearms – this study is interesting.
scav
@efgoldman: Oh, Go on, just wallow in it.
Anne Laurie
@efgoldman: I quite like silly old men, when they’re not being deliberately unpleasant to other people — after all, I’m married to one!
Steve from Antioch
@wmd: I believe the microstamping reduction presupposes getting rid of the 300 million firearms in circulation in the US first and replacing them with microstamped firearms.
Steve from Antioch
My favorite part of the Gawker story titled “The Armed Open Carry Zealots Roaming SXSW” is the part where they note that the Open Carry people are not actually roaming SXSW since that is against the rules.
Typical quality work from Gawker.
wmd
@Steve from Antioch:
That’s a non starter then.
Anne Laurie
@efgoldman: See, that’s because you brought your lovely wife along to vouch for you. :)
And you’ve met my Spousal Unit, so…
Amir Khalid
If I understand these Open Carry Texas people right, they’re actually hoping to intimidate people at SXSW including POTUS. As I understand, SXSW is a private gathering, since you need tickets to get in. Do the SXSW organisers actually have no power to forbid them from bringing in guns?
Oregon Rose
Don’t forget there are plenty of us silly old ladies too!
PurpleGirl
I’ve owned a rifle. I was not comfortable carrying it to the range I joined — I was asked by several people on the subway what was in the case I had. (The case was long, thin and not too deep.) After a few years and when my friends moved to Florida, I ended up putting it in the NYCPD’s program to hold guns and I never reclaimed it. I would not be comfortable carrying it (or a handgun) in the open. It would/could generate too much interest from strangers.
ETA: I’d gotten the rifle from friends as a present because I’d begun target shooting with them in Westchester County, at a county-owned range.
Anne Laurie
@Amir Khalid:
They do, and they did (as they did for the previous two OCT protests during SXSW). Biddle does cover the irony in his report, but fair use, and all that — I want to give you guys some reason to click over!
Anne Laurie
@Oregon Rose: True, but even if I *had* a handgun, I wouldn’t go waving it around in front of strangers, ifyouknowwhatimean.
Marc
@PurpleGirl: Ever since I left my previous job, I haven’t carried my gun. Haven’t been to the range for over a year, and I feel I’d have to burn a lot of ammo to get back to where I was at. Since the fetishists have driven up the price of bullets, it isn’t worth it to me to shot anymore – I don’t have a requirement to carry and be proficient, so I’m not. My gun is properly secured and stored, so that puts me a step or three ahead of the 2nd amendment worshipers.
Fred Fnord
Yeah, but the guys at the Folsom Street Fair can only make you uncomfortable.
Nate Dawg
Hillary Clinton has issued a longer, more thoughtful response:
medium.com/@HillaryClinton/on-the-fight-against-hiv-and-aids-and-on-the-people-who-really-started-th…
This is much better, and necessary.
The outrage I saw coming from gay Hillary backers–bundlers, former politican’s, political operatives–was swift and strong. Few gay voices rose up to defend the statement. That’s how bad it was.
I guess the biggest issue is–why on earth did she say this? For what reason?
I trust her apology, or rather, I trust that the LGBT lobby is strong enough and allied enough to bring her to heel.
But I just can’t fathom what possessed her to say that in the first place.
mdblanche
Somebody just stole an hour from me and I want it back.
Redshift
I posted a petition to oppose proposed legislation in VA to block colleges from prohibiting concealed weapons, and got this in response:
Yeah, not gonna touch that. From an account titled “#FreedomHarder”, which is so far into self-parody that if Poe’s Law didn’t already exist, it would have to be invented to describe it.
PurpleGirl
Hoping people realize that this overnight was when to turn your clocks forward.
The water main behind my building apparently broke late last night and we have no water. I just went out to the elevator lobby to see if there was a sign about it. I’d planned to take the elevator down to the lobby but they had a sign on the elevator door. Arrgh. Repairs to start in the morning.
ETA: Since my sleep cycle is topsy-turvy right now I’m wide awake but can’t wash dinner dishes and stuff. I guess I should forget about laundry later this morning.
