Firearms ..... two view points

This is specifically about the open carry of firearms, but it illustrates the divergent views within the firearms community. One view is from Sebastian, the other is from Mike, and they concern an op-ed by Clayton Cramer in Shotgun News.

Sebastian feels that Cramer hits the nail on the head; Mike thinks that Cramer is lukewarm in hiws activism. While I can understand Sebastian's end, I don't much support his 'work-through-the-system-only' approach (doesn't mean we should forego the system). Mike is more at my speed on things firearm-related.

And maybe it's that I was in the Marine Corps, long known for being pretty black-or-white on issues. It's my opinion that the current firearms laws on the books are not in line with what the founding fathers intended for this country ... that's me. But even my wife thinks that an individual is compensating for the lack of something when he wants to carry a firearm openly.

But that individual is me. I have a concealed carry permit, and in my state that allows me to carry openly (as far as current interpretations of the law go). Now, I won't carry openly until I lose a little weight, so that I can dress in a reasonable manner (rather than shorts and a t-shirt). But my medical situation has made me think about this a lot.

I currently carry in a deep-concealment location (full-size Hi-power in a Smartcarry holster) ..... I can conceal it with almost all my wardrobe, but it is hard for me to present my handgun (because of the Affliction). So my thought is, why have to use my handgun in case of emergency, when I might be able to have the critters avoid me all together?

Maybe by openly carrying my handgun?

Wouldn't the bad guys look for easier pickings if they saw my handgun before? And what if the sight if my handgun made the bad guys pick a different establishment to rob? Could crime in general not be curtailed if there were citizens about, openly carrying firearms?

Now, as a libertarian thinker, I sometimes have to really work at letting other people live their lives. I live in a rural area, and it's not unusual to hear gunshots during the day, and sometimes at night. And even not knowing who they are, or where they're shooting, or how safe they're being, I have to tell myself that it's ok, that it's their right to do this.

And I know that if I were carrying, I know that I'd be safe and not call attention to myself and only use my power for good, not evil. And really, why should anyone care if I'm lawfully carrying my handgun openly? If I'm not using it for evil, right? And I wouldn't, of course, since I'm a law-abiding citizen; that's why I was issued the permit in the first place.

Why should I sacrifice my personal security for someone else's personal comfort?

I don't think I should.

While Sebastian makes the case against open carry and scaring the white folks, Mike makes the case that openly carrying firearms, besides giving bad guys pause, also gives politicians pause as well (and does so much better than I can). Sebastian apparently has faith in politicians ...... Mike typically does not, nor do I. Yes, I'm sure they're pretty good people outside of politics, but anytime you put a small group of people in charge of a country, bad things tend to happen.

So, can't we just get along? I don't think so ...... when one segment of the movement tells another that what they're doing is counter-productive, it's an implicit statment that one side is wrong, and needs to stop. The action might be counter-productive to what you're doing, but the action's supporters believe it to be a good thing, a result to be desired.

For a long time, the anti-firearms lobby ran rough-shod over firearms owners in this country; always pushing for tighter and stricter laws, and our 'leadership' would compromise. That only got us in worse shape, just slower than the anti-guns wanted. But in worse shape, none the less.

Why can't our efforts be synergistic? Why can't the pragmatic approach be strengthened by the specter of the 3 percenters? Why can't the threat of the 3 percenters be softened by the pragmatists? If compromise has to happen, let compromise start happening in our favor.

And that's another thing: just about every session of congress, there's some nutjob lefty floating the idea (or even sponsoring a bill) to repeal the 2nd amendment. So why the fuck is there no one on our side floating the idea to repeal the Gun Control Act, or the National Firearms Act. Why?

Because governments don't like to relinquish power once they've attained it ..... that's why our movement is at a snails pace.

Not because we open carried.

pm