So a man was seen carrying an AR-15 pattern rifle at a demonstration outside a speech given by our Glorious Leader on Monday. For most people, this sight would be relatively unusual, but given that the man was in Arizona, what he was doing was perfectly legal and within the bounds of the state’s laws (unlike, say, Tennessee, where such a thing would get you arrested). Even more importantly, no Wild-West-style shooting rampage developed, no one was hurt, no one was threatened, and the man carrying the rifle appeared reasonable, polite, controlled, and pretty much an average citizen.
Unsurprisingly, this event has caused the media to come almost-completely unglued – the only thing that seems to be holding them back is the skin tone of the man in question. If it were not for that small detail, I feel quite certain that we would be inundated with reports of “white supremacists” and “right-wing hate groups” and other such nonsense, regardless of whether or not the unidentified individual was aligned with such organizations or not. As it is, the media is doing its blessed best to go “ick, poo, a gun!” while staying as far away from the ethnicity issue as is humanly possible.
Surprisingly, though, some fellow gunbloggers have also decided to take exception at the man’s actions. Their objections basically boil down to a combination of, “Think of how that looks!” and “We do not want to scare the ‘white people’.”
They might just have a point… Rosa Parks definitely should have reconsidered her mass transit seating options based on how other people would view them. John F. Kennedy never should have bothered running for President, because… good grief, think of how it would have looked to have a Roman Catholic as President! Women’s suffrage was such a bad idea – society certainly did not approve of women standing up for much of anything. And those Native Americans… did they even think of how it would look as they wandered across the country during their “Longest Walk” – who wants to be reminded of that distasteful part of history?
(For those who are not regular readers, the previous paragraph was 100% Grade L sarcasm.)
A lot of pro-rights activists (myself included) like to make a lot of hay over how self-defense-related rights are no different than any other civil right… well, it is time for that rubber to meet the road. Was what the individual (who is named Chris, it would appear) did a little shocking? Yup. Was it outside of the norm? Yup. Did it rattle a few people? Probably.
And?
Chris was peaceful, non-violent, reasonably-well-attired, and did little more than carry the rifle by its strap, muzzle down – in the end, he was no different than the vast majority of open-carriers in our country. Sure, he interacted with folks at the demonstration, but from his group’s video of the event, it would appear as though people did not have any problems interacting with him, or being in his general vicinity. Hell, the group he was with even went so far as to call the Phoenix Police Department and let them know that they would be armed at the demonstrations.
That is “intimidation”? Sure, if he had the rifle in his hands, and was waving it over his head, then we might have a problem… but simply openly carrying a firearm is now “intimidation”? Intimidation requires a direct, conscious, intentional act specifically intended to induce someone into doing something. Just carrying a firearm does not constitute such an act, any more than being a 300-pound, solid-muscle body-builder does – the possibility for something to occur does not mean it will occur, otherwise you might as well start saying that driving an SUV is an intimidation ploy against those who drive convertibles. Or are some of our very own gunbloggers going to start ascribing to the opinion that simply owning a firearm constitutes a threat? Because that is where that “logic” leads…
As I get older, I find my tolerance for gos-se decreasing more and more… Far too often, we rights-advocates complain about idiotic people saying idiotic things about firearms and those who would carry them, and how those stereotyping, discriminatory statements gain so much traction because so many people do not know any better. Here we have a ballsy individual who sets a perfect example for us by legally carrying one of the more-reviled firearms in a peaceful, non-confrontational, every-day manner, showing that those who carry firearms are really no different than any other American citizens… and for his troubles, some of those same rights-advocates go and castigate him.
Maybe “our cause” would be better served by holding this man up as the example he is, rather than wringing our hands over how bad the anti-rights advocates’ spin on this might or might not make us look? Let us be honest: the press and the anti-rights advocates (but I repeat myself) are going to to demonize us no matter what we do, so we might as well exercise our rights and educate people while we can. All the better that Chris was able to both simultaneously.
Simply put, a right not exercised is a right well and truly lost. It is not “normal” for citizens to carry rifles because citizens do not carry rifles, and citizens do not carry rifles because it is not “normal”. Now, when given the option of first changing the definition of “normal” by words alone, or first carrying rifles, which do you think will actually result in honest change?
Hm. It may be time for me to start looking into OWB holster options for my PPS, though Lord knows that if I am going to start open carrying, I should carry something a little more attractive than it…
Read more about this topic here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
related posts:
when the facts do not fit, lie | wheat from the chaff | quite the disparity |
I completely agree. The only way to change the public viewpoint to one where open carry is normal is to carry weapons openly. We can’t normalize open carry by pushing concealed carry.
The whole point of concealed carry is that you can have your weapon while the entire public remains blissfully unaware – out of sight, out of mind. We get to carry firearms for self-defense and John Q. gets to continue living in a world where no one carries, as far as he can tell. Politically, it’s a win-win (unless you’re the Brady Campaign).
How many non-gun owners in Massachusetts know that regular people (non-LEOs) all around them carry guns? How about in California? Very few, I’ll wager, and CCW permits are not too difficult to obtain in some parts of those states. Concealed carry does little to advance the idea that owning and bearing arms is completely normal.