Luthe
@Nate Dawg: From the way she’s apologized and reacted, I think she had a completely normal human moment and made a mistake. She could have been tired or overwhelmed or just remembered incorrectly. It was a statement corrected very quickly and with an unqualified apology, unlike what you would get from almost any other politician.
Sometimes people say dumb things by accident. The important bit is that she apologized.
seaboogie
You know what makes me feel powerful and free? NOT carrying a gun. Not even owning a gun. Being a post-menopausal woman is also profoundly liberating. Claiming my voice, finally. Go ahead and shoot me while I speak my piece. I still win, because fear doesn’t own me.
And I say this with full understanding of the irony that I have major anxiety issues – how my brain and body works until I manage to resolve that. Driving on a multi-lane highway sends me into full-on panic mode, even though I’ve done it successfully hundreds of times. Don’t even get me started on bridges, and I live in the SF Bay area.
FlipYrWhig
@Luthe: “National conversation” is a fluffy phrase under the best of circumstances but here what Hillary was trying to say was that the Reagans via friendship with Rock Hudson ended up bringing some additional attention to HIV/AIDS _in the straight world_. “National conversation” here means “mainstream.” I said this to Nate repeatedly in the other thread and yet he still wants to act like the whole thing is just incomprehensible.
BillinGlendaleCA
@mdblanche: Wait for fall.
Darkrose
@Nate Dawg: It sounded to me like she was trying to say something nice about Nancy Reagan on the “don’t speak ill of the dead” thing, and she conflated the rumor that Nancy pushed Ronnie on AIDS with the fact that Nancy was an advocate for Alzheimer’s research, including the use of stem cells.
People say stupid shit sometimes. Hell, even Obama’s scored the occasional own goal–remember when he called the female reporter “Sweetie?” It’s how someone respond to being called on it that really shows who they are. I thought Hillary responded to this appropriately: Not “I’m sorry if anyone was offended”, just “I made a mistake, and I’m sorry.”
Nate Dawg
@FlipYrWhig: Yes, you are the arbiter of what was meant and what wasn’t. All the gay activists upset over this need to bow to your superior wisdom.
Now tell me exactly where that means what you say it means.
Reagan was the singular force behind KEEPING the country from having a national conversation. He literally didn’t utter the word AIDS until 1986, I believe. There’s a tally of the days on the web, you can find it yourself, I trust.
To say “Because of President Reagan….we started a national conversation on AIDS.” is akin to saying “Because of Jefferson Davis….we started a national conversation about the abolition of slavery.”
President Reagan, his administration, his press secretary refused to address the crisis. The press secretary mocked sufferers NUMEROUS times, and did President Reagan himself (famous Ghadaffi quote).
Even Hillary admits what she said was wrong, and a mistake. You can’t even do that.
Please proceed to make a fool of yourself, but she stepped in it, and we aren’t going to be “straight-splained” so, as I regretfully didn’t tell you numerous times in the other thread–go fuck yourself.
Thanks.
Nate Dawg
@Darkrose: What rumor? Nancy didn’t lift a finger to get Rock Hudson treatment. She refused his request.
The fact that Hillary Fucking Clinton has Democratic rank and file defending the Reagan’s response to AIDS, of all things, is *exactly* why I hoped we had finally dispatched her in 2008.
Perhaps that stroke went too far. Perhaps it didn’t go far enough.
*drops mic*
I’m out.
Darkrose
The comparison annoyed me. I’ve been to the Folsom Street Fair. There are tons of tourists there to gawk at the freaks, some older white men wandering around with their dicks hanging out, and a few extremely attractive people in sexy clothing, And with the exception of the occasional tourist who doesn’t get that wearing skimpy clothes does not equal consent to be touched, I’ve never felt like anyone there was a threat to my safety or well-being. I felt a lot safer around the people doing the flogging and pony play demos that I’d ever feel around a bunch of assholes who think that it’s okay to wander around a massive crowd with loaded killing tools.
