Jason Zengerle says that the idea of betting on an outcome like the discharge of a gun at another human being is "offensive". Well, I'm betting on good behavior, which doesn't seem that offensive to me. Zengerle et. al. are the ones claiming that people openly carrying guns have a significant probability of hauling off and shooting someone for no good reason.
I find that rather offensive, given how little the people saying this sort of thing actually know about the protesters. They may, to be sure, be gun-mad lunatics dying for a chance to shoot some random stranger. Me, I'd expect the gun-mad lunatics are probably carrying their gun concealed somewhere on their person, the better to use it without being stopped. But I don't know. The point is, neither does the other side. All these confident predictions of impending violence do not, to me, seem to rest on much more than the belief that people who openly carry weapons near a rally must be gun-crazed lunatics who want to intimidate Democrats with threats of violence. This is somewhat circular to say the least.
Zengerle also conflates this with presidential assassination, as have many other commentators. As far as I know, only one chap has been near the president, and he was a publicity stunt. The others seem to be at less august meetings. If a gun nut wants to assassinate a minor Senator or Congressman, he doesn't need to carry a rifle to a protest somewhere. They're not that well protected. And also, not that frequently attacked.
Do I think guns should be near Obama? I think that is for the Secret Service to say, and I would support whatever decision they rendered. But we don't know where this guy was, or if he ever even saw Obama.
But if I had to guess, I would say that I do not think that anyone openly carrying a weapon is likely to pose much danger to the president. Why? Because the Secret Service knows he is there. You can bet they have at least one guy watching the fellow with the AR-15, and that if he had taken it off his back and begun to raise it to firing position, he would have been immediately taken out. The people who I worry about are the ones who carry concealed weapons, the better to get a shot off before the Secret Service notices. Or the ones who have found a good hiding place with a sightline to the president. Etc.
It is entirely possible that some nut will shoot someone at a protest, or try to shoot the president (indeed, I expect at least one assassination attempt, as that seems to be par for the course). But I have no reason to think that the fellows brazenly carrying pistols on their hip will be among those nuts. Nor, I think, do the people hysterically accusing them of some pretty evil intentions.
To be clear, as I said in my previous post, I think carrying a gun to a protest is at best stupid. Whether or not they intend to provoke hysterical fear among a substantial portion of the population, they clearly are doing so, and that is not how you make your best case for the second amendment. It's also not very nice, even if you didn't mean it. So I think they should stop. Meanwhile, I think that the left should also stop claiming, on little evidence, that they are crazed militia members. Doesn't that seem like a reasonable compromise?
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
A great response to people who call themselves thoughtful and don't really think through their accusations.
Is there such a thing as a non-random stranger?
I mean, if you're going to shoot a stranger, wouldn't they by definition be random?
I'm just saying...
;)
Not necessarily-- assassins, for example, are often strangers to their targets and vice versa, but the targeting isn't random. Ditto at least a subset of crimes of passion (where killer and victim may only have one common acquaintance).
OK, on a more serious note... Good post, Megan, and you make a lot of good points. One of them that I find very chilling, and that had crossed my mind: If you show up at a Secret Service-policed event with so much as a knife in plain sight, you HAVE to think that there's an expert marksman with your head in his crosshairs.
If THAT'S not enough to give you the creeps, I don't know what is...
I'm hysterically accusing the people carrying guns openly at town halls of trying to intimidate their opponents. Who's going to argue with a shouting, angry man if he's armed and you see he's armed? Simple self-preservation dictates that you keep your mouth shut. And that's the point of the guns.
It didn't stop Henry Gates.
Every argued about a speeding ticket? Chances are, the person you were arguing with had a gun.
That's such a bizarre argument for a libertarian to make.
Why would you be unwilling to argue with someone at a political gathering simply because they're armed? Sure, you should be polite, but then shouldn't everyone? All of the time?
Why would you think that being armed would necessarily lead someone to violence? Is that how you would behave?
And besides — where have there been any reports of shouting, angry men being armed? In every situation I've seen, the armed protesters have comported themselves in a civil manner.
There used to be a curse on the X0 years: After John Adams, every man elected president from 1820 to 1960, died in office. When Brady took the bullet John Hinckley, Jr. meant for Reagan (as a way to impress Jodie Foster) the curse was broken. So it was safe for W.
Those with BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome, a variant of Jane's Law) think Hinkley was set up by Pappy to make things safe for W. Hey, it's a theory, anyways.
