Open
Back during the concealed carry debate in Minnesota, I can’t count the number of casually anti-reform people - including one DFL lobbyist/activist type who, while not an elected official, exerts a fairly hefty influence over politics in the Twin Cities - that I talked to who asked “why not require people to carry openly? I mean, why not show people that you’re carrying?”
Which of course shows how screechingly ill-informed most anti-concealed carry activists are; the Minnesota Personal Protection Act allows people to carry openly.
But leaving aside the fact that requiring open carry would have the effect of tipping violent criminals off as to who was armed, most people who have permits don’t carry openly for the simple reason that “Gun” is a pretty powerful message. In a generally-disarmed place like the Twin Cities, openly carrying a gun - completely legally - would be a little like walking around naked; it could be completely innocent, but at the very least it’d tend to dominate the conversation, and at the most could get people pretty upset.
At this year’s annual Gun Rights picnic at the Harriett Bandshell, where dozens of utterly law-abiding citizens stood, ate and kibitzed, many of us carrying permitted firearms, a bystander was heard sputtering into a cell phone demanding a police response. Now, it was a legal picnic full of legal people doing a legal activity, and someone had taken the liberty of telling the police what was going on, so nothing happened. But as a general rule, keeping guns out the way among crowds that might not necessarily be with the good guys is considered tactful. At least.
Just because you can openly carry your firearm doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.
Now, when you mix guns and politics? The messages are even more pronounced. The symbolism gets through to even SEIU members.
Make no mistake about it; government needs to know that the people do in fact have the final veto, should they get genuinely out of line - suspending the Constitution, abrogating democracy, descending into genuine tyranny. And the government should know that each and every one of us gun-owning citizens is not going to be giving up our Second Amendment rights without a fight - and that fight will be rhetorical and political, God willing, as long as we do have a functioning democracy.
But at a town hall meeting? Oh, I get the idea - but it’s a bad plan. While you may be trying to express “Don’t Tread On Me”, there are those - mostly, but not entirely, from the pants-wetting class - who will take it as “I’m Treading On You”. Which is the last impression one wants to leave people with in a civil society.
So while I get the idea, the fact is that Obama hasn’t suspended the constitution. Oh, he and his Chicago-like administration are playing fast and loose with a lot of our rights, and they need watching.
When when you’re talking town hall meetings - notwithstanding the fact that when congresspeople and the President are involved are usually really just decorative window-dressing when it comes to “participatory democracy” - leave the guns at home. Even if you’re legal (as all the people in the incidents two weeks ago were).
We need to force the President and his dupes to stay on subject.
Cross-posted and comments welcome at Shot In The Dark.
Share this post
