There is in the news today a call for the Marines at the recruiting station in Chattanooga to have been armed, since "we are at war" with radical Islam. A different take on the subject can be found (via WRSA) from Mason Dixon Tactical. Here are some excerpts. The question is somewhat easy to answer. “Should they have been armed?” The short answer is “No.”, at least not from an “On Duty” perspective. I find it interesting that some who have been crying to high Heaven about the [read more]
As a direct result of Cooley’s stunt, Georgia Democrat Hank Johnson has now proposed a federal law to ban both open and concealed carry in airports … Thankfully, is is very unlikely that Johnson will amass enough support to make this bill viable.
Sadly, we’re now having to devote energies on defense to explain why Johnson’s proposed bill really isn’t “common sense.” It’s a prospect made all the more difficult because your average citizen isn’t going to be able to grasp why a mentally healthy person might want or need to walk into an airport with AR-15 with a drum magazine inserted to see someone off at the airport, unless that airport is in Afghanistan.
When gun rights activists and pro-gun lawmakers have to deal with distracting, grandstanding behavior like Cooley’s, it takes away time we could better spend attempting to pass other pro-gun laws, or dismantle gun control laws already on the books.
Jim Cooley’s fifteen-minute stunt did nothing to help the gun rights movement, and gave gun control supporters ammunition that they will reuse again and again for years to come to portray gun owners as extreme, paranoid, and out of touch with the American mainstream.
That’s not helping us, and never will.
I’m not even close … no, let me find a better way to say this … I am literally light years from understanding Bob’s argument. If I were to lay it out syllogistically, it may look something like this.
- We currently have rights understood to be so by the authorities and people, one of which is open carry of both long guns and handguns.
- Exercising that right may invoke the disapprobation of the lawmakers.
- The lawmakers may remove their written approval.
- If they remove their written approval, we can’t exercise that right.
But of course the problem is that if we could never exercise the right without recognition of it being removed, recognition of it was a phantom to begin with. It doesn’t work for me to say that perhaps he should have carried a handgun openly, because the same person could have gotten offended at the handgun, which the media surely would have called a “high caliber high magazine clip assault handgun.” It would effect the same end for the collectivists. If they are offended at long guns, they will be offended at handguns.
Now, if Bob’s real concern is that he believes we are ostracizing ourselves, then he is lobbying for the wrong thing. He should be lobbying for a new law prohibiting open carry.
So completely aside from the issue of whether you concur with what this person did (i.e., carry of an AR-15 in an airport) or even agree with open carry, Bob’s argument makes absolutely no sense to me. I don’t understand why he is in a fit and why he presented the argument the way he did. Again, if he believes there is no reason to open carry and he wants folks behave differently, he can lobby for a law and we can evaluate his argument on its merits.