HB1302-"The Neighborhood Bag Lady Can Take Your Guns" bill

[markgrutz]

As a photographer who spent part of Saturday trying to see the event through the eyes of a typical journalist (let alone one with an Anti agenda), I could easily have used my experience to vilify, rather than positively portray the gathering.

Great photos. You've got to come out more often so I don't have to juggle both video/still cameras!

I have tried to intentionally not wear any PP garb, or MDS for that matter going out to these things to try and say incognito. When the general public sees you as more of a journalist vs a member of the group with a camera, they tend to be more free with what they are saying. That can sometimes be enlightening.

Mark

 

[j_h_smith]

People who think Maryland will elect a "pro 2A" governor should do themselves a favor and put the crack pipe down. The choice will be Kommienutz (or someone worse like Ben Jealous) and Hogan. Your choice will be to stay home, or at least attempt to stem the bleeding. Gerrymandering, taxes, and a whole lot else is at stake. We want Hogan in charge of the MDSP if a favorable carry ruling comes down. But if you hate your money, your guns, and yourself, by all means stay home and keep smoking the crack pipe.

And how's that worked out for the 2A community so far? He won't mandate a sensible G&S for the Maryland State Police. Something he could do and be perfectly legal and nothing the Dems could do to stop.

All he has to do is show me SOMETHING, ANYTHING, positive for our cause. He basically called for a Bump Stock Ban Bill this year. Then he said he would sign ANY Bill that's put in front of him. Yeah, he's the one we want if a favorable carry ruling comes down.

Seriously?

 

[pilot25]

It should be pointed out that this was not strictly a PP or even an MDS event, and was not organized or produced by the group

I don't think PP leadership would feel comfortable issuing clothing advice to an event not solely of their making

I think everyone is referencing country wide 2A events at each capital. Not just in MD.

In reverse, what do we see at the liberal marches that we all make fun of. Hippy attire, Pu$$y hats, rainbow everything, etc.

Professional attire can really make a statement no matter what you are doing. Selling cars, burgers, 2A. Just about anything.

 

[swinokur]

Yep. Appearing in attire that doesn’t alienate people of any stripe seems pretty smart


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Occam]

It should be pointed out that this was not strictly a PP or even an MDS event, and was not organized or produced by the group

I don't think PP leadership would feel comfortable issuing clothing advice to an event not solely of their making

Of course not. But every individual smart enough to know why protecting the Bill of Rights is important is also smart enough to know, personally, how their appearance will or won't help the cause.

The first rule of successful rhetoric is know your audience. Who is the audience, here? Are these gatherings a bonding experience between like minded sub-groups and individuals? Sure, to a certain extent. But isn't the main idea, the real objective, to educate and to sway the hearts and minds of those who aren't already thinking the same way about something so vital?

All of this is about communication. Communication between those of us who get it (the Constitution generally, more particularly the Bill of Rights, and the imperiled 2A in particular) and those out there who don't or don't want to. Framing our communication in visual stylings almost guaranteed to ensure that those who don't get it will be even more sure they're right about those Scary Gun People - it seems directly counterproductive.

No, the PP folks shouldn't tell anybody else what to wear. But every last bit of verbal and ideological righteousness goes out the window when an potentially interested person is repelled by the sense that those preaching constitutionality look ready (and perhaps eager) that moment to mix it up physically.

I've always liked the phrase, "Speak softly but carry a big stick." But in this case, "speaking" refers to every aspect of our communication - spoken, written, worn, and conducted ... and the big stick is a solid, easily conveyed set of facts. Those facts fall on deaf ears when a possible conversation ends before it begins because someone walking past the State House feels like they've bumped in a Hollywood caricature of Those Scary Militia Guys instead of a thoughtful group focused on civil liberties.

I'm not ragging on ANYONE who attended or regularly steps up to voice our concerns in public. But I'm aware that the only reason Kennedy beat Nixon in that debate was because the cameras were rolling, and appearances - first, for too many people - matter enough to determine whether there will then be any actual listening, let alone changing.

