He was convinced that the reason for bringing guns to political rallies was to intimidate people who have opposing views.
This, lead to this reply:
That reflects his opinion of you and other gun owners.
Now, I spent some time thinking about this and have looked at it from how the ones who are really opposed to private gun ownership must see this.
And I can honestly say, based on their premise, it actually is an intimidation technique.
Now, before you flog me in public, hear me out.
We, as a whole are not scared of guns, right? We acknowledge them as objects made of wood, steel, polymer and a bunch of other stuff. And frankly, they probably do, too. What scares them is the fact that we are (remember: at least to them) creating a disparity of force by not acknowledging their fears of people with guns.
Let's look at this and substitute guns.
Let's assume we have two political factions. One is the faction of "People Who Hate Waterparks" (PHW) and one is the "Waterpark Lovers United." (WLU)
Now, both sides regularly hold rallies and do their best and worst to convince each other to just stop building those scary waterparks anywhere near schools or public buildings and the other is trying to just have these ninnies hop into the wet watery fun.
So to draw a direct comparison to the debate at hand, what a gun at a political rally is to these Antis is similar to the WLU insisting on only holding political meetings in a pool. Obviously the PHW is simply appalled by this! Everyone knows they feel utterly unsafe around water and as such the insistence that all meetings must be held in the deep water pool, or no meeting will be held is very easily seen as "My Way or the Highway" instead of a "rational debate among peers."
And that is exactly what overt open carrying (which kinda is (sadly) a wedge issue) while in attendance of a political event is.
When large masses of people carry the very thing that makes the other faction scared, that is arguably intimidation.
I wouldn't feel comfortable in an environment where every person around me is much, much more heavily ... I don't know ... religious, anti-religious, bigger, whiter, blacker, yellower, redder, or whatever it is that I may be afraid of.
The fear and cries of intimidation on the part of the Antis, while utterly unintelligible to us, who are very much for the right to keep arms wherever we darned well please is justified.
Carrying openly during large demonstrations that already include many of the current wedge issues is intimidation to them. As much as it wouldn't be to us, it's the same as insisting to pace during a business meeting in a traditional japanese business meeting. It's one party not willing to compromise and thus creating a visible as well as physical force disparity. And while this can work and has probably been used very effectively, it is intimidation. (I'd even wager that large parts of international affairs are made up of very subtle intimidation.)
Now, I'm not saying I agree with this notion that openly carrying guns is somehow inherently intimidating, but what I am saying is that sometimes the unwillingness to compromise and just untuck ones shirt so the other party is more at ease can be intimidating, or at the least bullheaded.
I do think that if we somehow stopped insisting on this "no quarters" rule of engagement ... we could pull the second amendment out of this pot of wedge issues. And then, when guns once again are common fare ... open carry also becomes common fare again. Call it a minor loss to win the battle? Because if we create these hysterically screaming antis, they have more and more fodder to throw to those sitting on the fence.
Remember, folks: The more we appear civil, open to discourse and rational, the more the second amendment, and specifically those who pound on it the hardest are palatable to the public. the more shrill and grotesque we become the more we will be marginalized.
Think along these lines:
Wanna open carry among antis?
Be friendly, share your well-meant passion, carry as much as you can, and when everyone has accepted that you are always armed, and nothing bad has happened, one day simply forget the over-shirt. And then never wear one again.
Most people who have even the mildest form of friendly and moderately personal contact with me, for instance will know two things:
I am in the Army. I love it. They are welcome to come to Mary's Peak with me anytime I go and pop some cans. I love that, too. Also, I know where the local organic food markets are, like trees, don't like to waste resources, dislike the two party system and all this time ... I'm a complete person. Not a one issue entity.
Remember, as much as we tend to think that society at large hates us, most of us lead very fulfilled lives. We *are* integrated. We *are* respectable members of society, so why are we marginalizing ourselves? There's no shame in carrying a firearm, but somehow we're desperately afraid someone might know? There's no shame in hunting, but somehow we seal our lips when ti comes to the hobby?
So yeah, all this just to say that while we find the notion ridiculous that openly carrying a gun is somehow intimidating, the longer we take to sit down at the same table as the fence sitters who are only mildly anti ... the longer it takes for the taboo to go away. It's not hard. Before we come to the proverbial table to talk with people who are afraid of guns ... let's untuck our shirts, talk, leave and continue open carrying when we step away from the table of equals. Because arguably an unarmed person is not the equal of an armed person in conflict resolution. And they know that just as well as we do.
Sorry for the rant.
