“Look at my gun!” Why NRA’s scary “open carry” craze is not about freedom

Salon ^ | May 7, 2014 | Heather Digby Parton

[2ndDivisionVet]

Freedom for a man with a gun trumps freedom for parents of kids who feel endangered by him. Our scary new reality.

Imagine you’re sitting in a restaurant and a loud group of armed men come through the door. They are ostentatiously displaying their weapons, making sure that everyone notices them. Would you feel safe or would you feel in danger? Would you feel comfortable confronting them? If you owned the restaurant could you ask them to leave? These are questions that are facing more and more Americans in their everyday lives as “open carry” enthusiasts descend on public places ostensibly for the sole purpose of exercising their constitutional right to do it. It just makes them feel good, apparently.

For instance, in the wake of the new Georgia law that pretty much makes it legal to carry deadly weapons at all times in all places, parents were alarmed when an armed man showed up at the park where their kids were playing little league baseball and waved his gun around shouting, “Look at my gun!” and “There’s nothing you can do about it.” The police were called and when they arrived they found the man had broken no laws and was perfectly within his rights to do what he did. That was small consolation to the parents, however. Common sense tells anyone that a man waving a gun around in public is dangerous so the parents had no choice but to leave the park. Freedom for the man with the gun trumps freedom for the parents of kids who feel endangered by him.

After the Sandy Hook elementary school massacre, open carry advocates decided it was a good idea to descend upon Starbucks stores around the country, even in Newtown where a couple dozen armed demonstrators showed up, to make their political point. There were no incidents. Why would there be? When an armed citizen decides to exercise his right to bear arms, it would be reckless to exercise your right to free speech if you disagreed with them. But it did cause the CEO of Starbucks to ask very politely if these gun proliferation supporters would kindly not use his stores as the site of their future “statements.” He didn’t ban them from the practice, however. His reason? He didn’t want to put his employees in the position of having to confront armed customers to tell them to leave. Sure, Starbucks might have the “right” to ban guns on private property in theory, but in practice no boss can tell his workers that they must try to evict someone who is carrying a deadly weapon.

Just last week open carry proponents decided to have one of their “demonstrations” by going into a Jack in the Box en masse, scaring the employees so badly that they hid in the walk-in freezer. The so-called demonstrators seemed confused by the response of police who assumed there was an armed robbery in progress and dispatched a phalanx of cops.

“We’re not breaking the laws,” Haros said. “We’re not here to hurt anybody. We’re not trying to alarm anybody. We’re doing this because it’s our constitutional right.”

Haros, who believes openly carrying firearms helps police, said citizens should know that the demonstrations will continue.

“It’s just for safety purposes,” Haros said. “Officers can’t be there at all times. We understand that. They can only do so much.”

So this fine fellow believes he is doing this to protect the public. And while they don’t wear uniforms so you can’t identify them, have no specialized training in the law, are not bound by police protocols or answer to the authority of the democratic system of government of the people, they have taken it upon themselves to look after all of us because the police are busy. (And presumably, unless you are wearing a hoodie and they think you look suspicious, you probably won’t get shot dead by mistake.) We used to have a name for this. It was called vigilantism. One can only hope that when a “bad guy” really does show up at your Jack in the Box or Starbucks and one of these self-appointed John Waynes decides to draw his weapon you’ll be as lucky as the innocent civilian who narrowly escaped being killed in error at the Gabrielle Giffords shooting.

All of this is allegedly being done to protect our freedoms. But it’s only the “freedom” of the person wearing a firearm that matters. Those parents who want their kids to feel safe in a public park aren’t free to tell a man waving a gun around to leave them alone, are they? Patrons and employees of Starbucks aren’t free to express their opinion of open carry laws when one of these demonstrations are taking place in the store. Those Jack in the Box employees aren’t free to refuse service to armed customers. Sure, they are all theoretically free to do those things. It’s their constitutional right just like it’s the constitutional right of these people to carry a gun. But in the real world, sane people do not confront armed men and women. They don’t argue with them over politics. They certainly do not put their kids in harm’s way in order to make a point. So when it comes right down to it, when you are in the presence of one of these armed citizens, you don’t really have any rights at all.

You can see why they think that’s freedom. It is. For them. The rest of us just have to be very polite, keep our voices down and back away very slowly, saying, “Yes sir, whatever you say, sir,” and let them have their way.

[kcvl]

Digby is the pseudonym of liberal political blogger Heather Parton from Santa Monica, California who founded the blog Hullabaloo. She has been called one of the "leading and most admired commentators" of the progressive blogosphere.

Digby began as a commenter on the blogs of Bartcop and Atrios and launched her own blog on January 1, 2003, calling it Hullabaloo "because one function of blogs is to cause a ruckus" and decorating it with a picture of a screaming Howard Beale from the film Network. She has been joined by other bloggers on Hullabaloo, including composer Richard Einhorn, who blogs under the name "Tristero".

[Darksheare]

Reading this, you can hear the urine run down the authors leg.

[gundog]

Sure there are. But they pronounce it Geee.

