Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/uspatri1/public_html/index.php:32) in /home/uspatri1/public_html/wp-content/plugins/wp-super-cache/wp-cache-phase2.php on line 1197
Open Carry Organizations: How They Hurt the 2nd Amendment | U.S. PATRIOT NEWS & REVIEWS

Open Carry Organizations: How They Hurt the 2nd Amendment

Sometimes, good intentions have bad outcomes. To exaggerate a bit, setting your house on fire to stay warm on a cold night would be an example of bad outcomes born of good intentions. In a way, that is what open carry activist groups are doing to the Second Amendment. They want to say that we have a right to be armed, and that the vast majority of gun owners mean no harm to those who mean them no harm. Instead, they are lighting fires that they cannot extinguish and burning down the desire to listen to their cause.

Worse than making people not want to listen to their cause is that they present themselves as extremists and make people feel like all gun owners are crazy. And who wants a crazy person to own a gun? Sometimes, stepping outside of the comfort zone is a good way to make a point. Other times however, it simply pushes people to an uncomfortable place and they recoil from it.

When a group of people show up in places where guns are unwelcome with rifles slung over the shoulder, the people in the area may become uncomfortable. Add that in with the anti-gun media who will portray the group as bad as possible, and nothing good will be created. More often than not, in fact, groups like Open Carry-Texas have made businesses put up “No Gun” signs more than they have convinced them to take them down.Open Carry Side

So, why do they do it? Why can’t they see how they are hurting the cause rather than helping it? Some have suggested that a significant percentage of these groups are actually anti-gun groups who pose as pro-gun groups to show a crazy face of gun owners. I doubt this is the truth. Again, it seems more likely that, though the intentions are good, the methods simply start fires. This is because they are working on emotions rather than logic. The anti-gun movement does the same thing.  Emotions grab the masses better than statistics and case studies and, therefore, are used by those who are driven more by emotion than logic.

The problem with this, however, is that emotions can be hard to create in other people. Well, at least the desired emotion. Activists will pull stunts to make you feel a certain way about a subject, but the emotions felt may not be what were desired. If emotion, rather than logic, was the cause for the performance of the stunts, it is easy to get mad at the people who had the “wrong” reaction to your actions and chalk it up to needing to try harder in the future. This becomes a never ending cycle that only serves to hurt the cause, no matter what the cause is. As you push harder, the more they push back, causing you to push harder.

Because of this, all logical gun owners who want better recognition of our rights need to write off open carry groups as fringe groups that are not speaking on our behalf. If rallies are to be had, if talks are to be conducted, and if light is to be shed, it must be clear that open carry groups are not invited and that they do not speak for us. Those who want to use logic and reason to advance the right to be armed need to be as distant as possible from such groups.

Disclaimer: The content in this article is the opinion of the writer and does not necessarily reflect the policies or opinions of US Patriot Tactical.

Seth Belt

Seth grew up in Southern Arizona before joining the U.S. Navy. While serving in the Navy, Seth was an anti-narcotics operator and an anti-submarine operator for 5 years. He was lucky enough to travel to many of the Central and South American countries, as well as visiting many South East Asian nations and islands. One of Seth’s greatest joys from his time in the Navy was teaching new Sailors firearms education and safety. After leaving the Navy in 2010, Seth returned to Arizona and had a rough time learning how to be a civilian again, often working jobs that could barely pay the bills. After going to school, Seth became an Emergency Medical Technician in the Phoenix Valley, where he now lives with his wife and son.His areas of knowledge cover military, firearms, and emergency medicine.
Seth Belt

18 thoughts on “Open Carry Organizations: How They Hurt the 2nd Amendment

  1. Excellent post. I strongly support responsible gun ownership, and clowns who take an AK to the supermarket are just hurting the cause. There’s no reason to take a rifle shopping except to yell “I can”, and that’s not a very attractive attitude.

    1. “I strongly support responsible gun ownership, and clowns who take an AK to the supermarket are just hurting the cause.”

      So it’s impossible for someone take an AK into a supermarket in a responsible manner?
      I wonder if someone had an AK or AR slung over their shoulder when the crazy loons went on their shooting sprees, at supermarkets, churches, movies, etc., had a good person with a rifle saved some lives?

      Yeah…there’s no reason to take a rifle in…too bad it’s the crazies that don’t listen. Then to top it off, the people who want to legitimately carry a rifle in a calm, peaceful way, are demonized by the people who supposedly support the right to bear arms…

      After all, the 2nd Amendment clearly states, “The right of some people, allowed by government, and only handguns, shall not be infringed.”

