Karl Denninger on Open Carry. . .

The Left Has Lost Their Mind Over Guns

Given that it's a rather slow news day with the Euro slowly slipping into the abyss as the ECB will now accept used dog food as collateral, I find time to take on Nancy Dewolf Smith who opined in the WSJ this last Friday:

Like a fly on a birthday cake, the subject of open carry—legally wearing a gun in public—keeps landing in the news and nobody can swat it down. Those who would like to be rid of it range from some of the most ardent gun-controllers to some of the fiercest believers in the Second Amendment right to bear arms. Many of the latter live in the 43 states where it already is legal to openly wear a handgun (although rules vary about whether it can be loaded, etc.). That the majority of people who could walk around outfitted for the OK Corral choose not to do so ought to be a hint that the minority who are most eager to force open carry on the rest of us might belong in a special category of bozos.

The "most ardent" supporters of the 2nd Amendment are in support of getting rid of open carry?  Says who Nancy - and if so, why is it legal in 43 states in one form or another?

Consider the case of James Goldberg, who walked up to the counter of a Glastonbury, Conn. Chili's restaurant in 2007 costumed in camouflage and wearing a pistol. Police were called and Mr. Goldberg was arrested, only to be cleared after it was determined that since he had a permit for the weapon he was not breaking a law.

Yes, let's consider Mr. Goldberg.  He broke no law and thus was falsely arrested.  In a nation of laws one would call the imprisonment of a person without valid cause kidnapping, no matter how brief said imprisonment might be, and the so-called "law enforcement officers" would be facing a sentence of 20-to-life, not to mention being permanently ineligible to own firearms.  This, of course, would make them ineligible to be a police officer.

That is, to question Mr. Goldberg as to the lawful nature of his exercise of a 2nd Amendment right seems perfectly appropriate. But arresting him without probable cause to believe he had committed a criminal offense is legally equivalent to kidnapping.

Nancy seems to have no problem with this, so long as the person doing the kidnapping is a peace officer.

Let me make a few things clear to you and ask a question or two besides Nancy, since you seem to have a problem with reality - and The Constitution:

1. 
   
   One does not ask permission to exercise a right, nor does one need to buy a license to do so.  Would you accept a full background investigation, fingerprinting, and payment of a license fee before you can publish anything in The Press - or merely speak where anyone other than you can hear your words?  Why not Nancy?  You seem to think that standard is just fine when it comes to the keeping and most particularly the bearing of arms!  Yet both rights are numbers 1 and 2 in the Bill of Rights.
2. 
   
   Have you ever been to a range?  I ask in all sobriety, because I have never seen any place in society where people are nicer - that is, more polite.  Of course at a gun range everyone is armed, since the entire point of being there is to practice and maintain one's skill in the use of firearms.  There are many who have said "an armed society is a polite society" and one need only step foot on a gun range for a few minutes to notice the marked difference in attitudes compared to, for instance, your local grocery store.
3. 
   
   Firearms are not scary.  They are tools and have both lawful and unlawful uses.  Likewise the 5-gallon can of gasoline in your garage can be used lawfully to mow your lawn, and unlawfully to light your neighbor's house on fire.  Yet I do not need a license to purchase 5 gallons of gasoline to go in that can - I only need the $15 or so necessary to pay for my purchase.  The keeping and bearing of gasoline is not a Constitutional Right.  The keeping and bearing of firearms is.
4. 
   
   The police cannot be everywhere, and in the 2, 3, 5 or 20 minutes it takes for a police officer to arrive should you be assaulted your assailant can easily rape, rob or murder you - or all three, for that matter.  A firearm is, as Samuel Colt said, the "great equalizer."  In an unarmed assault a 220lb 6'2 man is going to do whatever he wants to a 90lb 4'10 woman.  A pistol makes the woman the precise equal of that man in terms of her ability to defend against that assault.  Seeing as you're a woman I would expect you would be very interested in yourself (and your daughter(s), if you have any) being able to defend against that possible assault, should the need arise.
5. 
   
   Guns don't work the way you see them on the Idiot Box (that's "TV" for the lefties.)  Specifically, when one is shot they do not go flying backward through plate-glass windows and firearms do not fire bullets that have homing devices causing them to automatically strike and kill any human within 300'.  In fact an awfully large percentage of the time goons who are unskilled at arms (the majority of goons never go to the range, being criminals and all) miss with every shot they fire.  A prime example can be seen in a Youtube video in a Toledo Bar where a couple of goons emptied their weapons and yet shot nobody.  You would think from the (intentionally) inaccurate view put forward in the media that everyone in that bar would be dead.  You'd be wrong.
6. 
   
   Openly-carried firearms convey a high degree of deterrence against crime that anyone in the vicinity might otherwise think about committing.  How many times does a mugger, purse snatcher, or rapist commit an offense within eyesight of a police offer with a publicly-displayed firearm on his hip?  Essentially never!  Have you ever wondered why?
   
   
   
   
   But until an offense is committed, let those who are not as physically able lawfully defend themselves against the predators that, to a large degree, lefty liberal policies have both created in the first place and provided the means to acquire their own weapons, which they then use to commit violent felonies upon the public at large!

   
   

   In the left's utopia nobody should have a reason to own firearms because there would be no bad guys who have and use them against the law-abiding citizens of the world.  In their fantasy-laced minds Adolph Hitler, Pol Pot and dozens of other dictators and criminal thugs did not wind up in positions of political power where they murdered their (first rendered defenseless through disarmament) citizens.  

   
   

   These visions of utopia make for great children's stories and hopes for the future, but they do not reflect the reality of our world and never have - not now and not ever through human history, and as such one must be careful to accept the prescriptions of people who have for decades put forward their beliefs and expectations that have been proved to be akin to drug-induced illusions.

   
   

   This much I'm sure of - should Nancy be beset upon by a rapist or mugger in an alley one fine spring evening, she won't be refusing the help of an armed passerby who can stop the rape or beating that she is about to suffer.

   
   

   If I'm wrong, I'm sure Nancy would not object to a little First Amendment exercise outside her home in the form of a sign posted by her neighbors similar to this (click for a larger copy):

   
   
   
   
   
   
   

Thank you Karl.  Your prose is a breath of fresh air.

Want to know more?  Click here.