What a bunch of silly little twits. They should leave the basement for awhile. The guys openly carrying guns are going to have big bullseyes targeted on them the entire time they're anywhere near the President. If they made anything close to a threatening move they'd have their heads blown off by the Secret Service.
If the people carrying concealed weapons to worry about.
"I think carrying guns to protests is entirely counterproductive...But the hysteria about them has been even more ludicrous."
To be clear, you did not say that carrying guns to protests is "at best stupid" and you called what you deemed the "hysteria about them" to be worse.
Megan, arguments like these give libertarians a bad name. If you can't figure out why it's not a good idea for ordinary citizens to bring their guns to a highly charged, divided on partisan lines political rally, much less one where the President of the United States will be in attendance, then I don't know what to tell you.
I wouldn't get so caught up in making an esoteric argument about actual probabilities of violence and gun rights that you miss the forest for the trees and abandon common sense.
About that guy with the AR-15... http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/08/our_drop_squad_guy.php#comments
Megan, good for you for clarifying your positions. I must say, I actually enjoy watching you try to salvage any modicum of respectability. Good luck with that.
And keep up the fight. Seriously, why stop here? You should really be pushing to get rid of that pesky law that forbids guns in federal buildings. Why not, right? They're just guns. What could happen?
And keep making those bets too. Who knows, maybe you can cash in big time.
Hey , as the one who started this, I think that guns at this meetings should not only be allowed-they should be REQUIRED. Everyone, regardless of mental health or criminal record, should not only carry guns to those events-they should be allowed to carry INSIDE those rooms, and within line of sight of our representatives. After all, the Second Amendment does forbid ANY infringement of the right to bear arms. Time, place, manner, criminal record, or mental health should mean nothing in light of the plain, original meaning of the words of this most clear of all amendments.
The discussion will be polite because an armed society is a polite society.(Robert Heinlein said so, so it must be true).
I am certain that Ms. Mcardle would feel quite safe attending one of those events, standing beside someone with an AK 47. If he should try anything, there are many other law abiding types who would be happy to shoot it out with him ( aiming carefully so they will miss bystanders).
If representatives feel apprehensive, well government should be afraid of its citizens, not its citizens of the government (That might be Heinlein again, PBUH).
If a representative gets shot, well, sometimes the tree of liberty has to be watered with the blood of tyrants.
We all know anyway that guns aren't really dangerous, so we are as safe in a crowd of people armed with guns as we would be if the crowd was unarmed. Megan has spoken.
And no, I am not backing down from saying that there is an increased danger of violence if people bring guns to a heated political gatherings. But I certainly prefer to be proved wrong on this.
I have spent quite a lot of time at shooting ranges. I have gotten into more than one heated argument while carrying a gun. Yet I have never hauled off and shot someone. So yes, I would feel safe standing in a room full of people with guns, provided they knew how to use them.
I have some news for you. I too have been to shooting ranges and have been around guns. I have also been a big city prosecutor and prosecuted folks who misused guns. I tell you this. Not all who carry guns know how to use them or share your capacity for restraint. But hey, I truly hope that I am wrong and that we make it throughout without gunfire.
At a shooting range people with guns are focused on gun safety and target shooting. At a political rally they are focused on passionate disagreement about concepts like freedom and tyranny and justice and riteousness, and basically all the things that make people feel they need to water trees with blood. One is a dispassionate arena focused on safety and sport and individual responsibility, where it is nonetheless possible to get in a fight I suppose. The other is an arena of (apparently) great passion, anger, and crowd mentality. You perform an amazing abstraction here in supposing the two are good correlates, although I suppose that abstraction is the "libertarian" stock in trade.
Another great "libertarian" abstraction: It's ok for many folks in the crowd to be armed, because if one of them tries to use his weapon, the secret service will just down him or her in place, no problem. No problem for the ss, since they have unlimited resources and manpower to keep a gun trained on each of the armed crowd members, no matter how many there are...no problem for the rest of the crowd, since the ss bullet will enter and lodge in the would-be shooter's brain instantly killing him, no problem for the woman standing next to him that get's spattered with brains...oops, no she doesn't...the bullet stays right there and doesn't explode the would be shooter's head...he just drops to the ground peacefully.
It's wonderful how "libertarian" world works. There just aren't any problems there at all, it seems. No mistakes. Nothing unplanned. Everything is rational and orderly. No one carrying openly would shoot at anyone else, because that would be less rational than having concealed the weapon to shoot! Bravo! Militia members, like everyone else, are perfect rational actors. SS agents are perfect shots. Bullets are perfect homing devices for the bodies of the unjust or irrational.