I'll admit it: I won't even bother talking to an angry looking person wearing a pink ***** hat, or an all blacked-out Antifa-style crank, because my first thought is that person is there to make selfies for their circle of social media friends, not engage with me in an intellectually honest way. If I believe I know that about them, you can believe they think they know that about us.

I'm trying to be frank and constructive here, not get anyone's back up. We need to act coherently and intelligently, not squabble. So I don't want anyone thinking I'm getting in their business or suggesting that someone else does. But I also don't mind burning some local forum kharma in the name of calling it like I see it (and like I saw it, on Saturday). A LOT of people walked by the State House. You don't have to be a shrink or a trained social scientist to read their faces. Who's our audience, each time we communicate? An honest answer to that drives a lot of behavior, or should.

Thanks for hearing me out. I know how I sound, under the circumstances. Just want to make sure we can squeeze every bit of goodness out of every person we ever encounter.

 

[Haides]

Have said this before and been trash talked to, BUT I will not vote for Hogan.

Paraphrasing Ron Smith, " I will vote for my principal, therefore I won't vote for Bush" Something along those lines.

I understand the sentiment and actually agree with you in a way, but at this point this kind of talk helps no one.

It needs to be "IF Hogan doesn't veto HB1302, THEN I pledge not to vote for him."

If our decision is already set in stone Hogan has no political incentive to do the right thing. If you're against him no matter what, then he'll sign HB1302. If you're with him no matter what, then he'll sign HB1302. Our vote MUST hinge on his decision with this bill in order for us to prevent this fustercluck.

 

[BeoBill]

All we need is a spate of R's on the ballot.

Contested, non-Machine races would be a nice touch in a LOT of PGC districts this year. I know, I'm dreaming.

 

[Bob A]

All of this is about communication. Communication between those of us who get it (the Constitution generally, more particularly the Bill of Rights, and the imperiled 2A in particular) and those out there who don't or don't want to. Framing our communication in visual stylings almost guaranteed to ensure that those who don't get it will be even more sure they're right about those Scary Gun People - it seems directly counterproductive.

No, the PP folks shouldn't tell anybody else what to wear. But every last bit of verbal and ideological righteousness goes out the window when an potentially interested person is repelled by the sense that those preaching constitutionality look ready (and perhaps eager) that moment to mix it up physically.

While I deliberately did not wear PP gear on Saturday, mindful of Ecumenism and the fact that I represent a number of pro-2A groups, despite whatever costume I'm wearing I go out of my way to smile and greet, and attempt to converse with any number of passers-by.

Making human contact in a friendly, cheerful way defuses fears, breaks through the 1000-yard-stare mentality that prevents others from recognising the humanity of strangers, and generally leaves them feeling that we're just plain folks.

This doesn't necessarily work with Dem delegates, who typically range from those who walk staring straight ahead, through those who are deliberately verbally abusive. In truth, many "just plain folks" are equally insulated against open-mindedness. But for those on the demilitarised zone between mind welded shut and open acceptance, there's an opportunity to knock down the barrier of prejudice. And those are the people who can be influenced to consider alternative ideas.

Anyway, I don't own a suit, or a tie. " Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes."

YMMV, of course.

 

[Stoveman]

It's important to think about this. I noticed at the event yesterday, as I was doing laps and photographing things, that people wandering past the 2A gathering from the event down the street (it seemed to be thousands of people in pastels named Skipper and Buffy) ... that they were far more uncomfortable than curious. The looks weren't, "Gee, I wonder what these folks are talking about, something about civil rights and new legislation with constitutional problems... " but instead seemed more "who ARE these people and are some of them headed to a paintball match?" I'm not being snarky, here - I deliberately spent time watching and listening to non-participants as they passed.