Peale
@FlipYrWhig: since what she said was unforgivable and the most politically insensitive utterance against LGBT activists in generations, m sure we’re not finished. I’m not certain it’s going to be possible for her to apologize enough when the insulted start from the position of “unforgivable”. Maybe a duel? Is that too old school?
Darkrose
@Nate Dawg:
That’s why I said “rumor”, as in, something that was said that wasn’t, in fact, true.
Who’s defending the Reagans? I’m pretty sure I noted that Hillary made a mistake and said something stupid.
What the actual fuck?
Nate Dawg
@Peale: It’s certainly not unforgivable.
Hell, everyone here forgave her for basically wishing Obama would get assassinated in 2008.
I’m sure people around here will soon forget it. Now if she starts praising Dubya’s leadership on Social Security . . . well, this crowd might actually start to care.
Peale
@Nate Dawg: since your side seems inacaple of believing that she could ever be sincere, it is very doubtful that she’ll ever be satisfactorily “brought to heel”. She’s clearly out of control!
Yeah. You got us. We’re old and we’re gonna get social security and can’t wait to pull up the ladder. But you’ve got that whole life ahead of you. If you want to spend it eating that toxic stew you’re cooking, go right ahead.
ruemara
@seaboogie: You too? Then again, anxiety about driving in the Bay area makes perfect sense.
Viva BisVegas
@Nate Dawg:
Clinton misremembering the 80s is the only thing that brought into public discussion the fact that the Reagans crapped all over the LGBT community. Otherwise Saint Nancy would have gone to her grave with only the singing of her praises.
So while it was stupid, it also had a silver lining.
Adam L Silverman
@wmd: and the technology doesn’t exist. This gets brought up because it’s in California’s state code, but there is no current way to produce firearms that leave a unique stamp on either the casing or the bullet. This might be possible in a custom one off, but that’s it.
Mai.naem.mobile
@Nate Dawg: I don’t even like the Clinton’s but,seriously,if this is what you’re bothered about,just sit out the election. She fucked up and tried to say something nice about a 94 year old woman who had died who had been in an administration 30 years ago. No,let’s not talk about Scalia, the ACA, Syria and Climate Change. Let’s talk about Nancy Reagan because,you know, the GOP is going to talk about how the Reagan’s ignored AIDS.
NotMax
Willing to accept the old and the man.
Still aspiring to silly.
@PurpleGirl
Washing dishes is highly overrated anyway. Still, would be willing to wash a neighborhood’s worth of dishes as opposed to washing so much as a single window.
NotMax
@Darkrose
Don’t care to learn any more.
YMMV.
goblue72
@Mai.naem.mobile: Please just stop. While I think Clinton can be forgiven for her fuck-up – since she seems to have recognized how badly she fucked up – the idea that what the Reagan’s did is “ancient history” is bullshit.
I hope Nancy Reagan packed her warm weather clothes. Because I am sure she is joining that demented corpse of a husband in Hell right now.
There’s a fucking reason that Cleve Jones was inspired to conceive the AIDS Quilt – and it was because a LOT of good people died for the cardinal sin of loving someone of the same gender and they were treated like lepers in the process. Including by the President of United States and his skank of a wife.
And Clinton indeed did fuck up – because she certainly is WELL old enough to remember all that. And while her fuck up isn’t unforgivable – at same time, far too many seem compelled to rush to let her off the hook as fast as possible.
Heaven forbid she should have to spend a 24 news cycle or two having to wear her shameface.
PurpleGirl
@NotMax:
Washing dishes is highly overrated anyway. Still, would be willing to wash a neighborhood’s worth of dishes as opposed to washing so much as a single window.
That’s why I haven’t washed my windows in the almost 16 years in this apartment. At some future time I will call a cleaning service to do certain things like the windows.
Matt McIrvin
@mdblanche: The hour is in escrow until the fall.
Keith G
@FlipYrWhig: No, that was jaw-droppingly incomprehensible.
Allow me to (mostly) back Nate up on initial emotional impact of this. In the seventies and eighties I was a gay political rights activist. Now I volunteer for a non-profit AIDS hospice and do other work to help support the cause as an AIDS patient myself. My peer group was entirely, “What the fuck is she saying” about this.