Went to a dedication of a research building, came back and shared with my boss that 'we had one of the prominent research centers within the VA' or somesuch to which he replied, "What did you expect them to say?" with a tired, would like to be amused attitude. President Barack Obama should not have said of the health care debate, 'If they bring a knife, we'll bring a gun.' He was referring to citizens of the United States of which he is the president. He has 'solemnly sworn to preserve protect and defend the Constitution of the United States' which includes the right to free speech for it's inhabitants and to petition the government over grievances. Such a statement by him puts citizens of the U.S in a 'one down' position. It invites them to demonstrate that they oppose this position. Rank may seem like an 'all good, like to have it' thing. However, what you said as a private citizen appropriately may not be appropriate when you achieve rank.
Megan, have you ever carried or used a gun in your entire life? (I have, I own two.) The only, and I mean only reason you would openly display a weapon is to intimidate other people. Weapons are for killing, and are not totems of anyone's ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights. I find it bizarre that people would resort to displays of symbolic violence to get their point across, left or right, and while 99% of the actual or potential public displays of gun affection would never result in the actual discharge of said weapon in the direction of the President, are people so inured to violence that they would actually think this is a good idea? It doesn't take much, these days, to incite people to violence, particularly the old West kind in which the good citizens decide to take the law into their own hands and deliver their own brand of "justice". Clearly, the important thing isn't overstating the potential threat to the President, but the message that it delivers to the people watching who have less than functional minds, and who would use this as a pretext to end the President's life. It's disturbing that you would go out on a limb for these people, and rational as you may sound, this is an EMOTIONALLY charged issue, with little room for "debate". I'm also surprised how you "pooh-pooh" anyone's reaction to seeing a gun at a public event, whether in person or in the media. How did you expect them to respond, say "It's okay, what they're doing is legal, they're just exercising their constitutional right to bear arms, they in no way intend to harm me or anyone else for that matter"?
Really? So I'm supposed to be intimidated by every pickup i see with a shotgun in the rear window? Or every fireplace that has a rifle hanging above it?
In my experience, a visible holster elicits curiosity, not fear.
Man I seriously don't get why this is so hard for people to grasp.
If I brought my AR-15 to the grocery store to argue with the manager about the price of tomatoes, I would expect him to be unnerved, I would expect him to regard my weapon as a threat, and I would expect that most onlookers would have the same reaction.
Obviously, you didn't read my post very carefully, or the original post preceding it. I said this in the context of referring to people who show up at public healthcare rallies, with the President in attendance, with assault rifles in hand. What is their intent, exactly? What kind of message are they broadcasting? The message didn't get through to you, obviously; you're a little too tough for that, right?
What I did suggest is that showing up at these rallies with a (presumably) loaded weapon is to demonstrate your fear. If you have to carry a weapon to a public arena, particularly one that is well-guarded, you have little to fear for your life (your gun wouldn't protect you from a bomb; your gun wouldn't protect you from a presidential assassin [they have a different target in mind], and would probably get you killed by Secret Service sharpshooters who would shoot first and ask questions later, before you even had a chance to use it; leftist demonstrators who are there in support of healthcare reform aren't exactly inclined to use or cause the use of healthcare). You are saying that you are scared, and that you intend to "send a message" to everyone else "to back off". If you weren't afraid, you would leave the weapon in your truck, at home, anywhere but carrying it there. Considering the amount of firepower the Secret Service and local police are packing, and the expertise they have in trying to secure an area, if the idea that everyone being armed makes you safer, then you are in one of the safest bubbles in the universe. Only people that are afraid need to make a show that they are not afraid. The Wild West doesn't even show up in the movies anymore, and if you need "action", you can always watch rent a DVD or move to Iraq.
In my experience, a visible holster elicits shock, first, and then the realization that that person is violent, untrusting, and difficult to get along with. And presumably that they are insane. Most everyone I know would make an effort to get away from them. Isn't that what people with guns want? For people to stay away?
"The only, and I mean only reason you would openly display a weapon is to intimidate other people."
Really? You can't possibly be serious. You might openly display a weapon because (a) you have a legal right to be armed, and do so in your daily life, and (b) local laws don't let you carry concealed. Or it's too much of a hassle to get the CCW permit. So it's carry open or don't carry.
Now, you're out going about your business, and one part of it is to attend a healthcare rally or "town hall" meeting. Do you go home (wherever that is), leave the gun, and return? If you have a car, do you leave it there? Better hope it isn't stolen.
