A wise man acts on his conscience, using reason to inform his actions.  If he were to second-guess his every action, he would never get anything done.  When, across the nation, citizens who support the Constitution call for and rally around Second Amendment sanctuaries, and a claim is made that his reasoning is based on racist motives, what is he to do?

He should not waste his time over it.

In the year 2020, what thing has not been claimed to be racist in one way or another?  When a peanut butter and jelly sandwich is regarded as racist, it is obvious that the charge has lost its potency.  The Southern Poverty Law Center has relied on it so much that it has lost its credibility and is facing numerous lawsuits, which is not to say it is ineffective.  Without the prevalence of illogic and convoluted thinking, we would not have such inane notions as racist sandwiches.

An article at Atlanta radio's WABE site discusses the racist roots of Second Amendment sanctuaries.  One of the things you may learn from the article is that there are "scholars of the American far-right," of whom Devin Burghart is one.  From his background at The Petra Foundation, where he is a fellow, he sounds well intentioned, but when he conflates support for the Constitution with white nationalism, it makes for poor reasoning — the fallacy of a hasty generalization, to name one.

The article states that people may not be aware of the racist roots.  While one could argue that assertion, one might also ask: even if had been racist to begin with, is it racist now?  And if it is not, does it matter?  The assertion is not a refutation of the right to bear arms, but an ad hominem attack on the notion of a Second Amendment sanctuary.   Does it then follow that the majority of Virginia is racist, or merely ill informed, since the majority of the state has adopted such sanctuaries?

Every time a person is accused of something, or the basis of his beliefs is challenged, it is prudent for him to consider the charges, but to what degree?  And how does he differentiate what to listen to and what to ignore?  Eleanor Roosevelt offered some good advice on the subject:

There are two kinds of criticism which come to us all in this world.  One is constructive criticism.  To be really constructive, criticism must come to us from people whom we know and whose judgment we trust and who we feel really care, not only for us as individuals, but for the things which may be affected by the actions or attitudes which we take.

Destructive criticism is always valueless and anyone with common sense soon becomes completely indifferent to it.  It may, of course, be cruel at times.

Sound advice.  Well, then, do we know Devin Burghart?  Do we know Lisa Hagen, who wrote the article?  How about WABE, which sponsored it?  Are they friendly to us?

That last question could be asked of a lot of things: our movies, our television shows, the majority of news outlets, the majority of book publishers, and on and on.  Conservatives can't search for politicized topics using a search engine and expect to get fair results, an assertion that may be empirically demonstrated.  That said, how is one to avoid becoming trapped within an echo chamber of his own making by isolating his intake of information to selected sources?  The obvious answer is to expand one's intake to sources beyond those we trust, to take the pulse, and to consider — fairly, as objectively as we are able — the reasoning behind it and any merit it may hold for us.

Our forefathers were men of diverse thinking, crafting a new form of government while Washington, their strongest, resisted the great tyranny in the battlefields.  Men of reason, across the spectrum of conservative and liberal politics, think carefully, act deliberately, feel deeply, and criticize wisely.  They do not seek reasons to castigate others, so they eschew undue criticism, but they are obliged to respond to attacks, framing their responses and placing context around their intentions and actions.  Any unprincipled lout using the tactics of Alinsky has no such qualms, but if there is one thing President Trump has demonstrated, it is a new way to engage irrational political behavior.

Employing reason may seem like a thankless endeavor nowadays.  Some words from the Dhammapadda (Chapter 23, The Elephant) may reassure us:

If for company you find a wise and prudent friend who leads a good life, you should, overcoming all impediments, keep his company joyously and mindfully.

If for company you cannot find a wise and prudent friend who leads a good life, then, like a king who leaves behind a conquered kingdom, or like a lone elephant in the elephant forest, you should go your way alone.

Better it is to live alone; there is no fellowship with a fool.  Live alone and do no evil; be carefree like an elephant in the elephant forest.