Where I differ from Nate, is that this wasn’t an intentional slight. This was as Dark Rose points out probably a result of trying to reach out to Nancy fanciers being the centrists that she is. And as the saying goes the attempt was too cute by half. Thusly, she fell flat on her face.
Maybe this is not unlike her regrettable, “We left the White House broke” comment. For better or for worse, she is an elitist and that is the paradigm through which her mind functions.
That gets her into trouble.
bystander
@Nate Dawg: Clinton misremembered and I think it’s sort of a tribute to her that she tried to ascribe actual good deeds to a selfish couple of hypocrites. Many people refuse to believe what the Reagans’ collective silence and inaction about AIDS signified about the country and most assuredly about those two. Maybe Clinton is one of those people who cannot believe that you could have the power of the WH behind you and not have done something. As we all know, it was not until her husband was in the WH that the reality of AIDS was finally confronted in a meaningful way by our government.
On HuffPo there was some poutrage about Clinton’s mistake by some guy who was 11 at the time AIDS deaths were raging. Puhllllease.
FlipYrWhig
@Nate Dawg: You are just a piece of shit, aren’t you? I didn’t defend anything about Reagan and AIDS. I explained why someone WELL INTENTIONED could say something about Reagan and AIDS, and not be referring to the beginnings of the crisis but to something that was, yes, rumored and at best symbolic in about 1987. Meanwhile, I remember when the Obama DOJ wrote a memo on marriage rights that equated the status of same sex marriage to the status of cousin marriage and underage marriage. Jon Aravosis said this was comparing homosexuality to pedophilia and inçest. It was a huge to-do in the liberal and gay blogosphere. You appear not to even remember it because you held up Obama as having been mistake free on LGBT issues while complaining that Hillary was stuck in the 1990s. So I’m not going to treat you as someone who knows what the fuck he’s talking about when it comes to what’s UNFORGIVABLE.
bystander
@Mai.naem.mobile: Exactly.
The Clintons were the first couple in the WH to openly welcome gay people, to start the process of eliminating occupational discrimination against lesbians and gays, and IIRC the first couple to talk about AIDS, including how their lives had been touched with loss as well. Trying to negate that over this stupid misstatement is absurd.
Steeplejack
@mdblanche:
We’ll make it up to you, but it might take a while. Check back in, say, November. That should give us enough time to fix it.
Kay
This is kind of “worst fears realized” for me as a Democrat:
Democrats believe 1. they have a lock on young people after two Presidential cycles, so no further effort there is necessary, and 2. they are relying on “demographics” as far as winning Congress and states.
They’re going to be waiting a long time for this completely passive “strategy” to pay off.
Democrats plan to start winning statehouses and Congress sometime in the next 30 years, purely relying on “demographics”, which means doing nothing. This was the risk with all the cheerleading on how demographics were destiny and it looks like the institutional Democratic Party swallowed it whole. Like the tides or the phases of the moon, they just have to wait for the inevitable drift to their Party, because what’s the alternative? Republicans are worse.
Kay
Someone should tell the national political director for the Democratic Party that, unlike the “older people demographic”, young voters are different because there is a new set every year. They have to win a new group of young voters every single year. The youngest voters this year are literally different people than the new voters in 2008 and 2012.
He didn’t “lock them up” for the Democrats. They weren’t voters at all in 2008 and 2012.
different-church-lady
IS THERE NOTHING ABOUT THIS GREAT COUNTRY OBAMA WILL NOT RUIN?!?
Peale
@Kay: I think it’s either wait or have a policy fight that they also don’t want to have. I know they are at an extreme disadvantage in fundraising, Obama aside. So I’m not surprised that they don’t feel that they could have a transformational mid term or two. But it would be nice to hear that they would be willing to take a chance of choosing a few states and try to flip them. Or build towards flipping them. Waiting for demographics and Republicans to mess up a state so much that the voters have to scrap them will take too long and mean that when the Dems win, they win states in such poor condition that the voters will come to associate Dems with insolvency sales.