[kcvl]

Heather “Digby” Parton grew up all over the world as the daughter of a peripatetic employee of the vast American Military Industrial complex. After a traditional 1970s-style misspent youth and fitful education, she landed in Hollywood and spent a couple of decades as an executive in the film industry, pushing the usual paper and making the usual deals. Out of a need to vent her frustration with the state of America’s politics, she began writing daily political analysis, punditry, random musings and snark on her website “Hullabaloo” in 2002. It soon turned into a full-time vocation, obsession, and, surprisingly, a new career.

Digby’s 2013 commentary on economic inequality and the ongoing battle inside Washington on cutting social spending was stoic in defense of both the powerless and the American middle class. She took official Washington to task on behalf of those too often left out of the American Dream. She criticized the political brinksmanship over the Federal budget and examined its real-world victims. She took on both welfare reformers on the left and budget slicers on the right, providing context for a steadily decreasing middle class and more Americans living in poverty, particularly children. Digby chided deficit hawks for ignoring the growing poverty picture, pushed back on Democrats seeking a “grand bargain,” and analyzed how voters sometimes ignore their own economic self-interest.

http://www.hillmanfoundation.org/2014-hillman-prize-opinion-and-analysis-journalism

[Mastador1]

Sorry, it will be the fairly accurate portrayal of the wil wil west from “little house on the prairie”.

Hailstorms were big news.

And then tragedy overtook the Ingalls family as Nels in a fit of rage over the Ingall's past due account attacked hem all one evening with an axe! If only Charles had bought a gun for defense on account instead of gingham for the girls, they might have survived.

[gundog]

Pretty funny, what with New Jersey trying to figure out if the right to keep and bear arms extends beyond the home. I don’t know about you, but the deer population in my home is pretty sparse.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

(article rewritten to explain the author’s hysteria.)

“Freedom for a black man trumps freedom for parents of kids who feel endangered by him. Our scary new reality. Imagine you’re sitting in a restaurant and a loud group of black men come through the door. They are wearing ostentatious clothing, making sure that everyone notices them. Would you feel safe or would you feel in danger? Would you feel comfortable confronting them? If you owned the restaurant could you ask them to leave?

“These are questions that are facing more and more Americans in their everyday lives as black people descend on public places ostensibly for the sole purpose of exercising their constitutional right to do it. It just makes them feel good, apparently.

“For instance, in the wake of the new Georgia law that pretty much makes it legal for black people to be at all times in all places, parents were alarmed when a black man showed up at the park where their kids were playing little league baseball and when asked what he was doing there, shouted, “Hey, I’m black!” and “There’s nothing you can do about it.”

“The police were called and when they arrived they found the man had broken no laws and was perfectly within his rights to do what he did. That was small consolation to the parents, however. Common sense tells anyone that a black man in public is dangerous so the parents had no choice but to leave the park. Freedom for the black man trumps freedom for the parents of kids who feel endangered by him.”

To Heather Digby Parton at Salon: this is your mind, and how you look at others. Aren’t you ashamed of yourself?

[onedoug]

They’ve got to be “loud”.

[hearthwench]

It is common for people to wear a gun on their hip here in northern Idaho. Even in Walmart. (grin) It is not noticeable, really. It is no different than a knife hanging off one’s belt. Both are normal “accessories” and common enough to not raise an eyebrow.

Maybe liberals spend too much times staring at men’s hips...

[cripplecreek]

I love it when liberals come to the country and hear gunfire from multiple directions.

To me its background noise and a barely notice it. To them its a dire threat and somebody just has to be dying.

[PistolPaknMama]

The rest of us just have to be very polite, keep our voices down and back away very slowly, saying, “Yes sir, whatever you say, sir,” and let them have their way.

The rest of you who think victimhood is noble.

[andyk]

Now imagine they are cops.

GMTA.

[Mastador1]

Well, it all depends. Many years ago I used to go shooting at a place called Lytle creek, it was out in the country, desert. Normally I didn’t mind hearing shooting all around me because it just meant there were others like me having a good time. The the gangbangers found the place and they were shooting full auto indiscriminately and using some pretty good size explosives.

[buffaloguy]

Charles had a shotgun with which he peppered Nels with rocksalt. “Go home old man.”

Meanwhile, beyond the orbit of our moon, Zarkon the Gratuitously Cruel refocused his sight. He touched a small button and......

[Mastador1]

SMILING!

[Age of Reason]

I’m not sure I like these open carry stunts because it might result in the elimination of open carry in those areas where it’s currently legal.

I’m also not sure if open carry is such a good idea from the self protection standpoint.

The bad guy sees you’re carrying, so he sneaks up behind you, pokes a knife or gun in your ribs and takes your wallet and your gun, too.

[rlmorel]

Well, that liberal shoe sure does fit her.

[Age of Reason]

On the other hand, if a mass murderer wanted to shoot into a crowd of people who were openly carrying guns, the shooter would either change their mind or shoot the ones with the guns first. (Shouldn’t get too many, though).

[Drango]

Both readers of Salon liked their article.

[Secret Agent Man]

liberals prove they have no idea of who they should be afraid of and who they shouldn’t be afraid of. to wit

big govt - no (but should be yes)

limited govt - yes (no)

unions - no (yes)

non-union work - yes (no)

armed guy playing w/his kid - yes (no)

armed thugs w/guns in their waistband looking for victims - no (yes)

muslims - no (yes)

christians - yes (no)