When did this become acceptable?

[Muskrat]

When exactly did it become acceptable for people to parade in public with long guns and chest rigs loaded with high-capacity magazines? This makes no sense to me.

As a youngster I routinely kept a .410 shotgun in my junior-high locker, because the school was on the edge of town and I hunted rabbits when class was out. That was considered pretty normal behavior, but if anyone walked down Main Street or protested in front of the governor's office or walked through K-Mart with a slung AR-15, they'd be arrested in a heartbeat. After the arrest they'd be ridiculed as being a jackass and a idiot by the entire community.

I do not like this trend of rifles in public, or the open cary of loaded handguns. I think it's very immature and irresponsible, and I'm at a complete loss as to why it's either prudent or necessary or even allowed by law in a civilized society.

Call me nuts, but a society in which it's acceptable for people to cary loaded assault rifles in public is not a society I want to live in. Been there and done that...I traveled extensively in the tribal areas of the Pakistan/Afghanistan border prior to 9-11, where every male over the age of ten was armed at all times. It was REAL far from a utopia. Watch two men of dubious intellect, both armed with machine guns, argue over the price of cashews in a crowded market with nothing substantial to hide behind and you quickly realize that there is a very definite downside to allowing the unfettered carrying of weapons in a society.

The only rational reaction to seeing heavily armed people in public is to arm yourself with equal weaponry. To me, that feels a lot like the start of a second civil war.

How exactly did this happen? I do not see any wisdom in it.

[Kenk]

I agree 100%, unless your state has mandated open carry only, it is not only reckless, it freaks people out, not to mention someone could walk up behind you and snatch it from you. As for AR's in public, I don't get it either

Ken

[38-40]

 First of all I do not own any " assault" type fire arms. I live in an open carry state. At first thought an AR could seem excessive but that raises the question how much gun is to much gun. When I was growing up there were rifles and shotguns in almost every pickup in the parking lot and no one thought twice about it. So we have to be careful not to fall under the some fire arms are bad of the gun control mob. I see it the same as why do you need a 10mm instead of a 380.

[BEEMER!]

I agree that the open carrying of AR's and other weapons during peaceful demonstrations is not good practice and hurts the cause of gun ownership in this country.

The couple in St. Louis asking the trespassers on their property to leave while holding an AR was perfectly OK as far as I'm concerned.

The Militia in Michigan protesting in the State Capital Building with their AR's made no sense to me.

Just because you have the right to do something does not always make it right.

[sqlbullet]

I own a bunch of AR's, both -15 and -10, as well as a number of other magazine fed main battle rifles.

That said, I am not a big fan of the ultra-right wing gun crowd marching around with their guns slung.  I don't much care if it is an AR, AK, Galil or Remy 700.  If you need a rifle you should be behind cover.

OTOH, even though I think they are dumb to do so, I do support their right.  My state is uber pro-gun, but even here we now have a law that says guns carried in public must be in a holster/scabbard/case.  I think this is a good compromise.

I would also comment that an AR-15 pistol is about the only carry gun that makes sense for my mom.  She can't pull the trigger on a DA revolver, and can't cycle the slide on a semi-auto.  But she can run an AR pistol just fine.  The current law in my state would allow her, if she desired, to carry her AR pistol in a holster if she wished.

I guess my point is we should be generous with our assumptions.  Just cause I can't think of a use case doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

[The_Shadow]

Well if it were peaceful protest, I'd carry just like any other day with conceal carry IWB.  If it were criminal unrest, I wouldn't be going to that type rally unless it came to me, like it did for the couple in St. Louis asking the trespassers on their property while being armed!  I due support firearms ownership, live in a state of open carry, but I don't like to advertise myself as carrying a weapon for self defense!  If it came down to it I would carry the AR if deemed necessARy!