  2. Once it was considered evil to carry concealed handguns. Now it is considered evil to carry open? What is really needed is to turn the argument against the “elites” on both coast as to just why they reject the ability to protect themselves and leave it to others to protect them. People must be made aware of the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled more than 28 times that the job of the police is to protect “society”, without giving a definition of what society is, and not a person. So, if someone calls 911, the police do not have to come, it is not their job.

    When someone ask you why you are carrying a gun, you should reply with the question of just why they are not carrying as they are responsible for their own protection and security.

    As to businesses posting, just why have the gun community not filed suits against them under the 1964 Civil Rights Act for discrimination against us because they are discriminating against those of us who are Christians because they are attempting to force us to go against a command given to us by Jesus to go armed.

    All gun groups must be included or the people who want to destroy all our rights will pick us off one group at a time. Better known as a death by one thousand cuts.

  3. I just checked the Second Amendment amendment again. It does not appear to specify how a firearm may be carried. Indeed, it doesn’t even appear to specify that it can be carried. It simply guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. It most certainly does not specify that a firearm MUST be carried, as Mr Reed seems to imply when he says, “When someone ask you why you are carrying a gun, you should reply with the question of just why they are not carrying as they are responsible for their own protection and security.”

    The Supreme Court, in its various iterations, has over the years attempted to clarify what was a somewhat ambiguously worded piece of legal drafting. Ironically, history points to the possibility that the actual Amendment, as circulated to the States, was not the one returned from them and that there was a bit of legislative slight of hand in its actual adoption.

    Perhaps it is time to put the question beyond doubt once and for all by taking a competently worded Amendment to the People for a vote.

    As to the other comments of Mr Reed, it is the job of the police to protect and serve the public. If your local law enforcement agency does not respond to your call for assistance, you are entitled to seek to hold them accountable, especially if it was a life-threatening situation that they ignored. Like it or not Mr Reed, you are a member of society and therefore entitled to the protection of the police under law.

    I do not recall ever having read anywhere in the Bible that Jesus commanded Christians to go armed. Indeed, didn’t Jesus encourage us to turn the other cheek and to forgive those who trespass against us. I would therefore suggest that a business declining entry to a person carrying a firearm would be unlikely to lose a law suit for discrimination on the basis of religion.

    I agree for the comments of Mr Mason that responsible gun ownership is the way forward.

    1. I agree responsible ownership is important. yet I would like for society to become desensitized when it come to seeing a citizen with a sidearm, concealed or open. .
      I agree with the fact that we must protect our right to protect ourselves. Yet carrying a long gun into a Walmart is NOT helping the cause. it only adds fuel to the anti-gun zealots fire.
      I do not think that like Buylocalbill that in todays self serving legislative branches that a competently worded amendment could be achieved, besides the one we have, is not a ambiguous one, it in my opinion is very clear.
      Also while there may have been other wordings to the second amendment, there was no “slight of hand” as all those that agreed / passed the constitution into law were present and accounted for, and all were clear, VERY CLEAR as to what they were creating. the wording of the 2nd is perfect the way it is. and probably the best written of all the amendments.

  4. Mr. BuylocalBill needs to go back to school and relearn his laws of English Grammar and relearn the true history of the U.S. If one diagrams the sentence that is Amendment 2 they will find that the militia clause is the dependent clause of the sentence. Therefore, the citizens must be the ones who are armed. Also, as I stated earlier, the Supreme Court has ruled more than 28 times that the job of the police is to “protect society, not the individual”. That ruling was used in a court in South Carolina to say that even in a Court Room the police have no requirement to protect any individual. At no time can you require your local police to “protect you”. They will if the can, but it is not a requirement. File suit, if you like, but you will fail in the court. And history shows us that after the War of 1812 Congress gave the then standard military rifle out as a reward for “out standing service while in the Militia.”

    Next, if one looks at the definitions of the words in Amendment 2 you will find that the verb “to keep” means to own and the verb “to bear” means to carry and the verb “to infringe” means to limit. So, my rights, as written, say that I have the right to own and carry arms of my choice, be it a hand gun, sword, mace, flail, halibut or what ever. Since others have the same right, there will be very few problems as “an armed society is a civil society”.

