Skip to comments.“Look at my gun!” Why NRA’s scary “open carry” craze is not about freedom
Posted on 05/09/2014 3:07:53 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Freedom for a man with a gun trumps freedom for parents of kids who feel endangered by him. Our scary new reality.
Imagine youre sitting in a restaurant and a loud group of armed men come through the door. They are ostentatiously displaying their weapons, making sure that everyone notices them. Would you feel safe or would you feel in danger? Would you feel comfortable confronting them? If you owned the restaurant could you ask them to leave? These are questions that are facing more and more Americans in their everyday lives as open carry enthusiasts descend on public places ostensibly for the sole purpose of exercising their constitutional right to do it. It just makes them feel good, apparently.
For instance, in the wake of the new Georgia law that pretty much makes it legal to carry deadly weapons at all times in all places, parents were alarmed when an armed man showed up at the park where their kids were playing little league baseball and waved his gun around shouting, Look at my gun! and Theres nothing you can do about it. The police were called and when they arrived they found the man had broken no laws and was perfectly within his rights to do what he did. That was small consolation to the parents, however. Common sense tells anyone that a man waving a gun around in public is dangerous so the parents had no choice but to leave the park. Freedom for the man with the gun trumps freedom for the parents of kids who feel endangered by him.
After the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre, open carry advocates decided it was a good idea to descend upon Starbucks stores around the country, even in Newtown where a couple dozen armed demonstrators showed up, to make their political point. There were no incidents. Why would there be? When an armed citizen decides to exercise his right to bear arms, it would be reckless to exercise your right to free speech if you disagreed with them. But it did cause the CEO of Starbucks to ask very politely if these gun proliferation supporters would kindly not use his stores as the site of their future statements. He didnt ban them from the practice, however. His reason? He didnt want to put his employees in the position of having to confront armed customers to tell them to leave. Sure, Starbucks might have the right to ban guns on private property in theory, but in practice no boss can tell his workers that they must try to evict someone who is carrying a deadly weapon.
Just last week open carry proponents decided to have one of their demonstrations by going into a Jack in the Box en masse, scaring the employees so badly that they hid in the walk-in freezer. The so-called demonstrators seemed confused by the response of police who assumed there was an armed robbery in progress and dispatched a phalanx of cops.
Were not breaking the laws, Haros said. Were not here to hurt anybody. Were not trying to alarm anybody. Were doing this because its our constitutional right.
Haros, who believes openly carrying firearms helps police, said citizens should know that the demonstrations will continue.
Its just for safety purposes, Haros said. Officers cant be there at all times. We understand that. They can only do so much.
So this fine fellow believes he is doing this to protect the public. And while they dont wear uniforms so you cant identify them, have no specialized training in the law, are not bound by police protocols or answer to the authority of the democratic system of government of the people, they have taken it upon themselves to look after all of us because the police are busy. (And presumably, unless you are wearing a hoodie and they think you look suspicious, you probably wont get shot dead by mistake.) We used to have a name for this. It was called vigilantism. One can only hope that when a bad guy really does show up at your Jack in the Box or Starbucks and one of these self-appointed John Waynes decides to draw his weapon youll be as lucky as the innocent civilian who narrowly escaped being killed in error at the Gabrielle Giffords shooting.
All of this is allegedly being done to protect our freedoms. But its only the freedom of the person wearing a firearm that matters. Those parents who want their kids to feel safe in a public park arent free to tell a man waving a gun around to leave them alone, are they? Patrons and employees of Starbucks arent free to express their opinion of open carry laws when one of these demonstrations are taking place in the store. Those Jack in the Box employees arent free to refuse service to armed customers. Sure, they are all theoretically free to do those things. Its their constitutional right just like its the constitutional right of these people to carry a gun. But in the real world, sane people do not confront armed men and women. They dont argue with them over politics. They certainly do not put their kids in harms way in order to make a point. So when it comes right down to it, when you are in the presence of one of these armed citizens, you dont really have any rights at all.
You can see why they think thats freedom. It is. For them. The rest of us just have to be very polite, keep our voices down and back away very slowly, saying, Yes sir, whatever you say, sir, and let them have their way.
We’ll be lucky if Putin doesn’t annex Alaska before Odingo leaves office.
It’s gonna be de wil wil West agin!
For every guy walking around with a gun on his hip in plain sight there are probably 100 carrying concealed. I bet that gives the guys at Salon nightmares too.
Frankly I couldn’t care less what they “feel”.
So when it comes right down to it, when you are in the presence of one of these armed citizens, you dont really have any rights at all.
So Heather, are you such a moron that you can’t figure out
that the thing to do is GET A GUN and protect your rights
like other citizens?
Sheeesch, liberals, the stupid it BURNS!
is known as brandishing, and is still illegal. So, the author is a liar.
Why should liberals whine? They love the police state, and this sounds like the way cops think we should behave in their presence............
That’s why I think concealed and open carry compliment each other.
You are right about conquering and settling a continent, winning two world wars and defeating the Soviet threat.
But we are completely giving away the future.
America needs to make things. America factories are what made America run.
We are currently building up China. Not America.
Bring back factories and build stuff here once again. Republicans. Democrats. Someone stand up for Americans once again.
Tea Party, stand up.
Now imagine they are cops.
You mean, they’d actuall7y say, “Sir”?
Proof that armed citizens make for polite society.
naw...Palin’s on it.
“Why should liberals whine?”
It's all about the children, don'tcha know.
Hahaha...stupid liberal couldn't even get past the first sentence.
Correct. She took care to use the phrase twice just to get the image set. And yes, that is illegal and she is a liar.
It's odd - I thought this sort of "consciousness-raising" was supposed to be a good thing. The Left uses it to excuse outright lying when it comes to racist and sexist incidents. Not, apparently, when it comes to the horror of viewing a firearm in public that isn't attached to a police officer. That's a different sort of dread.
One does need to be very careful to stay inside the law of the state when exercising this sort of political demonstration. There will be provocations in an attempt to force the firearm holder to break the law or act in a threatening manner. But liberal use of their personal feelings to control other people's lives is an old, widespread, and dishonorable tactic.
Sounds like the author came to the correct conclusion.
Normally lefties resort to violence when they encounter conservatives protesting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.