However the BLM movement and Antifa have many followers that are carrying weapons of all sorts and also making verbal threats as well as pushing the limits of personal space (wanting a confrontation) and actually physical contact (with and without harmful objects) to include bodily harm to people.    As far as these two groups are concerned, I consider them domestic terrorist and should be deal with as such!  There are those in government and also media that are to blame for fueling these uprisings and glorifying their criminal actions! 

I will also add that the results of the Nov. elections will not likely change the criminal attacks and they may even escalate the situation!

[jthoresen]

Make no mistake, both sides are armed. The media has and will continue to show the ultra-right as the only side that is armed. (Garrett Foster was a BLM protester that was carrying an AK-47 the night he was fatally shot).

This is a lesson I'm trying to teach my kids. (If you feel you need a firearm to protect yourself in an area of the city you don't live in, then you don't go there). Have the rifle, pistol, shotgun, open carry, or concealed. Do not place yourself in a situation that may cause you harm.

I carry open and concealed, but I would drive 50 miles out of the way to avoid a dangerous situation.

I know I'm slight off topic, but open carry in a protest is not just an ultra-right wing problem.

[Kenk]

Morning jthoresen,
I totally agree, staying away from known bad areas is huge. As for our relatively crime free dinky little town of aprx 4000, I always carry, as there's nut cases everywhere

Ken

[Muskrat]

I don't think it really matters whether the people displaying weapons are on the far-left or the far-right or on some non-linear dimension entirely. Nor do I think it matters if you call a weapon a assault rifle or a enhanced sporting tool...any firearm principally designed for efficiency in the killing of people is just that, regardless of what name you give it or how you use it.

I believe the cultural and legal acceptance of people walking the public streets of our towns and cities with more armament than our GI's carried is Vietnam is nonsensical and corrosive to our society and democracy and country. I think it's also fantastically impolite, tactically inept, and one sign of a marginalized intellect and stymied personality. And that's from someone who can match those people gun for gun, magazine for magazine, and more than likely outshoot most of them by a significant margin.

In any healthy society, cultural and political norms are in a constant state of pendulum, and the people who are needlessly pushing the pendulum as far as they can in one direction are simultaneously adding energy to the inevitable opposite swing.

As Americans we like to believe that we are superior, and you need only look at the Apollo missions to see some of the superior things our country has accomplished. But people are people the world over, with the same basic drives and desires and weaknesses. The citizens of Somalia or Lebanon or Sarajevo didn't plan on the civil conflicts that destabilized and destroyed their countries, but it happened anyway.

They used to say that an armed society is a polite society, but what happens when a society is both armed and insolent? If we as Americans cannot voice our opinions or oppositions without having a assault rifle slung across our chests, we're pretty screwed. There isn't any reason in the world we cannot end up like a hundred other failed countries, and peoples' proclivity to punctuate their political or social view with the brandishing of a weapon, regardless of what that view might be, is not a good sign.

I do not understand why it is allowed, either by law or by cultural acceptance, regardless of whether someone is a gun-owner or not.

[Keiichi]

I can appreciate your passion, Muskrat, and in a perfect world I might even agree with you from a practical pragmatic viewpoint.

I disagree on principle, as carrying a rifle is not inherently an act of violence nor is it inherently threatening. In a healthy society, responsible citizens who respect each other do not harbor suspicions or fear of each other such as would make open carry of any firearm culturally unacceptable. One of the foundational principles of American culture is "innocent until proven guilty", and that applies as much to interpersonal interactions in daily life as it does to application of the law.

As to the current cultural moment, I don't think it should be surprising at all that responsible peaceful folks are feeling compelled to be more overt about their firearm possession in a time when political violence is being openly encouraged by national media and high profile politicians and other cultural leaders. I honestly don't think it should be difficult to understand, and speaking for myself I won't condemn it in the current context.

[Muskrat]

...

I disagree on principle, as carrying a rifle is not inherently an act of violence nor is it inherently threatening...

