Taking it Public

Walls of the City has a great post called Taking It Public about the man open carrying a firearm at the Arizona speech given by The One. Hot Air has the story on how MSNBC tried mightily to hide the race of the man in question to promote their agenda here, which basically boiled down to PSH. Say Uncle has more discussion of the issue from the points of view of other gun rights activists here. Even the White House has put out a positive announcement on the topic, or at least as positive as this president is likely to get here.

Indeed, this incident has been discussed so frequently, that you may be wondering why I am weighing in, given my general reluctance to speak up when others have already done so, often more eloquently than I can. So here goes: for a long time I have been of two minds on the topic.

I applaud those who choose to open carry. As Linoge says:

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?

It is, of course, a circular argument, but it also makes a point, that I have made as well, that people no longer go about armed. For whatever reason, and there are many, it is no longer "normal." Many people look at you as paranoid if you even carry a simple pocket knife. The only way that carrying a weapon will ever be "normalized" is if some hardy souls begin to carry openly. Such hardy souls will face hostility from their fellow citizens and from some "authorities" who will generally make their lives miserable. So such people would need the support of family and friends who shared their goals. As for tactical advantage, I think it is generally a wash. You potentially give up surprise, though not necessarily. But you do gain speed, since you don't risk fumbling around under your cover garment for your weapon.

On the other hand...

A person who ventures out with a gun obviously on his hip must be a fairly articulate speaker, who has rehearsed in his mind a number of scenarios, and has well chosen come backs for things people might say. If you are a stumblebum when speaking to people, as I am, it may be better to be discreet. If your wife, your children, or your friends are not on board, it may be better to be discreet. If you are not wealthy enough to out spend the State whenever you are stopped and arrested on trumped up charges for defying their "authoratah," you may want to be discreet, because you will be scrutinized, and you must obey every jot and tittle of the convoluted, contradictory and unevenly applied "law."

But...

Concealed carry has problems too. The obvious is that when you have to go before the State and apply for a license to exercise a right, it really can not be said to be a right. A concealed handgun permit, like a driver's license, is a privilege. It can be taken away just as easily as it was granted. Where open carry is permitted and generally recognized, you can fall back on that and open carry if concealed carry is not granted. But if you live in a police state, and many places in the United States have become exactly that, you may not have that option.

So, which ever way you decide to go, you will get no argument from me.