The point is, there are plenty of circumstances where someone might carry openly, at one of these events. Personally, and speaking as someone who doesn't own a pistol and has never carried one in public, I think it's really foolish to bring one to a "town hall" meeting, if only because it distracts some people from the purpose of the event. That doesn't mean it's fair to demonize people who make what I consider a foolish choice.
Yes, you leave it in your truck, or better yet at home. I've left things of considerable value in my car, certainly more valuable than a gun, and it hasn't gotten stolen (chances of that happening?). Moreover, people leave guns in their car, all the time, and it isn't any less safe or any less likely to go missing than it is leaving it at home (stolen weapons used in violent crimes and the high incidence of people shooting themselves, intentionally or not, with their gun or someone else's, can attest to that). I can think of several reasons for owning a gun (hunting, self defense, collecting, demonstration of strength/weakness, "fun"), but I can think of only one reason a civilian would bring a gun to an ostensibly peaceful healthcare rally. If you're going to refute my contention, that displaying weapons openly is meant to intimidate other people, come up with something better than the equivalent of "God told me to do it!" argument. People who carry guns usually have a good reason to do so. Exercising your constitutional rights or because getting a CW permit is a hassle isn't a one of them for a healthcare rally.
You wouldn't be allowed to bring a gun on the plane. You wouldn't be allowed to bring a gun into a hospital. You wouldn't be allowed to bring a gun into a ballpark. (Exceptions apply.) We have cops with guns for reasons of self-protection. There's a time and place for the appropriate bearing of arms, and this isn't one of them. We accept the fact that brandishing weapons in public requires some restrictions, don't we? The First and Second Amendment aren't necessarily cancelled out if you can't have them together, now are they?
Most of the people brandishing weapons in public use weapons as an assurance that they won't be harmed. They're actually increasing the probability that they will, and ignoring all the other threats that could occur, but that they either can't prepare for or anticipate (car accidents, lightening bolts, food poisoning, etc.). It's a very crude form of insurance.
Instead of using this as some sort of mis-measurement for their manhood/political orientation, there are alternatives: replicas, machetes, chainsaws, rubber chickens, that are just as equally ridiculous.
I've owned (and shot) guns all my life, but this is crazy. The huge uptick in the number of people buying guns both before and after the election, the overheated rhetoric on Fox News, the not-so-subtle public threats against Obama. Aren't these important indicators that point to why people carry weapons to rallies? Or is all because you left your NRA hat at home, you just happened to be driving through downtown wherever with your AR-15 assault rifle (badass!) sitting on your lap, you couldn't think of a single thing to say to put on your sign, and you're worried that someone is going to bust into your truck while you're attending the rally and steal your gun, which will later be implicated in a series of terrorist attacks?
The point is, there are very few reasons you might display a weapon openly, in a public place, and for most people, who don't carry a badge and gun, it is only one reason.
None of these people are brandishing weapons except possibly the one black guy doing it as a filmed political stunt. Even then, if he never grabbed the grip or removed it from his back it can't be called brandishing.
Who's going to argue with a shouting, angry man if he's armed and you see he's armed?
Why would you bother arguing with a shouting, angry man, whether armed or unarmed? What do you hope to accomplish? I'd be edging away long before it got to that, gun or not.
Rallies and protests turn violent not infrequently, and occasionally they turn into mobs and riots.
This is an excellent reason why this fellow should not have brought a gun to a protest or rally. It increases the likelihood that someone will be killed if things get rowdy. Its usage, even if not intended to kill, could certainly escalate the level of violence as a protest progresses to riot. Its visibility would certainly make some people nervous and paranoid, increasing the probability that violence ensues initially.
Protests are not always peaceful gatherings. It is reckless, stupid, and wrong to bring a gun to a protest; even if you have the best intentions initially.
I don't know, in my experience it's pretty rare in the US for them to turn violent. Especially ones on the scale we're talking about here. That said, if I'm concerned someone else at the event is going to attack me, isn't that the time I should MOST WANT to be armed?
I would have to disagree.
Without attempting any sort of exhaustive survey, I can think of a number of protests that involved violent injuries off the top of my head. Seattle WTO protests 1999, Kent State 1970, DNC/GOP national conventions every 4 years, 2003 Oakland War Protests, Birmingham Alabama 1964, Los Angeles 1992
Generally, a probability of violent injury is considered significant even if it is not large in absolute terms. For example Columbia's murder rate(the highest in the world), is only 6 in 10,000 per year. So if even 1% of protests result in violence, that would probably be significant.