    Mr. BuylocalBill needs to reread Luke’s account of what Jesus said to His disciples at the Last Supper. For Jesus did indeed tell His disciples to go armed. And King David wrote in Psalms 144:1, “Bless be the Lord my rock who trains my hands for was and my fingers for battle.” You can find the same wording in Psalms 18:34 and in Second Samuel 22:35. Why is it there? Because Satan uses human elements to attack us. Just read the first chapter of Job to see truth of that. And, yes, you do turn the other cheek to a Christian brother with whom you have a disagreement. But you need not turn the other cheek to a criminal attack. Now, some will say that Paul told us that we do not fight against flesh and blood, but Paul forgot “my servant Job”. The Book of the Law, Deuteronomy, states, in two places, that you do not convict someone on the testimony of just one witness, but on the testimony of two or three witnesses. An even cursory examination of the Bible finds more than three times three witnesses of God’s people being attacked by human agents of Satan, all of which would be considered criminal in nature.

    We agree that responsible gun ownership is the only way to go. But we disagree as to just what responsible ownership is. I seek to push the envelope by getting in the face of the “liberal establishment” and forcing them to back down on all restrictions of all our rights, not just gun rights.

  5. Well stated Mr. Reed ! Thank you for taking the time to research and post a well thought, well wordsmithed, fact based response ! I agree 110% ! An armed society is a polite society. I have to say slinging an AK/AR to go shopping is a tad much. However the mear sight of a holstered weapon on ones hip dose NOT constitute undue hysteria. I open carry, leagaly. 99% of the time no one notices. I conduct myself in a manner that brings no alarm or attention to me. I simply go about my business, shopping like all the other sheeple. Again, Thank you Mr. Reed, you do yourself and us ” Law abiding citizens ” proud !
    Semper Fi
    T. Smith

  6. So, open carriers are doing a disservice, even though they are within the law in what they do. What you seem to be saying then, is that we should all stop driving cars, because even though it is legal to do so, I am sure there are some out there that are scared of those scary machines. Even though it is your right to travel freely and it is legal in a vehicle, we should cater to the non-carrying….oops I mean non driving public and we should all stop driving cars in public.

    1. The issue is not that they carry. If they open carried a firearm, no big deal but they are borderline belligerent and behave in a manner that does not garner support of pro second amendment issues. This isn’t a question of legality of who’s right and who’s wrong but rather an issue of whether or not their actions help or hurt the public image of gun owners and carriers. And yes, a good public image is important because rather than fight to openly exercise a given right, with a good image, there will be so little opposition to its exercise that we can enjoy our rights without confrontation. I carry daily. Usually concealed because I prefer it, but sometimes open and I feel we should be able to. It’s how we do it that is the issue. How we behave. Rather than fight with emotion, we must fight with logic. Logic is is based on fact and can be supported while emotions generally bite you in the rear

  7. Basic to an orderly society is order maintenance and rule of law. Safety is based on the perception of public order. Scaring the public doesn’t get their support. It does polarize them and alarm their sense of safety. If gun owners act in a way that causes public fear then they have closed their minds to their cause forever.

    The posting that businesses make to gun carry is based on criminal trespass laws. The rights of property owners has long standing legal preference.

    I have personally seen parents gather up their children and leave establishments when open carry proponents have shown up. The fear for safety was very evident. I conceal carry and I left because I didn’ t want to be seen as part of the circus. Some of the talk bordered on bullying and not the presentation of sensible logic or emotional stability.

    I believe strongly in the 2nd Amendment and the views of Thomas Jefferson are as appropriate today as when they were written. We live in a different society where emotion speaks volumes more than logic. The in your face approach seriously blocks positive acceptance or support of 2nd Amendment rights.

  8. OR is it saying that when you drive a car you have a responsibility to other drivers on the roadway not to endanger them,
    by driving while intoxicated, following too closely and running into them when they break for other traffic or driving so fast or recklessly that you endanger others. Road rage is not acceptable because others don’t drive to suit someone else using the roadway.

    It is not enough to be right or have rights. Rights come with responsibility. Doing right has to be done right. Doing right wrongly does not stand up in the long run. The merit of doing right things right is that support follows and the right stands the test of time. The world was only flat until the knowledge of it as a globe was established.

    1. Zzz – comparing open carry to drunk driving, following too closely etc. is ludicrous. You do not have the right to do any of those things legally. Since when did the mob mentality preempt laws? The rule of law in this country needs to be allowed. The world was flat because science of the day said it was. Christopher Columbus used the bible specifically the book of Job to convince Queen Isabella to fund his mission.