Open carry means that the public can’t ignore the fact that regular people carry guns every day without succumbing to the evil mind control rays. Open carry gets people talking and thinking about the right to keep and bear arms. If we, the gun activist community, denounce these fellows who open carry at political events as lunatics and disown them we’re only going to be hurting ourselves as we cede that battleground to the antis.
Linoge,
When you say “(unlike, say, Tennessee, where such a thing would get you arrested)” are you referring to carrying a rifle or OC at a political rally in general? To the best of my knowledge, the former will get you arrested, but the latter will not.
Thanks,
Pol
While I do not partake in open carry, mostly due to a lack of funds for the lawyer needed here in Georgia for open carry, I do support it.
As to this individual open carrying, just not a handgun, but a rifle as well at a political rally…good for him. This is what it is meant to be an American and a free and sovriegn people.
Eseell: It is for those very reasons that I am very seriously considering starting open carrying. The fields of carry rights (and firearm rights in general) is going to go absolutely nowhere so long as average citizens do not fully understand who carries – other average citizens, and a lot more than they might think. Right now, we are doing little more than hiding in our gun safes, going to ranges periodically, and carrying our firearms like we have to hide them for some reason.
Oh, sure, we have had more than a few judicial and legislative advances in the past few years, and I am quite happy about those, but that is not where the real battle lies – the real fight will be public acceptance. All of the rules, regulations, laws, and legislation in the world will amount to naught if all people see of firearm owners are the whackjobs at the gym, and the Holocaust memorial, and all of the other mass-shooting locations. But, if those same people start seeing average folks at the grocery store, buying milk, and packing a 1911… maybe, just maybe, they will start to accept it.
I am still deciding about the whole open carry thing, but I confess that I am definitely starting to lean that way…
Pol: Sorry about not making that clearer – I was referring specifically to the carrying of an AR-15 and a loaded magazine by the same person in public. That said, we can carry unloaded long guns of all varieties, so long as ammunition for it is nowhere nearby. Of course, I do not think I quite have the balls to test that element of the laws with the local constabulary…
Michael: The “funds for the lawyer” concern is definitely one of my many regarding open carry… The police officers here are, by and large, relatively aware of the open carry situation, but as ColtCCO’s experience proves, not all of them are that enlightened. The open portage of arms is definitely a way of indicating that you are, indeed, a citizen and not a subject, and that is probably the primary complaint the government has with it…
riding the aftershocks
A few days ago, I copy-pasted something I never thought I would quote, and I figured that might just count as the quote of the year. Amazingly, I was wrong. Armed men seen mixing with protesters outside recent events held…
Quote of the Day
The recent controversy over open carry reminds me of one of my favorite Barry Goldwater quotes.
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!
A…
Thanks for the clarification. BTW, I’m an open carrier in Smyrna (or maybe the open carrier in Smyrna). I know how intimidating it can be to OC by yourself for the first time, so if you want to get together for an OC lunch sometime with me just let me know.
And buy a voice recorder. there is a raft of discussions over at opencarry.org regarding the various types. Tennessee is a one party consent state, so as long as you are a party to any conversation you can give yourself permission to record the conversation.
Respectfully,
Pol
Thanks for the offer, Pol! Unfortunately, Smyrna is a little out of the way for me… I am over in the Knoxville region, but if I ever make it out to Nashville, I might have to take you up on it.
I had noticed the prevalance of voice recorders in reading through Open Carry Dot Org’s forums… Definitely something else I am going to have to look into. Already printed out a copy of the Attorney General’s opinion on open/concealed carry, so at least I have that.
when the facts do not fit, lie
So this has already made its way completely around the blogosphere and back again, but I figure I might as well add my two cents as well: MSNBC lies. Like I said, two cents. However, there is an explanation. Remember…
Oh! I thought you were in the Nashville area. Well, the offer still stands if ever you and your wife come down this way. I OC most of the time in summer and about half the time in winter. My wife only open carries when with me, and then only when she feels like it. She isn’t up to getting hassled by the local PD. Of course, they have run my permit enough that now they see me OC and just wave.
To me, open carry vs concealed carry is ‘whatever works for you’, and in certain situations concealed is the better option. I’m more of the type to say just carry!
respectfully,
Pol
Chris: Hell of a post there. Thanks for pointing it out – it brings up a lot of good points, and a lot of things that definitely need to be thought about, considered, and studied.
I agree on the heresay problem… No matter where you go, if you start looking into open carry issues, you will find no shortage of stories about people hearing about other people being selectively targeted, or being somehow disarmed, but I still cannot find a single first-person account, news report, or anything of the like concerning those events. I would certainly be interested if someone could dig some up – learning from them might be invaluable.
Randy: Outstanding point, that… Considering the almost-celebration the Brady Bunch throws every time a gun owner is victimized by thieves or robbers, one would think they would do the same thing for a news report of a gun-carrying citizen being disarmed/selectively attacked.
Heh, the self-confidence factor is definitely something I am going to have to work on… Granted, I am a hell of a lot better than I was, but “command presence” was something I never managed to pick up during my years in the military…
It is interesting, at least to me, that open carrying requires almost as much though, preparation, and consideration as carrying in general did. Definitely not something to be undertaken lightly, in both cases.