Showing posts with label michael woodland. Show all posts
Showing posts with label michael woodland. Show all posts

Sunday, January 14, 2018

Gun rights alliance interview #2: @ShamashAran talks about being an LGBT shooter


DonB: I'm still working out the format for these posts, so please bear with me. Late last week, I sent @ShamashAran the same 3 questions I asked Michael Woodward last week. Here are her responses:

Sorry, I Completely forgot about this, Life got away with me.

"What have your interactions in the gun community been like? Do you feel that you have been welcomed as a shooter?"

I've honestly never had any real problems other than good natured ribbing.  Gun nuts I know would be more offended if I open-carried a hi-point than by anyone I went home with for a date.  There's a bit of good natured innocent fascination that you can't be offended by either. 

"How can the gun community reach out to a variety of shooters?"

The answer to this would lead to a very long political rant.  All i really want o say is, if we expect people to be tolerant of LGBT folks, we need to be tolerant of people that disagree with our political views.  Everyone's a human.

"How can we collaborate politically to protect our rights, given that the simple suggestion of "voting Republican" might not be workable for all people"

You have to be willing to talk to people you disagree with.  Even if they are stupid.
For example, gun controllers all have fears stoked by ignorance.  The only way you fix that is to cure the ignorance.

Sunday, January 7, 2018

Gun rights alliance interview #1: Michael Woodland of Munitions-Weapons Tactical

Since publishing the previous post (link) about forging new alliances in the shooting community, I've been discussing these ideas with  a number of people and am working on talking to as many people as I can. Today I spoke with Michael Woodland of Munitions-Weapons Tactical (link) about this.

Note: M-W Tactical is also on Facebook under M-W Tactical (link) and Twitter as @m_wtactical. This organization offers firearms instruction in Columbia, South Carolina, with alliances generally on the East Coast. Formerly stationed at Fort Benning, Michael is a competitive shooter who contributes regularly to Kenn Blanchard's  excellent "Black Man With A Gun" podcast. He is on the leader board on that site (link). I have enjoyed a lot of interesting articles from him regarding a variety of topics, related to handguns, the AR platform and various aspects of shooting.

I would like to thank Michael Woodland for taking the time to talk to me today. As we discussed, I am inviting him to critique the content of this blog post and comments about our discussion before making it generally public.

These were the questions I asked and Mister Woodland's responses:

What have your interactions in the gun community been like? Do you feel that you have been welcomed as a shooter?

MW responded that he has been welcomed as a shooter but that he has encountered some negative comments when his comments took a tack that people didn't like. For example, when discussing firearms he has suggested it would be a good idea for shooters to have some training beforehand and was subsequently called a communist.

As we talked further, he also commented about the odd way in which gun events are presented. For example, if somebody commits a violent crime with a gun, it's always presented with a focus on the gun and its availability and not the character of the person who committed the crime. This seems odd because a crime using a truck as a weapon focuses on the crime and not the weapon used. He commented that he does not support gun control...that attacking the second amendment is also an attack or leads to attack on the other amendments in the Bill of Rights.

Final thought: what is their agenda after the guns have been gotten rid of?

How can the gun community reach out to a variety of shooters?

MW responded that the gun community as a whole has been welcoming. There have been negative interactions, e.g. at competitions or range trips, that might be classified as the group wanting a shooter's money but looking for a chance to disqualify them or get them to leave.

For example, he was recently at a range in South Carolina with about 6 other black folks and the rangemaster was just hovering around and watching them, despite the fact that shooters were acting with full safety discipline.

How can we collaborate politically to protect our rights, given that the simple suggestion of "voting Republican" might not be workable for all people?

MW suggested that he would rather see people voting according to their individual interests than voting on a party line basis. One example that he gave was on healthcare....that we as a society ought to make sure that people who can't afford it can still get it.

Why limit your choices be restricting your vote to a single party?

Mister Woodland's final message was the necessity to knock down the walls of racism. That it's not about white shooters or black shooters but solidarity AS shooters. We have to open up dialogues about that.