Some folks supporting end-the-shutdown rallies are creating a controversy separate from the one the events were meant to address. The primary controversy in states like Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, New Jersey, and California is petty tyrant governors placing ludicrous restrictions, having nothing to do with the CCP virus, on their state residents.

Just to review a couple of items: In Michigan, people were not allowed to cross the street to visit a friend; rowboats and kayaks were okay, but motorboats—not so much. And, of course, there is the picking and choosing of winner and loser businesses. And the arbitrary nature of the restrictions has snatched from these governors any moral authority to tell anyone what to do.

But the side-controversy I’m talking about is one I’m not settled on either. It pertains to some protesters attending end-the-shutdown events, such as the recent “American Patriot Rally” in Lansing, Michigan at the state capitol, legally armed with rifles.

The concerns were not just that some people came armed with guns but specifically dressed in “tactical gear” with rifles slung over their backs or across their chests. Even Second Amendment proponents disagree on whether this kind of display helps or hurts the end-the-shutdown effort specifically or the gun rights movement generally. At least, at a gun-rights rally, guns are the point.

On the one hand, some believe people carrying rifles, which Americans have a right to do, may do it to intimidate government officials. They also feel people carrying weapons obfuscates legitimate issues by creating a distraction that politicians and mainstream media can exploit. This is true, as Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer and her media allies have proven by trying to link all attendees to white supremacists. Still, I think there’s more to the issue.

Some others argue open carrying pistols and rifles is an overt signal of exercising one’s constitutional rights like nothing else. People pay attention to people carrying firearms because most Americans are no longer accustomed to being around guns. Because of decades of progressive government, government schools, and mainstream media anti-gun indoctrination, people recoil at the mere mention of guns.

And some wonder what good is having an unalienable right (in this case, the right to keep and bear arms) if people don’t exercise it once in a while. And what better occasion than when you are petitioning your government for redress of your grievances such as ending the shutdown? Displaying firearms can also serve as a reminder of Americans’ obdurate affinity for all of their constitutional rights.

People see and experience various governors all over the country stomping on the people’s rights to speech, religion, assembly, redress of grievances, etc. This is happening primarily in “blue” states during this communist Chinese-inflicted contagion. It’s not so strange that some people might wish to more explicitly exercise the constitutional right, the Second Amendment, that ultimately ensures the government does not infringe on their other rights.

I suppose it depends on how you look at the issue. Some feel the folks carrying rifles are solely doing it to intimidate and, perhaps, play “soldier” for a day. On the other hand, it’s likely some of these folks have been in the military. They served their country to preserve the right for which some fellow Second Amendment supporters are berating them for exercising.

If you look at the issue in the context that these people are fed up with politicians suspending their constitutional rights, you see demonstrators who just want to call attention to the government overreach. And, like I said, for pure attention-grabbing of leftist politicians and mainstream media, nothing calls attention to any rights issue like slinging a good ole “assault weapon” over your shoulder.

Do you think state and local governments have abused power during the COVID-19 pandemic?

By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from LifeZette, occasional offers from our partners and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement.

This issue came up on a recent Hannity TV show on the Fox News. The Detroit News reported on Sean Hannity’s criticism of those people carrying rifles at the Lansing event. Hannity strongly supports the Second Amendment but feels it is distracting and even dangerous, including to the police, to be armed with a rifle at such rallies.

But even Hannity’s guests politely disagreed on this issue. Governor Mike Huckabee said he agreed with Hannity that people carrying rifles distracts from the primary issue and gives critics ammunition (pardon the pun) to condemn the entire movement. To paraphrase Huckabee, just because you have a right to do something doesn’t mean it is right to do it.

Governor Whitmer and Huffington Post are great examples of this criticism of the movement, as she’s painted the entire movement with a broad “white supremacist” brush. In a story about the rally, the HuffPost wrote, “Some carried Confederate flags, swastikas, and firearms,” thus intentionally inflaming the issue by associating firearms with emblems historically associated with slavery and white supremacy.

You notice that the arguments within both camps of Second Amendment supporters have legitimacy. That’s what happens when the substance of a person’s act depends on the perception of the person observing the act. Hannity also discussed this issue with Dan Bongino, a former NYPD police officer and U.S. Secret Service agent.

Bongino acknowledged Hannity’s concerns but respectfully “pushed back.” He took the view that people were rightly upset with their rights being violated and being painted as a “crazed bunch of lunatics.” Carrying a rifle calls attention to the gravity of the governors’ constitutional abuses.

I wonder if contention between gun rights folks happens if you ascribe an intent to a person that he or she might not have. You may think that person is carrying a rifle to intimidate or to feel powerful, but that might be a matter of projection. You might be imbuing within the person carrying the rifle how you think you would feel if you were the one carrying the gun.

People being armed at these rallies does not bother me. But I understand why others might be bothered by it. The reasons on both sides are reasonable. There is a part of me that bristles when I see folks decked out in military gear and armed with rifles at end-the-shutdown rallies. Because it will no doubt put off potential supports.

Some argue toting weapons is inappropriate because these events are not directly associated with gun rights. Although, since some governors have outlawed gun shops and shooting ranges as a part of their restrictions, as Gov. Whitmer has, then there is a direct association with gun rights.

So, I can see how a non-gun-owning person might view people carrying rifles at a demonstration. And it’s a legitimate view that being armed can detract from the essence of what the demonstrators are attempting to accomplish: Getting the public to agree with or at least understand their viewpoint.

Still, I have to keep in mind that the assumptions we make about people’s motives are just that: assumptions. When people in high population areas don’t exercise an important right they have, other people become unaccustomed to guns, and they recoil when they see people exercising their right to keep and bear arms.

Back in early American history, and still in some parts of the country today, seeing a person, outside of a law enforcement officer, open carrying a firearm was and is not unusual. Doesn’t seeing people openly carrying arms remind us of that important right? Isn’t there something positive about that? Isn’t that a legitimate question?

The truth is no one except the person carrying a rifle at a demonstration knows why he or she is doing it. Maybe he thinks it will intimidate government authority. Or, maybe she wishes to remind the government about one of the primary reasons the Second Amendment exists: As a failsafe check on government running rampant over Americans’ other rights—which some are doing right at this moment.

As I said, I haven’t settled on the issue, and maybe I never will completely. It’s just better for everyone if each side (within the gun rights family) tries to understand the other’s perspective. Not everyone who carries a rifle at an event is some armchair commando, and not everyone who opposes carrying a rifle at a rally is a “fake” Second Amendment supporter.