You can make a sort of argument for magazine limitations, and for universal background checks. But what is the argument against open carry?
It shows what the disarmists are afraid of. With concealed carry, they can claim the moral high ground, that being armed is something dangerous that people should be ashamed of.
They cannot do that with open carry, where people proudly assert their rights as a form of strong, symbolic, political speech, a combination of First and Second Amendment rights.
I do not agree, but this is the author's reasoning:
The last compromise gun advocates should make is based on the words of that conservative hero, Ronald Reagan: There is no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying a loaded weapon. In his statement, issued as governor in May 1967, Reagan was referring to members of the Black Panther PartySecond Amendment absolutistswho walked into the California State House openly carrying rifles to protest a gun control bill.Reagans statementdirected at those Black Panthers publicly brandishing their weaponsshould be no different when applied to gun zealots walking through a Chilis restaurant in San Antonio carrying long guns. Or the buffoon with an AR-15 loaded with a 100-round drum who last month walked around an Atlanta airport. Or the nitwit in Gulfport, Mississippi, who menaced shoppers at a Wal-Mart by loading and racking shells into a shotgun a few weeks ago, forcing an evacuation of the store. In all of these states, that near-sociopathic behavior was legal. But how can anyone tell whether these nincompoops parading around with their guns on display are merely acting like a 4-year-old proudly showing everyone his penis or constitute a deadly menace? Ask someone at the posh Omni Austin Hotel in Texas; earlier this month, a man walked around the lobby with a rifle, legally scaring people. Then he shot and killed someone.