Please don't flame me. I'm not a regular at these things, though I am a steadfast 2A supporter and put my money, and my social/educational, one-on-one campaigning where my mouth is and have for decades. But by newly showing up in Annapolis, I brought with me a lack of familiarity with the atmospherics that are baked into these things. I can tell you that the low-information, fence-sitting, I-didn't-even-know-anyone-cared-about-this types who might actually encounter such an event while strolling by ... risk being immediately alienated.

It's a lot like pulling over on a road trip and thinking you'll pop into a place you find for a quick bite, and finding it's full of bikers. They may be the nicest people in the world, but the carefully cultivated sense of "other," and the vaguely prickly vibe will make the average person absolutely want to keep them at arm's length.

I do worry that the instinct to not be labeled a Fudd within our own ranks too easily makes some folks reach for the Tacticool - and miss that the signals that sends to people who don't even know what those two words mean (in our context) can do more harm than good, PR-wise.

The very signals we send each other, showing common cause with those who are familiar with the symbols and contemporary 2A jargon/culture, seriously risk running off some of those we might otherwise constructively engage. No, I don't know what the answer is, except that it's all about one-on-one, and the opportunities for one-on-one with uninformed people are reduced when those folks encounter something that feels - to them, from their lack of exposure - at least unsettling, and possibly hostile.

Yeah, we DO feel hostile. I get it. The people maliciously trying to strip away our constitutionally protected rights deserve a hostile response. But we're not talking to them, because they don't care. The more odd looking or alarming we appear, the more they like it. Because they're hoping that by playing into stereotypes, we'll chase neutral people right into the arms of Moms Dishing Anxiety. Where's the visual solidarity/messaging sweet spot? Don't know. But we can't ignore that popular culture has solidly connected "militia" with "those scary rednecks," and the more that's the image of 2A support in popular awareness, the more ready people are to act against us, and feel safer for having done so. I for one hate providing props for their narrative.

I like the Patriot Picket imagery, because it harkens to what most think of as noble history, and suggests an informed, principled position. The more tac-ed-out trappings undo some of that, in the context of uninformed passers-by.

As a photographer who spent part of Saturday trying to see the event through the eyes of a typical journalist (let alone one with an Anti agenda), I could easily have used my experience to vilify, rather than positively portray the gathering. This is all theater, and I hate to arm the bad guys with the very rhetorical tools they most love to have.

I guess I wasn't seeing what you saw yesterday. Were there a few of the Militia guys tac'd out? Sure, but they were in a security function. Even the pics that accompany your post don't show a tacticool brigade, they just look like ordinary folks to me.

Does this group look like they're ready to play paintball? During our 20 mins or so down on the City Dock after lunch I personally spoke with over a dozen people who came up and asked specifically what the Red Flag bill was all about?

 

[Adolph Oliver Bush]

It's important to think about this. I noticed at the event yesterday, as I was doing laps and photographing things, that people wandering past the 2A gathering from the event down the street (it seemed to be thousands of people in pastels named Skipper and Buffy) ... that they were far more uncomfortable than curious. The looks weren't, "Gee, I wonder what these folks are talking about, something about civil rights and new legislation with constitutional problems... " but instead seemed more "who ARE these people and are some of them headed to a paintball match?" I'm not being snarky, here - I deliberately spent time watching and listening to non-participants as they passed.

Please don't flame me. I'm not a regular at these things, though I am a steadfast 2A supporter and put my money, and my social/educational, one-on-one campaigning where my mouth is and have for decades. But by newly showing up in Annapolis, I brought with me a lack of familiarity with the atmospherics that are baked into these things. I can tell you that the low-information, fence-sitting, I-didn't-even-know-anyone-cared-about-this types who might actually encounter such an event while strolling by ... risk being immediately alienated.

It's a lot like pulling over on a road trip and thinking you'll pop into a place you find for a quick bite, and finding it's full of bikers. They may be the nicest people in the world, but the carefully cultivated sense of "other," and the vaguely prickly vibe will make the average person absolutely want to keep them at arm's length.

