The Polite Hypocrite

My last blog on open carry (All Guns Are Always Loaded) stirred the pot a bit and not surprising. I’m not going to sugar coat things here, but if you look close enough you can see a bunch of folks acting hypocritical.

Definition time

So, what do I mean by acting hypocritical. Merriam’s dictionary defines hypocrisy as:

hy·poc·ri·sy noun \hi-ˈpä-krə-sē also hī-\ : the behavior of people who do things that they tell other people not to do : behavior that does not agree with what someone claims to believe or feel.

If on the one hand you support something, but in the same breath say you’ll never do it does it not fit this definition? I mean shouldn’t support be freely and wholly, not in parts only? If you support red footwear, but you’ll never wear red sandals doesn’t that seem a bit hypocritical?

The slippery slope

If you want to support open carry, but you only support reasonable forms of open carry how do you define reasonable? Is wearing your batman utility belt full uploaded for bear reasonable. Is carrying a rifle reasonable, what about a black rifle? This is going to get a lot more complicated as we wade further into this body of water. My point is that you don’t have to like the idea of open carry, but if you support it then how can you support only parts of it. Shouldn’t it be all forms of open carry. Yes, I get it. You can still be supportive, but I hope folks can see the point I’m trying to make here.

Fire, fire, fire

Here is something else to consider. As an industry is it necessary to enforce some standard that deems what’s reasonable for open carry? If so, how are we different from the anti-gun groups who are systematically dismantling our personal freedoms. I don’t see how one can support open carry, but then under their breath murmur their disdain and that not be considered hypercritical by our opponents in the anti-gun crowd. About the only we can do is address the cause an effect, but you’ve got to be all in to do so. If you support open carry then you have to support those who would carry what might be deemed irresponsible. As much as you don’t like it, you’ve painted yourself into a corner. It’s kind of like supporting your first amendment right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater. It’s not without consequences though.

A new outlook

Is there a better alternative, I’m not sure at this point since we’ve already opened Pandora’s box. I also don’t think we are going to reach those who would protest, they seem hell bent on continuing said action. I wrote an article a while back about the Gunfighter’s Utopia. Could we be on a precipice where are only hope at this point is to go all in and fully support and navigate towards open carry as the new everyday carry mindset. Wouldn’t that be weird where now those who carry concealed are actually on the opposite end of the spectrum. I know it’s a far cry from reality, but if you follow the current movement to its logical conclusion it would probably look some what similar.

If you are going to openly support open carry, then be careful about putting limitations on the act. If you do, you might find yourself falling into the ranks of gun control fans by proxy.

7 thoughts on “The Polite Hypocrite

  1. zayomabi says:

    Jeff,

    I rarely comment on posts although I read them all. In this case I feel I have to respond. Your assertion that people that partially support open carry of weapons are hypocritical is spot on. When looked at as a form of political speech, legally carrying firearms openly is little different than any other controversial political speech. Would those that partially support these folks from carrying firearms openly also only support speaking or writing about firearms partially as well?

    The measure of our right to express speech, especially political speech is not limited by what we are comfortable with, but rather what we are uncomfortable with. Many may not like their form of political speech but we must support their right to express that speech.

    We must support all forms of political speech, especially that speech that makes us nervous, unhappy, or angry. To do any less is un-American.

    Thanks Jeff for once again cutting through the noise and getting directly to the point.

    Allen

  2. flashback says:

    I stated that I support O/C even though it is something that I do not do, I just wish those that do wouldn’t use the methods that some are utilizing…don’t think that constitutes me being a hypocrite, just a little more realistic perhaps.
    Great follow up article!!

    • Jeff Gonzales says:

      Gene, don’t feel as the article was directed at you specifically. The blog is posted to several different sites and the observations are from a much larger group. I wouldn’t write something based off a single incident just as a heads up.

      I hear what you are saying and any form of political free speech is going to be tricky. You don’t have to like it, agree with it or be ok with it. The problem is when we put exceptions on the table. I am reminded of the recent incident at the Bundy Ranch where a “free speech” zone was created, you could talk all you wanted, but you had to do it in this area away from the front lines.

      It is a slippery slope for sure.

      • flashback says:

        Yeah, I got that Jeff…didn’t mean to come across as to thinking that. To throw out some well known sentiments:
        I agree it’s a rough path and we’re going to have to hang together or we’ll most assuredly hang alone to paraphrase Ben Franklin.
        It’s just that sometimes just because one can doesn’t mean they should. We need to be a step above and be good ambassadors as well as advocates.

        • Jeff Gonzales says:

          Thanks Gene, I wanted to make sure just in case. No truer words from Benjamin Franklin, that’s for sure. I agree with you completely, but as I mentioned Pandora’s box is already open and I’m afraid there is no going back. As for your comment about just because you can do something, that is the key there. Just because you can yell “fire” in a crowded building doesn’t mean you should, but as I mentioned, if you do you need to be prepared for the consequences. That I believe is the piece missing or overlooked.

  3. flashback says:

    Agree Jeff, we need to be prepared for those that wish us ill will and those that may be a bit more “enthusiastic” to help us as well. There are folks on both sides of the issue that need some more information/education…ones that don’t think that they do.

Leave a Reply

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