As to whether you would want to be armed...
#1 There is usually a large police presence at protests.
#2 The density of people is high, you are very likely to injure innocent people when shooting in a crowd.
#3 As noted in my first post, violence in a volatile situation is likely to exacerbate the situation.
#4 If the risk at a protest is too high for someone's taste they can not attend.
I'm very skeptical that anyone is going to defuse a riot at gunpoint, but it seems pretty likely that they might hurt someone or get themselves arrested.
If I brought my AR-15 to the grocery store to argue with the manager about the price of tomatoes, I would expect him to be unnerved
There's a difference between bringing it to argue, especially with a specific person, and bringing it, and then finding yourself in an argument.
It's not clear to me why a protest necessarily results in an argument, but then again I think most protests are stupid and pointless to begin with, so I don't go to them.
Look, I've said multiple times I think this is pointless and dumb. But I don't find it particularly scary. I've been much more frightened by apolitical morons I've seen at public gun ranges; that was the only time I've had a gun actually pointed at me.
Why bring it in the first place?
I don't know, though above I speculate some. I wish someone covering these events would interview a few open-carriers and find out.
You first.
Why bring it in the first place?
As to the town halls, I think its dumb and I'm not sure what people think they accomplish by it. But it's less frightening than sharing a range with morons.
Let me take a shot at this,
from a different angle:
Did the SS really ask the Brits
to guarantee immunity to their
agents, if one shot a British
citizen during Bush's visit ?
Did they actually ask to be allowed
to bring a freakin' 5.56 mm mini-
gatling gun along ?!?
If so, then don't be worried about the
civilians; The Pros are the ones to
be afraid of.
Security arrangements depend on the cooperation of the host country. I'm not privy to those arrangements, but whatever the Secret Service brings and does has to done with the consent of the host country, subject to the usual negotiations (and give-and-take) that characterize these sort of things.
I'm not worried about the civilians, or the pro's for that matter (they have the civilians in their gunsights). I'm worried that political discourse has turned so coarse and ugly that people feel compelled to bring weapons to a discussion to prove their point. The Secret Service carries weapons with an implicit message: Don't kill the President. Crazy, gun-wielding protestors carry their assault rifles with an explicit message: Don't fuck with me, and don't fuck with my healthcare. Are they so inarticulate that they didn't think to just say it, or find a better medium to express it?
What libs don't realize is an awesome responsibility that demands the bearer comport himself with great dignity and restraint. No armed man, who is not actually a criminal, engages in an ill-tempered arguement. Illegal use of a gun is harshly punished; even legal use of a gun is extremely risky, and done only in the face of the ultimate consequences- hence the dictum "better to be tried by twelve than carried by six."
"No armed man, who is not actually a criminal, engages in an ill-tempered arguement."
Well, Megan just said that she has, but then she's a woman, so I guess that's what you mean. But your statement is so clearly false on it's face that I suppose you must have some definitional defense for it, like that in your mind anyone who does become ill tempered while holding a gun is eo ipso a criminal? Do clarify.
Crazy, gun-wielding protestors carry their assault rifles with an explicit message: Don't fuck with me, and don't fuck with my healthcare.
You don't know what they're thinking, and its rather foolish (not to mention rude) to speculate or play armchair psychiatrist, and then draw negative conclusions about them based on what you say their motives are. The guy in the article in the last post was pro-Obamacare, he brought the gun to make the point that just because he was a Democrat didn't mean he supported gun control (or so he said).
BTW, care to offer a meaningful definition of "assault rifle"?
What about a man with a handgun strapped to his leg carrying a sign that reads "It's time to water the tree of liberty" -- referring to a quote from Thomas Jefferson: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants"?
I should contact a psychiatrist before drawing the conclusion that this man might be f*cked up? I should just tell my 94 year-old Grandmother not to worry about him and go into the Town Hall meeting anyway to hear what her Congressman has to say?
I don't need to be a mind reader; I'm a board reader.
If you wouldn't brandish a knife, a bat, or a 5-iron at these healthcare gatherings, why would you bring a gun?
Assault rifle: a weapon primarily designed for combat use, and obviously emulates a military grade weapon in form and function. Example: AR-15 (aka M16, M4, and the civilian semi-automatic variants, etc.).
Assault rifle: a weapon primarily designed for combat use...
Like an 8mm Mauser or Springield 30-06? A BAR?
What about a Mini-14, not used in combat by anyone?
