What I got out of that windbag's blog is that he feels that you should be happy to have the rights you have and not use any of them in a way that might offend someone else.
In other words don't exercise any right that offends someone else.
That might be the most un-American opinion that I have ever read. Thinking like that only works for an agoraphobic, I am actually shocked to read it on a Pro Constitution forum.
If that's all you got out of that blog post, which, btw, is maintained by easily a couple of the smartest people in the blogosphere, I'm not sure that I can help you at all.
At no point in the blog entry does the author advocate the removal or infringement of anyone's civil rights. However, they do lay out a series of fundamentally rational critiques of some of the "strategies" undertaken by stunt carriers that are far more likely to alienate all but the choir they're members of.
Can you not make the mental leap and apply that thinking to other things as well?
Some people are offended by fur, hunting, eating meat, wearing leather, BACON...The list is all encompassing, every day that you go out in public you probably offend someone while exercising a right.
The majority of people in this country are not offended by hunting, omnivorism, or wearing leather. Nor is there an overt political movement to forcibly remove those things from society. The gun rights movement has come a long way, but if we're to continue making headway, it behooves us not to reinforce preconceived notions about gun owners being a bunch of trigger-happy kill junkies.
That some are culturally tone-deaf that you can't actually rationally address the points raised in the original post causes me to think that the author has likely hit on a fundamental truth that some supposed gun rights advocates can't understand that they're actually doing far more harm than good.
How many people that you interact with daily would be offended by the gun you likely are secreting on your person if they knew?
All of my co-workers know that I carry, including my liberal Democrat of a boss. It took some work to convince him that concealed carry actually rendered him safer than not. How much easier do you think that conversation would have gone if I insisted on open-carrying an aesthetically threatening "assault weapon" while trying to make my point?
Seriously, give that some thought and let me know what you think.