Periodically, I encounter individuals who express the idea that you can somehow have a society which is free, while at the same time safe, antiseptic, and womb-like. In particular, certain kinds of conservatives are fond of saying things like, "I don't have any problem with people [committing some socially unacceptable act] in their homes, but they ought to keep it to themselves."
But it is specifically the public expression of our rights which tests whether or not we are, in fact, free. It is not someone at a podium calling for prudent and safe driving which tests the First Amendment, but the wild-eyed Maoist with a burning flag. It is not the Hallmark Movie of the Week which tests whether or not an individual or institution may infringe First Amendment rights on the basis of content, but, rather, filthy hardcore pornography — in particular, the kind which makes even the most sexually liberated among us go into unhappy fetal positions in our chairs.
The true test of any human being's commitment to liberty is the degree to which he will not only tolerate but take a stand for expressions of rights which disgust and offend him. Talk is cheap. A lot of people who use the language of freedom and individual rights have a surprisingly weak commitment to it when their sensibilities are tested. It is easy to take a stand for the abstract concept of, say, freedom of speech, but another to take a stand for it in the specific instance of offensive pornography or revolting hate speech.
Accordingly, you will encounter those for whom the phrase "limited government" somehow still accommodates the perpetuation of the drug war, a sort of imperial colonization of people's lungs and bloodstreams.
There are those who would advocate fiscal restraint and frugal government, while still supporting endless, costly wars that have nothing to do with the territorial sovereignty of the United States. It is, they would say, a form of extortion to tax one person to pay for another's health care, but it is not the same thing, apparently, to force others to pay for countless military adventures across the globe, including ones many taxpayers find deeply immoral. To many people, taxing citizens to pay for abortions is wrong, but taxing people to pay for things like bombs or bribes to US-friendly authoritarian regimes is just fine.
And then there are those who advocate Freedom of Speech, except for stuff which might offend a child, grandmother, or deity — like naked boobies.
Upon having their hypocrisy challenged, inevitably someone trots out the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" argument. Those who insist on using this argument seem to suggest that because there may be some kind of conditions, restrictions, or limitations (I would call it infringements) on a right (believing such infringements are legitimate because of the very existence of the "crowded theater" concept, devoid of context or assessment of its validity), that any infringement they themselves support must necessarily be valid.
I wonder how many people who have used the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" argument have any idea where this originated. The phrase comes from Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who in Shenck v. the United States (1919) used this absurd argument to justify making the distribution of anti-draft flyers illegal:
"The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that the United States Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right."
I wonder how many people — especially on the left — would support the position this argument was concocted to rationalize.
As to the subject of open carry of firearms, I am uninterested in the discussion as to the practicality of carrying firearms in this manner. On a personal level, I simply do not care. Even having grown up in anti-gun suburban New Jersey, I have never been alarmed or offended by a person doing it, even before I was conscious of gun rights issues. I find the idea that manner of carry (concealed or open) has any impact on public safety to be ludicrous: a person carrying a pistol openly merely broadcasts positive intent: "I have nothing to hide." To my knowledge, open carry among criminals is rare to non-existent, and criminals are going to conceal weapons whether they have a government permission slip or not. The entire open carry debate is really about irrational sensibilities and hysteria &mdash nothing more.
I support open carry because it is the kind of expression of the right of self defense which tests the sensibilities and commitment to liberty the majority in our society say they have. It ought to be defended specifically because it offends, shocks, and/or alarms a certain segment of our population. Most importantly, carrying a firearm openly is completely harmless on its own. It deprives no one of liberty; it infringes no rights whatsoever.
If conspicuous open carry does lead to a desensitization to the existence of firearms in private hands, that is positive. Concealing firearms doesn't make them go away. A significant percentage of our population keeps and bears arms, and infringing the rights of those who do to accommodate the irrational hysteria of those who freak out at the sight of a gun simply cannot be justified.
Experiencing discomfort in the presence of someone exercising a right is one thing, but to insist that the government infringe that person's rights because of it is not a legitimate activity in a free society. This psychology imperils practically every one of our freedoms. It is fundamentally incompatible with a way of life grounded in individual rights.
Are we to ban the display of crucifixes because an atheist might be offended or feel discomfort? Or perhaps we ought to ban public expressions of atheism because this agitates the faithful? What of the embattled Confederate flag? There is not, and cannot be, a right to be free from fear, discomfort, or offense, because such a "right" would lead to countless infringements on the rights of others.
Beyond the political principles involved with open carry, I like the fact that the act, beyond its practicality, is an emblematic symbol of what makes the United States different from any other country on earth. A gun hanging on the belt of a citizen asserts in measured but serious tones, "I am the sovereign of my own life. And I mean it." It is worth more than a million Gadsden flags in this regard.
The gun on my belt should serve as a reminder that you, too, are sovereign of your own life, and by carrying a pistol openly, I am broadcasting: you have the right to do so as well, because I have no claim on your life, and you have no claim on mine.
It is (some would say paradoxically; I wouldn't) an expression of a very specific type of peace — one based on mutual respect of each other's individuality and liberty.
It is in broadcasting this respect for the rights of others (carrying guns is not the only way to do this, obviously) that individuals come to form a "we." The tension between "we" and "I" in individualist cultures such as our own need not be any more complicated than this, the collectivist canards regarding the supposedly "social Darwinist" aspects of radical, rational, rugged individualism notwithstanding.
I am not an island, because I have freely choosen not to be. But it is that I choose, that tolerable (even enriching) civilization is made possible. Is civilization at the end of a government rifle really civilization at all, or merely a cheap simulation of it?
Anti-gun people will frequently ask gun owners why they live in fear, to which I answer: I don't. I'm not the one expressing fear at the prospect that individuals seek to defend their personal sovereignty. What is it, exactly, that you are afraid of?
Is it that anti-gun people really think so little of the "common man" so many on the Left claim to advocate for, that they cannot conceive of an individual bearing arms responsibly? If mankind is so depraved, why have freedom at all? Why not just open the door and let Leviathan in, to reign over all aspects of human affairs?
Or do they fear the prospect that as social engineers, they may have some trouble bending their fellow armed citizen to their will? Does the very presence of arms in the hands of individuals imperil their personal utopian fantasies by ensuring that individuals will always choose which drummer - if any - to march to?
I have no such fear of my fellow citizens. Those who carry a firearm openly have no such fear of me. This is as it ought to be.