Thoughts On Open Carry

So about this whole "Open Carry" thing here in Texas. I find myself strangely ambivalent. Which is odd coming from such a hard core liberal as myself. (Just kidding. I am neither hard core nor completely liberal when it comes to politics.) I am, however, a strange juxtaposition of gun control and gun rights. Which, I suppose, explains the ambivalence.

Let me explain. First of all, I think because the Constitution says we have the right to bear arms, we have...the right bear arms. But I think where I disagree with some gun right proponents is what constitutes as an arm we have the right to bear. Confused yet? I'll expound.

The word arm, in context to our conversation and as defined by just about any dictionary, means weapon. Now a weapon can be anything from a gun to a knife, a pistol to a missile. And though you may disagree with me, I hardly think that our forefathers had nukes in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment. I also don't think they believed we would never advance in weaponry beyond what was available in the 17th century.

So the first question I can think of when it comes to this topic is: Where do we draw the line at what is a reasonable weapon for a common citizen to have readily available? Though I am sure Uzis are extremely cool, I don't think it's a necessary addition to Joe Blow's already extensive collection.

Second of all, let's discuss what a right really is. Again, the dictionary defines it as something due to a person or governmental body by law, tradition, or by nature. But I would ask this: Is everyone really due the ability to own a weapon?

For example, let's say we have a paranoid schizophrenic. Now, when said individual takes his prescribed medication, said individual is possibly a productive member of society. But would you really want to put a gun in the hands of such an individual during a paranoid episode? I wouldn't.

By and large, I say we should keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. You know, like murderers, mobsters, and morons. But that's just me. Seriously, we have to admit that there are some citizens of our nation who would be better off without access, and we, too, would be better off without them having access.

Now, this of course begs the question: Who decides who has the right? And this is a fair question. One that cannot be easily answered. Someone will always somehow feel slighted.

But now...open carry...still not generally opposed to it. And here's why. You have to be licensed to carry. That means that someone, somewhere, developed a testing program that qualifies people to be responsible gun owners/carriers. Also, since we already have concealed handgun licenses at this point anyway, what's the difference between carrying where we can see, and carrying when we can't. Their still carrying!

And that, I'm afraid, is my two cents.