I do worry that the instinct to not be labeled a Fudd within our own ranks too easily makes some folks reach for the Tacticool - and miss that the signals that sends to people who don't even know what those two words mean (in our context) can do more harm than good, PR-wise.

The very signals we send each other, showing common cause with those who are familiar with the symbols and contemporary 2A jargon/culture, seriously risk running off some of those we might otherwise constructively engage. No, I don't know what the answer is, except that it's all about one-on-one, and the opportunities for one-on-one with uninformed people are reduced when those folks encounter something that feels - to them, from their lack of exposure - at least unsettling, and possibly hostile.

Yeah, we DO feel hostile. I get it. The people maliciously trying to strip away our constitutionally protected rights deserve a hostile response. But we're not talking to them, because they don't care. The more odd looking or alarming we appear, the more they like it. Because they're hoping that by playing into stereotypes, we'll chase neutral people right into the arms of Moms Dishing Anxiety. Where's the visual solidarity/messaging sweet spot? Don't know. But we can't ignore that popular culture has solidly connected "militia" with "those scary rednecks," and the more that's the image of 2A support in popular awareness, the more ready people are to act against us, and feel safer for having done so. I for one hate providing props for their narrative.

I like the Patriot Picket imagery, because it harkens to what most think of as noble history, and suggests an informed, principled position. The more tac-ed-out trappings undo some of that, in the context of uninformed passers-by.

As a photographer who spent part of Saturday trying to see the event through the eyes of a typical journalist (let alone one with an Anti agenda), I could easily have used my experience to vilify, rather than positively portray the gathering. This is all theater, and I hate to arm the bad guys with the very rhetorical tools they most love to have.

Great post. Thanks for your in-person support yesterday.

 

[Occam]

I guess I wasn't seeing what you saw yesterday. Were there a few of the Militia guys tac'd out? Sure, but they were in a security function. Even the pics that accompany your post don't show a tacticool brigade, they just look like ordinary folks to me.

I suppose, yes, we were indeed experiencing different things. First, to be clear: there's a reason that out of the dozens and dozens of images I made, I only posted a few. And those were meant to support the notions I was talking about - on the positive side. I don't want to rag on anybody on this side of the fence, ever. Though I made some photographs of the more security-minded guys present (some of which I particularly like), I didn't post them because I didn't want them connected to the observations I was making. Because I don't want you or anyone else to think I'm less than 100% behind their passion and dedication to all of this.

I wasn't present until the gathering in front of the State House - was gridlocked on the beltway for an extra hour, and spent half an hour looking for parking. On site at the State House, I was all over the place, from way up on those high steps with the tourists (where I heard the paintball conversation), to across the street on benches where I could watch the body language and hear the remarks from those strolling by.

I don't need to repeat the points I made in my earlier post, but I want to be clear that I meant them honestly and constructively, and they were driven by personal observations and after much thought. I was, deliberately, not wearing any insignia of any kind. Left my gold Lifetime NRA hat in the car, and let the "he's just a photographer looking guy" disguise do what it always does - get people talking without thinking I'm personally part of the scene.

I had one opportunity to engage with a stalled passer-by who said, essentially, "I don't get this - what is she talking about?" That was during a lengthier segment when a speaker was remarking on her preference for a particularly sweet (her phrase) no-stock shotgun. I managed to convey an elevator-pitch-length explanation of the Red Flag concerns, and the tourist kept looking back and forth between my quickie legislative/constitutional haiku and the speech coming from the PA system, which seemed to be about two wildly different things. Tourist, exist stage left.

Please don't mistake my sober observations with being a crank about this. I'm not. Nothing would make me happier than to see such events have more traction. Which is why I said what I said. I'm completely open to having my mind changed - you guys are the long-time voices of experience here.