I sprung the trap, but that doesn't mean you're going to catch anything.
Nice try.
BTW, I own guns, and I'm not what you would call a firm advocate of "gun control", if that's what you're implying.
You must be one of the gun crazies I was thinking about earlier. Sad.
Bzzt, wrong. Firstly, he meant to ask what is an assault weapon. In which case it's a weapon that some hoplophobic politico decides looks scary today. Secondly, the BATFE definition of assault rifle is a rifle that can fire more than one round with a single pull of the trigger. Really the definition should be a rifle that is designed or purposefully altered to fire more than one round with a single pull of the trigger, but the BATFE apparently likes busting guy's whose rifles malfunction.
I sprung the trap.
You stepped in the trap.
End result is the same thing: Don't Bring A Gun To A Healthcare Rally Because It's A Really Stupid Idea™.
Have fun finding a way out.
The definition above of "assault rifle" is bogus. It apparently includes all military firearms (even trench guns, pistols, grenade launchers, RPGs, etc) except, arguably, some officer's sidearms and possibly guns used by military police, and is therefore too general to be useful.
There is a definition of "assault rifle" which has been in general use since the end of WW2, and is standard in the usual references such as Jane's and Brassey's, but it has no bearing here, since the guns so far spotted at these little political affairs don't qualify.
An "assault weapon" is, of course, something else entirely.
Trivia? Not so. The English language is a useful communications tool, but only if words have commonly accepted meanings. Otherwise it becomes a useful propaganda tool; not quite the same thing.
Bomb Swiftly :
You're a few stripes short of actually making any sense, soldier, and in danger of straying off into verbal minefields.
Are we going to waste our time arguing over whether "Is means is"?
If you drive down this road, you might never come back. Don't go off the reservation, Colonel. Eye on the target. Keep it steady.
What about a man with a handgun strapped to his leg carrying a sign that reads "It's time to water the tree of liberty"
I think that sign is stupid--just as stupid as assassination porn, or Obama (or Bush) as Hitler, etc.
But I don't find that guy particularly scary. He's making a statement, but I doubt he intends actual violence, seeing as how he's carrying openly and waving an attention-getting sign.
The overall impression is (and is intended to be) extremist. But for me, I find him less frightening than drunken soccer fans or the occasional mob of students who shout down a campus speaker. YMMV.
Why is anyone still talking about this? Is there any evidence that more than two people in the whole country have open carried at health care protests?
Ahh.. guns. Must have been great about 150 years ago when they could still protect you. But guns are a part of American history. Remember the March on Washington - when MLK had a rifle strapped around him at all times. MLK was obviously non-violent but his gun made a great democratic statement. "If you don't protect me - I will". Loved that so many black protester wore guns too.
But ss a libertarian I cannot quite agree with the gun laws in the US. It is the only thing libertarians entrust the state with. If we were to play Judge Dread ourselves - no free market could function (might would be right and not the best product and service etc). It is quite different for somebody who intends to leave society for the woods - but all social animals living in democracies and trying to use the democratic path to reform and change send a very very strange signal if they were decorated with instruments that have only one purpose.
It's a bit like people wearing hakenkreuze (swastikas) at a rally - in theory it is their freedom of speech - in practice people will doubt their intentions.
"if they were decorated with instruments that have only one purpose."
Only one purpose?
Your obvious problem is a severe lack of imagination. Those instruments can have a great many purposes. See if you can think of a few on your own.
@ Hugo Pottisch: Judge Dread, guns, and crosses
Judge Dread was a Paladin; He had the High Justice.
See also Spenser's "Faerie Queene", and Texas Rangers.
Guns still protect us; Like any other deterrent,
they are most valuable when never used, but
displayed when necessary to remind TPTB
of the limits of their power.
Preemptive anti-strawman response: NO, I am not
talking about Bonus Marchers or Secession;
"If this Goes On", the states will start resisting
the federal government through various delaying
tactics, and the Feds might be tempted to arrest
state officials on trumped-up charges;
Not a good idea.
Hakenkreuze=Twisted Cross, also Fylfot reversed.
The Fylfot being a good luck charm;
ain't symbolism wonderful ?
Chris Broughton, the guy with the AR-15, is apparently some kind of religious fanatic, who says he joins with his pastor in praying for the President's death; when asked whether he advocates violence against the President, he declined to answer. Are you really, truly confident that he wouldn't take a shot at the President if he had the chance, even knowing that he'd probably be shot dead in the act? Not even if God told him to?