Openly carrying a weapon in public is not inherently threatening? Seriously? So if you watched a person walk into your kids grade school with a assault rifle and magazine pouches, you wouldn't see that as a potential threat, since that person is innocent until proven guilty? If a person came up to you on the street and aggressively asked you for money in the way many panhandlers do, you wouldn't find it to be more threatening if that person was also carrying a AR pistol on their chest rig?

You can say that there's no reasonable justification for a person to cary a assault rifle into a grade school, with which I agree. I say there's no reasonable justification for carrying a assault rifle at a public protest against face mask mandates. In both scenarios, the presence of the weapon IS inherently threatening. In both scenarios, the potential for public harm vastly out-weighs whatever benefit the rifle carrier feels they are achieving.

Obviously others feel differently. What concerns me greatly is the inability or refusal of people to see the potential future consequences of this most uncivil and unnecessary trend.

One thing I guarantee, even without any large scale bloodshed this public display of hardware is doing nothing to sway neutral people towards gun rights...and their vote counts just as much as anyone else's.

[Keiichi]

It is only a potential threat in the same way that any person posessing any tool for any reason is a potential threat. I personally would not view an openly carried rifle as any more inherently threatening than openly driving an SUV or openly carrying a chainsaw.

Would I be paying attention? Undoubtedly. But I would have no more reason to believe that the man in your school example was there to attack the school than to believe he was there to pick up his daughter after classes for a trip to the range.

Again, this is on principle in a healthy society. Clearly we don't live in a healthy society, but your position is clearly based in the kind of irrational fear that drives so much of the cultural division in this country. It isn't true that police are out hunting black people, just as it isn't true that someone open carrying a rifle and gear should be assumed to be an attacker. Perpetuating this fear as you appear intent on isn't helpful, and won't result in healing the divisions that do exist. The reality is your point of view is much more in line with views that will result in the potential future consequences you're cautioning against.

But, we're probably going to have to agree to disagree.

[Muskrat]

But, we're probably going to have to agree to disagree.

I can live with that. Thank you.

[Buckeye 50]

I would like to think that well-trained and respectful, disciplined civilians would either NOT be in these public venues or wouldn't be openly toting a rifle???


Pat

[Sneed]

I can appreciate your passion, Muskrat, and in a perfect world I might even agree with you from a practical pragmatic viewpoint.

I disagree on principle, as carrying a rifle is not inherently an act of violence nor is it inherently threatening. In a healthy society, responsible citizens who respect each other do not harbor suspicions or fear of each other such as would make open carry of any firearm culturally unacceptable. One of the foundational principles of American culture is "innocent until proven guilty", and that applies as much to interpersonal interactions in daily life as it does to application of the law.

As to the current cultural moment, I don't think it should be surprising at all that responsible peaceful folks are feeling compelled to be more overt about their firearm possession in a time when political violence is being openly encouraged by national media and high profile politicians and other cultural leaders. I honestly don't think it should be difficult to understand, and speaking for myself I won't condemn it in the current context.

It seems to me that most (not all) people open carrying a firearm are doing so to draw attention to themselves and not because they're concerned with self defense as an open AR in any kind of protest situation is likely to spur and not inhibit confrontation and then it gets worse. When a mob of protestors surrounds the guy with the gun what then? They guy or gal (unlikely) carrying is then is a most difficult situation and the mob ain't about to back off. Does he shoot? At what point? All in all the open gun seems to me to exacerbate the situation.

What about the guy who just has to open carry in Walmart? I mean, what's the point? Again, it seems to me it is an attention getting device that accomplishes nothing other than allowing the carrier to think nicely of himself and making others nervous and anti-gun. A concealed gun is far more effective than an open one as no one else should know it is there and it becomes an unpleasant surprise for someone if it has to be drawn. That said I live in a rural area of the Rockies and have carried concealed for more than 30 years without once feeling I might need to remove the pistol from concealment. I did once unsnap the keeper when in the woods and hearing what sounded like a mountain lion sneaking around. It never went any further though, the strap was snapped again and I continued walking.