Opinion
Fayetteville, AR –-(Ammoland.com)- The comment section to my last article erupted in a blaze of friendly—and not so friendly—fire over my identification as a liberal and a progressive. According to many who responded, my position is one of compromise and communism, one that endangers the purity of the bodily fluids of the gun rights movement.
Where to begin? On the question of identifying the American left with Marxism. Some politicians—Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, for example—call themselves democratic socialists, by which they mean something different from what was meant by the now-defunct regimes of the Soviet Bloc, but most members of the Democratic Party in this country would fit in well with parties like the Tories in Britain.
I don’t expect many readers to agree, and the question is really a side issue in any case.
The central points are the nature of rights and how much anyone is willing to compromise on them.
One problem that shows up when we try to answer the first of those is that we all seem to have our own personal lists, and the conversation gets bogged down in the details before any unified field theory of rights is agreed upon. In my view, generally speaking, if what I’m doing does not force you to be involved, you have no justification for telling me not to do it. I think that is a point we can all agree on.
The succinct formulation of this is that I support the ability of a married same-sex couple to defend their legal pot farm with AK-47s—real ones, too, not just the semiautomatic versions that are within the price range of ordinary people in this country. Or AR-15s or whatever firearms they believe would best serve their interests. Which is to say that when they are on their private land doing their own things, I might be an invited guest, but in general terms, it’s none of my business.
Now if, let’s say, they are spraying some toxic chemical on their plants that flows downstream and gets into the environment, the situation has changed. That would mean that others are involved. Even in many cases in which others are made to participate to some degree, we should all be restrained in how much we feel entitled to tell others what to do. The car at the gas station that is pulsing with what its driver believes to be music is annoying, but this too shall pass. If, by contrast, ordinances that forbid the blasting of noise that wakes people up in the middle of the night are an acknowledgment that those sleepers also have rights.
How does this apply to gun rights?
It means that if you’ve spent your own money to buy firearms, ammunition, sighting devices, reloading equipment and parts, and sundry accessories to all of the above, congratulations and go in peace. I will do the same. The AK-47 was designed for people with shorter arms than mine, so I’ve given them a pass (yes, I know there are aftermarket stocks), but I love my Yugo SKS. I’ve learned to enjoy my ARs—15 and 10—and they have standard capacity magazines. As do my carry guns. I have no use for bump stocks, but banning them is plain silly and a slippery slope.
My point? The choices that I make regarding my armory are my right, as are the choices that you make regarding yours. Please don’t point your guns at me, and refrain from firing them without knowing where your shots are going—in other words, don’t harm people who aren’t trying to hurt you—and it’s all good. The law should reflect that.
I see little point in talking about compromises with the other side. Since gun control fails on pragmatic grounds—it doesn’t work as advertised and rarely does anything at all other than making life more difficult for those who aren’t doing anything wrong—and I’ve yet to meet a gun control advocate who understands that compromise means that both sides give some to get some.
The bottom line, the point that I’m sure I’ll return to in the future, is that the fight to protect gun rights is a coalition of the willing, not something that we can only do if we all agree on every plank of a particular party’s platform. Will most readers here agree with me on healthcare, a border wall, or taxes? Probably not. And so what? The more important subject here is gun rights, and working across the aisle whenever possible is a better way to preserve the exercise of those rights.
About Greg Camp
Greg Camp has taught English composition and literature since 1998 and is the author of six books, including a western, The Willing Spirit, and Each One, Teach One, with Ranjit Singh on gun politics in America. His books can be found on Amazon. He tweets @gregcampnc.
Small government is the only way to protect all of our rights. Government should stay out of our armories, our healthcare, and our bed rooms. Compromise only moves us closer to tyranny.
Please reset to the year 1935. Learn from it or go through it all again. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. NO COMPROMISE, NO RETREAT, NO SURRENDER…dark o’ the moon…-30-
Thank you Greg Camp for sharing as I do agree that one should be able to keep their firearms, ammunition, etc. providing that they we legal when sold. However, when one falls to use their weapon in an irresponsible manner, or for example, they leave their loaded weapon left on the dash of their truck and it gets stolen, then let the consequences rain down. Primary reason why we are discussing this issue as irresponsibility has created gun control laws.
Look it is a fact that our 2 is being shit on right now as we all set in our houses just taking about what should be for both sides of guns at some point we’re going to have to get out of the house and get real about our gun rights really do something for a change instead of hoping that the ones that we put in office will do it for us giving money is a good thing but being hands on will go far I know people who are just fed up with it but it’s our… Read more »
Greg, The problem with your article that got so many negative reactions is that your definition of liberal is so 1950’s & 1960’s. You are a classic liberal. The 1960’s campus Democrats stole the liberal name for their progressive ideology. So classic liberals had to call themselves libertarians. Progressives can’t tolerate a robust 1st or 2nd amendment. The 1st because their ideology can’t thrive with robust debate, nor the free exercise of religion. The 2nd because they fear their fellow residents. Those who used the communist word when Fabian socialist is more appropriate didn’t really mean that Burney and his… Read more »
Yes I fear we will be left with no choice but to defend our 2nd Amendment rights as well as the other amendments by force with those that wish to impose their will on to those of us who believe to treat each other as we wish to be treated to paraphrase a famous saying. It will be a shame but if the Left continue it will eventually come to that and blood will run..
I guess Greg Camp is correct, if we don’t like what he writes then we don’t have to read it. Eventually, the well may run dry and ammoland may not accept his articles if no one is reading them except the Left. We have heard so many liberals talk about their guns then in the end we find they have never had one of those”nasty things.” Maybe this is the same as other liberals or maybe not< I have no way of knowing but one thing I am sure of is that no one is going to play snake oil… Read more »
Mr. Camp, You seem to think that the “other side” is virtuous and honest and will be satisfied with the mutual compromise agreed upon. Through experience, we gun owners and 2ndA supporters KNOW that is not the case. For every inch of compromise we’ve made they’ve always come back for more. To them the best solution is always the next one. The best gun law will be the next gun law. I don’t doubt your support of 2ndA rights, right now, but how one of your particular ideology could benefit the NRA is where my concern was with your last… Read more »
Greg, are you sure you’re not really a Libertarian? For most of my life I thought I was a conservative, and couldn’t figure out why all my friends thought I was a liberal. I could never find my spot on the “Liberal vs. Conservative”scale. I usually ended up just describing myself as a Constitutionalist; after all, I swore an oath, which I have always taken seriously, to defend our Constitution. Then, a few years ago I ran into a group at my local coffee house who shared my general outlook-they turned out to be Libertarians.
Are you sure you are a liberal and progressive, Mr. Camp? You certainly don’t sound like one. Speaking in terms of individual rights and freedoms certainly seems to preclude you from that camp.