Mark Robinson: A Citizen Stands for the Second Amendment

Handgun and ammo, ATF photo

Continuing my series about Second Amendment speeches.

Mark Robinson, a citizen of Greensboro NC, gave a pro-gun rights speech on April 3 to the Greensboro City Council. He was not a public figure, but his speech received plenty of attention on the news and social media. (Check out #MarkRobinson on Twitter.) In this speech, Robinson established his credibility, redefined the political conflict, and used standard conservative talking points to move from the common-sense defense of gun ownership to a fallacious slippery-slope argument. The speech's excellence almost camouflaged the sneaky move that he made at the end, which is that he, after making very reasonable arguments about gun ownership, argued against gun confiscation, which was not the issue. The meeting’s purpose was to discuss whether a gun show should be allowed in Greensboro.

Robinson began by saying, “I didn’t have time to write a fancy speech.” He pointed out that people talk about groups and minorities, and thus overlook the majority. The majority consisted of the law-abiding citizens. This was quite clever: instead of defining himself as a member of a minority group, as he himself was African-American, Robinson identified with the majority group, a majority defined by values, not group membership. This further built his credibility, as law-abiding citizens deserve to be heard.

Robinson’s entirely reasonable argument was that gun ownership is a right, and that law-abiding citizens should not pay the price for the actions of criminals:

“I’m the majority. I’m a law-abiding citizen who’s never shot anybody, never committed a serious crime, never committed a felony. … But it seems like every time we have one of these shootings, nobody wants to put the blame where it goes. Which is at the shooter’s feet. You want to put it at my feet. You want to turn around and restrict my right, constitutional right that’s spelled out in black and white. You want to restrict my right to buy a firearm and protect myself from some of the very people who we’re talking about here tonight. It’s ridiculous. I don’t think Rod Sterling could come up with a better script.”

(Rod Serling, of course, was the writer and producer of the original Twilight Zone.)

Robinson protested: “Our rights are the ones being taken away.” He continued: “You can take the guns away from us all you want to. But here’s what’s going to happen. The Crips and the Bloods aren’t going to turn their guns in.  They’re going to hold on to them.”

Now, that statement makes a very sneaky move: stopping one gun show, or even requiring stricter background checks, would be a long way from sending police to confiscate firearms from law-abiding citizens. This is a classic example of slippery slope argument, which holds that if you take one step, there is no stopping until you hit the bottom. Still, slippery slope arguments are, I am sorry to say typical of conservatives’ speech, just as wishful thinking is typical of liberals’ speech. Many conservatives worry very much that the slightest encroachment on any right inexorably leads to the destruction of all rights.

After having explained at the beginning of a speech, that he wanted to bring people together, Robinson lost his unifying focus at the end by demonizing people who disagreed with him: “I’m going to raise hell just like these loonies from the left do.” Name-calling is, as we all know, a low level of speech.

About the Second amendment, Robinson said: “The Framers …wrote it for everybody. … And we want our rights and we want to keep our rights. And by God we’re going to keep them come hell or high water.” That last phrase, which denied any willingness to compromise, got Robinson onto various news headlines. I am, however, inclined to question Robinson’s opinion that the “Framers . . . Wrote the Second Amendment for everybody.” The 1792 Militia Act specifically provided for the arming of White men, while excluding African-Americans (and women) from the militia. Still, in all fairness, since Robinson rejected identity politics, that one issue may not have concerned him and, also in all fairness, some states in the early Republic did apply the Bill of Rights to everybody.

Robinson’s delivery surely contributed to his success. His speech was energetic, his gestures were bold and enthusiastic, and he did a great job of emphasizing key words. He articulated gun rights much more articulately and persuasively than most NRA speakers. His argument was creative and powerful. The slippery slope toward the end of his speech was typical of conservative rhetoric, and probably would not bother many supporters.

At the same time, the general semanticists would warn us that we can miss each other’s points when we mean different things by the same words. Sometimes, I think the gun control debate is motivated by nothing else. All the same, we should acknowledge that Robinson, without planning to do so, brought the entire nation’s attention to the key issues of the gun control debate. The magic of social media spread his words and ideas across the nation in a heartbeat.

Earlier posts about Second Amendment speeches:

Wayne LaPierre’s dark vision (which was seriously paranoid, in contrast to Robinson’s more mainstream ideas).

How and why the Framers made the Second Amendment so deliberately ambiguous.

Emma González and her rhetoric of silence.  (I hope to write at least one more post about her speech, so stay tuned.)