Overall, I'm pleased by this, at least the response to it!
Back when we were discussing the Eastern Sports and Outdoors Show fight, I wrote this:
But it is terrible that this whole thing even happened at all.
It may seem like it right this minute, but it actually ISN'T a terrible thing to happen. As I said before...
Actually, as with Mr. Zumbo a few years back, I'm seeing this as a real positive event for RKBA. Yes, the assault or betrayal hurts. But the public show of force, of a real community of 2nd Amendment supporters and activists coming together -- getting off their butts (um...maybe staying ON their butts?) -- together is noticed by a national audience. And the fact that it WORKING proves that this isn't a few disgruntled cranks sitting on their sofas grumbling about the gub'mint, but a serious and cohesive grass roots movement. That sends a message to a lot of folks. They may not like that message, but when this sort of thing hits the national stage (like when multiple national companies take notice and lend their voices), other gun owners notice (and think about their own stance on such issues and start asking what their gun owning pals believe), other venues and promoters notice (and take notes on what NOT to ever do), other public figures notice (and choose to come out with a strong pro-2nd Amendment stance they'll not readily back away from), and politicians notice what all those dedicated voters just did.
That's a net positive, right there.
I still feel that way about this. It is a net good. We're standing tall, publically, cohesively, and showing ourselves, each other, the undecided public, and the antis that we do not, as a group, accept the proffered opinion. Sometimes it is better to get punched in the nose and get back up and destroy the opponent than to never have been punched at all.
This is right, and fair, and just, and good.
And here's why:
Editorial pages have always been places where those in positions of some prominence in the popular press of their area of expertise air out their views and try and influence people. It isn't actually "promoting dialog" or any such noise, it is trying to stir the faithful to join an opinion or a movement.
Historically the great battles of politics, government, and national policy all had their "second fronts" in the editorial sections of the nation's great (and loathsome, and righteous, and despicable, liberal, progressive, conservative, reactionary, etc., etc.) newspapers.
In times past the readership had a pretty muted influence over those authors, though industry and political parties kept their pets firmly in the palms of their hands. Today that has shifted, and very recently, to give that power to more of the average people, which is very good.
But the key point is that an editor of a high profile publication is not MERELY an individual, expressing his or her opinion. Every person has that right, and we would have no reason to revile them for merely floating an hypothesis for debate.
But no, an editor writing on the 2nd page of a (or THE?) major subject-matter periodical is more than an individual expressing himself. He holds a of leadership and representation of those who read his periodical and all those interested in his area of subject matter.
While he is not elected and certainly does not
officially represent any of us, he
TACITLY absolutely does, as a high-profile illuminatus of our sphere. As a representative, he can be, should be, and MUST be held to task for upholding the best and most virtuous of our specialized society's principles. As with a Congressman or other political actor, if he fails to represent us, we have a mechanism by which he may be replaced. The mechanics are different here than in the voting booth, but the effect is the same. And sometimes most gratifyingly speedier!
And the effect is completely appropriate. We do him (or ourselves) no disservice if we use the power of our purses to ask that he no longer so represent us -- that he no longer hold a position of prominence in our sphere of interest.
Every man and woman has the right to express their views. No man or woman is granted any right in any way to be immune from the social consequences of that expression. Not a plumber, not a doctor, not an artist/performer, not a senator, not a president, not an editor. When someone takes on a role (elected, official, or unelected, unofficial) of being a representative and leader of others the consequences that may come from representing those people poorly may be more weighty than what would befall the average man who says something asinine -- or merely opinionated in an unpopular direction.