 

[dblas]

I suppose, yes, we were indeed experiencing different things. First, to be clear: there's a reason that out of the dozens and dozens of images I made, I only posted a few. And those were meant to support the notions I was talking about - on the positive side. I don't want to rag on anybody on this side of the fence, ever. Though I made some photographs of the more security-minded guys present (some of which I particularly like), I didn't post them because I didn't want them connected to the observations I was making. Because I don't want you or anyone else to think I'm less than 100% behind their passion and dedication to all of this.

I wasn't present until the gathering in front of the State House - was gridlocked on the beltway for an extra hour, and spent half an hour looking for parking. On site at the State House, I was all over the place, from way up on those high steps with the tourists (where I heard the paintball conversation), to across the street on benches where I could watch the body language and hear the remarks from those strolling by.

I don't need to repeat the points I made in my earlier post, but I want to be clear that I meant them honestly and constructively, and they were driven by personal observations and after much thought. I was, deliberately, not wearing any insignia of any kind. Left my gold Lifetime NRA hat in the car, and let the "he's just a photographer looking guy" disguise do what it always does - get people talking without thinking I'm personally part of the scene.

I had one opportunity to engage with a stalled passer-by who said, essentially, "I don't get this - what is she talking about?" That was during a lengthier segment when a speaker was remarking on her preference for a particularly sweet (her phrase) no-stock shotgun. I managed to convey an elevator-pitch-length explanation of the Red Flag concerns, and the tourist kept looking back and forth between my quickie legislative/constitutional haiku and the speech coming from the PA system, which seemed to be about two wildly different things. Tourist, exist stage left.

Please don't mistake my sober observations with being a crank about this. I'm not. Nothing would make me happier than to see such events have more traction. Which is why I said what I said. I'm completely open to having my mind changed - you guys are the long-time voices of experience here.

You make some very salient points, and I thank you for the insight from a "new guy". Great pics by the way, any interest in being an "official" 2A photographer for other events (if you have time to make them) as they come up?

 

[Stoveman]

I suppose, yes, we were indeed experiencing different things. First, to be clear: there's a reason that out of the dozens and dozens of images I made, I only posted a few. And those were meant to support the notions I was talking about - on the positive side. I don't want to rag on anybody on this side of the fence, ever. Though I made some photographs of the more security-minded guys present (some of which I particularly like), I didn't post them because I didn't want them connected to the observations I was making. Because I don't want you or anyone else to think I'm less than 100% behind their passion and dedication to all of this.

I wasn't present until the gathering in front of the State House - was gridlocked on the beltway for an extra hour, and spent half an hour looking for parking. On site at the State House, I was all over the place, from way up on those high steps with the tourists (where I heard the paintball conversation), to across the street on benches where I could watch the body language and hear the remarks from those strolling by.

I don't need to repeat the points I made in my earlier post, but I want to be clear that I meant them honestly and constructively, and they were driven by personal observations and after much thought. I was, deliberately, not wearing any insignia of any kind. Left my gold Lifetime NRA hat in the car, and let the "he's just a photographer looking guy" disguise do what it always does - get people talking without thinking I'm personally part of the scene.

I had one opportunity to engage with a stalled passer-by who said, essentially, "I don't get this - what is she talking about?" That was during a lengthier segment when a speaker was remarking on her preference for a particularly sweet (her phrase) no-stock shotgun. I managed to convey an elevator-pitch-length explanation of the Red Flag concerns, and the tourist kept looking back and forth between my quickie legislative/constitutional haiku and the speech coming from the PA system, which seemed to be about two wildly different things. Tourist, exist stage left.

Please don't mistake my sober observations with being a crank about this. I'm not. Nothing would make me happier than to see such events have more traction. Which is why I said what I said. I'm completely open to having my mind changed - you guys are the long-time voices of experience here.

Gotcha, I didn't realize you weren't with us down on the dock.

I think that it is important to realize that although it kind of looks like the whole thing was a PP production this was actually organized and put on by the MD Militia groups. We just had better visual aids and were trying to help out.

