Wouldn’t it be easier to just sign up, join up … you know .. . bravely figure out a way to put on a uniform where the open-carrying of a weapon means some thing … legal or otherwise.
But all this strutting about and preening does nothing to engender the image or make the statement obviously intended.
A veteran myself who has, “been there carried,” I know lots of other veterans in my community who HAVE used a weapon in defense of our country. We are genuine – the real thing – and wouldn’t hesitate to leave our homes, leave the churches before the sermon ends, leave the tavern with the last beer unfinished, drop what we’re doing, jump in our trucks, get our weapons and make haste to the scene of threat or action.
We’d do it in a moment’s notice cause we know where our weapons are – kept safe under lock and key until needed.
And for most of those I know, it wouldn’t be any different if those attacking were government agents or military troops sent to forcibly take our weapons away, put us in some kind of internment camp, force us to pay our taxes or execute us for fornication.
But that is not what is happening.
I believe it is called “carrying” and is part of making what is considered a patriotic statement having to do with defending our liberties whenever and wherever those freedoms appear to be under attack.
So then, what does “under attack” mean?
What is in the mind of someone who feels the need to publicly flaunt personal ownership of a weapon because something frightens him that is not frightening most people who are otherwise civically engaged and active.
Is there a difference? Well, although we all have that right some of us use common sense that dictates that one need not “carry” unless a defense of rights is under literal and immediate physical attack, war or invasion of our country.
So let me make a political point and perhaps underscore the fact that none of us who have been there and done that are somehow automatically superior and wiser about bearing arms. My issue is with the notion that a political point that involves public brandishing (and whether a rifle is back-packed or being waived around threateningly its political point is in fact a threat involving using the weapon, justified or not) and is more about he-who-carries than any political point.
Speaking of political points, usually when political protests and points are being made, such is done in the presence of legitimate and openly advocated objectives that harm individuals and the public in general. The whole “point” of Open Carry as declared by the gun-packers is a reaction to a perceived threat that the government wants to take away citizens’ weapons and perhaps even appeal the 2nd amendment.
No proof of that … no proposed legislation … nothing … unless one has the notion that attempting to regulate or manage the means of obtaining weapons and seeking to insure in some way education on the proper use of a weapon is in fact a deliberate attempt to disarm the population. Not so in my opinion.
It then boils down to who feels threatened, who can cope with their fears logically and sensibly with an eye to public safety. Otherwise it seems to be only the self-glory of walking around with a weapon openly displayed among a population, the majority of which is not self-protected against the risk of harm from those who carry.
The picture is not a photo of wise veterans. The young man who shot up the church in South Carolina was carrying and using a weapon as if he were on a stage. In truth he was, a stage in his mind .
The Saga of Crooked Donald 