Repeater
Regular Member
Read his column carefully. He does not distinguish between long guns and handguns (which is why I am not posting this on the Carytown thread). He boldly asserts the only reason to carry openly these days is to cause moms to become nervous; after all, no one is a mind-reader.
Accordingly, all who display their arms are misguided.
[size=+2]The misguided open-carry movement[/size]
Accordingly, all who display their arms are misguided.
[size=+2]The misguided open-carry movement[/size]
Having the right to do a certain something doesn’t mean that certain something is always the right thing to do.
...
When a man shows up at a shooting range with a Smith & Wesson .357 on his hip and a Colt AR-15 slung over his shoulder, his intent is plain. When he shows up at a Starbucks with those same weapons, his intent is far from plain.
...
As Jacob Sullum pointed out not long ago in Reason, there was a time in the U.S. when “openly carrying a weapon was considered manly and honorable, while secretly carrying a weapon was considered sneaky and disreputable. … Today, by contrast, the prevailing view, at least among urbanites, seems to be that secretly carrying a weapon is less worrisome than carrying it openly.” Today people understand the aim of concealed-carry is self-defense. What’s the current aim of open-carry?
...
Gun-rights advocates who delight in making suburban mothers nervous are practicing libertarian brutalism. They resemble those abortion-rights supporters who think it’s funny to wear a shirt that says, “Why did the fetus cross the road? Because they moved the dumpster.” Feeling put-upon, they have an urge to lash out at the other side, to rub the other side’s nose in the dirt and teach it a lesson. But lashing out rarely achieves much. Often such brutalism does nothing but generate resentment.
Having a given right means never having to show consideration for how others feel about it, if you don’t want to. But advocates for individual rights should want to.
Last edited: