I see nothing out of line, yet.
The issue of appearance is raised as a pragmatic concern in convincing folks to support the RKBA. It is easy to state that the right is God given or the law clearly states such and such (infringed, infringed, ad infinitum). However, we all know or should know that laws and rights are social constructs and a power structure implements them.
You can have a statement of XY and Z but without social consensus or power to implement that statement - operationally it is worth spit. Also, the social consensus changes.
So did this gentleman aid the cause or not? To the different choirs, all prone to information selection biases, the case is clear. He is a nut or his is a shining example within his rights. Arguments to the contrary will not be processed.
However, the game is to play to the middle of folks undecided or mildly swaying one way or another. Influencing critical decision making is under lots of study - esp. since we have seen such glaring examples of supposedly intelligent people being idiots in face of evidence - think Challenger or WMDs in Iraq.
It seems that logical arguments (based on evidence - in the trade called System II) are not as effective as more emotional vivid arguments (called System I) for most people (even smart ones).
Thus, the empirical question and operational one is that if you wanted to convince the undecided about the validility of the RKBA, did this approach and subsequent appearances add up to a pro or con with the population that needs evaluation. The choirs are irrelevant in some respect.
The righteous rant can be at odds with the pragmatic. Do you prefer a righteous but counterproductive presentation?
I think this one will blow over and have little long term effect on the debate. However, the media will just play to choirs.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
|