The unofficial "official" dress of the PP is one of our blue shirts with tan pants. A lot of us wear 5.11 style pants mainly because they have a lot of pockets and because our events are sometimes hours long there is a need to carry water, sunscreen, phone charger, cell phone mics for doing livestreaming, PP business cards etc..+ whatever EDC that you might have. Now what I carry during only an hour long event on Monday nights on the bricks will be a lot different from a day in Harrisburg or 5-6 hours in front of the NRA HQ. And since we sometimes have to walk quite a bit it makes sense to wear comfortable hiking type shoes. All things that are tough to do in a three piece suit.

I think we need to also understand what it is that is trying to be accomplished at events like yesterday. The PP activities were to draw attention to a horrible bill by the average citizen. The rally itself was to support the 2A and also to get folks fired up to mobilize themselves and their friends and family to reach out to others. I doubt that if someone was anti or even neutral on the 2A that a snippet of a speech and a group of guys in sportcoats would change their mind on the way by.

 

[Art3]

Some time ago, in a thread far far away, I suggested that PP ought to have at least some folks in suits for the same reasons Occam offers. I did not make it there this past Saturday, but I wore a suit for most of the Monday Pickets that I was able to attend...there may even be pics to prove it...

 

[John from MD]

When I retired, I gave up suits for life.

 

[Occam]

Gotcha, I didn't realize you weren't with us down on the dock.

I think that it is important to realize that although it kind of looks like the whole thing was a PP production this was actually organized and put on by the MD Militia groups. We just had better visual aids and were trying to help out.

The unofficial "official" dress of the PP is one of our blue shirts with tan pants. A lot of us wear 5.11 style pants mainly because they have a lot of pockets and because our events are sometimes hours long there is a need to carry water, sunscreen, phone charger, cell phone mics for doing livestreaming, PP business cards etc..+ whatever EDC that you might have. Now what I carry during only an hour long event on Monday nights on the bricks will be a lot different from a day in Harrisburg or 5-6 hours in front of the NRA HQ. And since we sometimes have to walk quite a bit it makes sense to wear comfortable hiking type shoes. All things that are tough to do in a three piece suit.

I think we need to also understand what it is that is trying to be accomplished at events like yesterday. The PP activities were to draw attention to a horrible bill by the average citizen. The rally itself was to support the 2A and also to get folks fired up to mobilize themselves and their friends and family to reach out to others. I doubt that if someone was anti or even neutral on the 2A that a snippet of a speech and a group of guys in sportcoats would change their mind on the way by.

I agree that such a drive-by experience isn't going to provide the circumstances to (thoroughly enough) inform the uninformed, let alone get an anti to change teams. But it IS enough time to take someone who's got a few notions about gun owners, and push them over the edge into "Yup, I always knew those guys were a little out there..." So of course I try not to ever come across as alien, militant, too intense, or as any of the stereotypes that keep Moms Dunking Apple Strudel in fresh fever dreams every night. People ready for a good dose of confirmation bias find their devils wherever they look for them, and I try to deny them the boogeyman they fear.

Please understand that I do get the complexities of a multi-group event. Considering, it was a well-oiled machine on Saturday. Most of my observations are meant broadly, rather than about hairsplitting over one feature or another on that one day. Thanks again for hearing me out.

 

[buellsfurn]

When I retired, I gave up suits for life.

The day a suit is required for a PP event is the day the blue moves to the back of the closet. I will not pretend to be someone im not we have some republicans all ready doing that.

 

[Stoveman]

The day a suit is required for a PP event is the day the blue moves to the back of the closet. I will not pretend to be someone im not we have some republicans all ready doing that.

Trust me, your seersucker will never be mandatory.

 

[Bob A]

When I retired, I gave up suits for life.

God bless you, John.

When I entered the work force, I made a conscious decision to take no job that would require a suit.

Looking back, that suited me just fine.

 

[John from MD]

Well played.