  9. Offering a contrast in a discussion is pointing out different possibilities. It is like open carry being taken into a Taco Bell. It is difficult to tell where it will go. I appreciate your making my point. Also driving is not a right. It is a licensed privilege. Again you are right that the example does not make a good comparison. Complex thinking is always comparative and always with the concept that there is nothing either good nor bad that thinking doesn’t make it so. Such is the nature of open discussion. My addition to the discussion is a furthering of your comments on driving. A different twist to being scared of driving.

    Mobs are an interesting group and once the group becomes a mob, their mentality pays little attention to law. I notice that our gun violence also comes out of many carrying weapons and not being civil. So much for being armed and civil.

  10. After reading, I’m shocked that this is coming from this website and this author.

    I’ve passed several open-carry demonstrations and booths at various places and not once have I seen the participants acting belligerant, crazy, or causing a disturbance.

    I’m sure some moron showed up to one of these events and acted like an idiot somewhere, sometime, at some event, but doesn’t that type of thing occur for just about everything?
    There have been plenty of writers, bloggers and journalists who published crazy, asinine things, but we don’t write off the “free speech” movement and disinvite free-speechs groups to 1st amendment rallies just b/c of a few bad apples…

    I get your point, that people acting in a crazy fashion hurts the message; but how often have you seen the open-carry crowd behaving badly? I bet never or only once.

    Also, if the open carry groups did not stage their demonstrations, I doubt this issue would have ever gotten enough media attention, followed by support in legislation. The open-carry movement has been around for a while, but only in the last couple of years has the spark ignited into something bigger that might cause government to recognize the 2nd Amendment for what they should have all along.

    I live in TX and some think TX is very lenient in gun laws, but it’s not. Now, we’re seeing some bills in TX for open-carry that might actually pass. I hope it does that way people have the FREEDOM TO CHOOSE whether they want to carry concealed, on their hip exposed, or simply not carry at all…the ability to choose…that’s part of freedom, right? Or is it being forced to do one thing, or forced to choose from only a few options….I forget these days what freedom means and allows us to do b/c it’s not clear anymore….

    If it wasn’t for the open-carry demonstrations throughout the states, which caused the public to talk and debate, which then caused the media to shine publicity on it, then these state legislatures wouldn’t be at the point they’re at now: many states with a real chance of passing open-carry legislation.

    Sorry Mr. Belt, but I cannot disagree with you more on this, especially when you urge people not to invite open-carry groups to rallies and events. The open-carry movement and their demonstrations led to the moment we’re at now; and it’s a good time to be pro-2A as we’re in the lead against the anti-gun nitwits, compared to where we were 5, 10 and 20 years ago.

    P.S. You’re still one of my favorite writers…I won’t hold this against you! hehe

    1. Thank you for reading. It seems we see the issue in a different light. The level of positive outcomes I see from these open carry groups is far outweighed by the negatives. I am not a fan of open carry in general but believe you should be able to do it without any problems. I do border this as an issue of freedom or legal ability, bit rather an issue of public image. The message they intend to send is a good one but, from my view point, the method is wrong and it is this method that I and many others have an issue with. AZ doesn’t have much of an OC movement so I have not first hand dealt with it but following the news from liberal and conservative sources has lead me to the conclusion that less in your face methods have done more for promoting 2nd amendment rights than OC organizations. Urban clear you see it differently though and that is a good thing. Not all take the same message the same way and this proves that multiple methods are needed. I just wish this wasn’t one of them

  11. There is an FBI study from not too many years ago, that surveied incarcerated criminals that were in prison for violent (gun related) crimes. Asked if they would have committed their crimes IF they had known that their victims were armed. 100% said NO ! There is too high of a risk that the victim would fight/shoot back. They would pass that armed victim by and go looking for an easier target, one Not armed!
    Semper Fi
    T. Smith

  12. Crime statistics change. There was a time when 80% of murders were committed by someone known to the victims and 20% by unknowns. Today 20% are by knowns and 80 % by unkowns. Murders are more difficult to solve today because of this. It is more about Clockwork Orange than The Sound of Music.

    Homicide has gone from being personal by the perpetrator to being more impersonal. Citizens are fearful of violent acts in theaters and schools because they can’t grasp the why of the act. Today’s murders are bold in their acts and their use of firearms brings negative attention. There are those who are anti-gun who use that to their advantage.

    Our issue is also based in numbers and the speed of our information transfer. Almost any issue can become sensationalized. The rush to meet the evening news hour can get mean. Once done it doesn’t get undone.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *