Breda made a very good point today about the so-called “Hate Crimes” legislation with her “that word you’re using…” post regarding the special, privileged class that is created. Breda says she’s not really for gay marriage, but rather for getting the government out of the business of marriage altogether. Here’s what I would propose:

1. Government no longer requires anything, including blood test, for marriage. I would still advocate encouraging those who wish to engage in an intimate relationship get blood tests, but not that nor anything else should carry the force of law.
   
2. Churches, mosques, synagogues, atheist organizations, etc, take over all of the administration of marriage as they see fit.
   
3. Any parties are welcome to enter into an agreement, much like they way any other contracts are administered, through lawyers and approved by courts. Many like to call these civil unions, but I see no need whatsoever to box them into a particular name. There may be perfectly good financial or other reasons having nothing to do with intimate involvement for people to enter this kind of contract and civil union carries a connotation they may not want.
   
4. The 16th amendment to the US Constitution is repealed and the income tax abolished. That way, there’s no confusion about how to change the tax code since it’s gone.

I know 4 is a stretch, but frankly, it’s all a stretch in today’s current political climate, but I spell it to make a point that one can be entirely opposed to any sort of homosexual behaviour, but not necessarily in favour of government control of that behaviour. Nobody in the homosexual world has a right to be seen as normal by everyone they meet. My strong libertarian leaning informs me in my position that I don’t even think any (private) employers should be forced to hire or not hire anyone based on homosexual behaviour. Homosexuals are welcome to try and convince naysayers to see they’re behaviour as normal. It is the right of those who don’t to hold that view.

But I digress.

My main point here is that no one has any right to have their behaviour viewed as normal by anyone else. That includes gun owners. And that includes those who open carry. It is our determined goal, as expressed through opencarry.org and various other organizations to normalize the sight of people carrying guns on their hips, not only not being a threat, but being a stabilizing force in otherwise crime ridden areas. It is our human right to keep and bear arms, and that includes bearing them openly.

But just because we can’t expect to be viewed as normal (there will always be those who will never be convinced of it), doesn’t mean we should modify our behaviour to satisfy them. A right not exercised is a right lost. Virginia became, relatively speaking, one of the friendliest eastern states to open carrying of firearms by people carrying firearms openly. It was already legal, it just took some determined activist to change the view of a number of people and, I think in some cases, the local police.

I’m with Rob Allen in “Open carry is fine, so long as you don’t do it where people can see you” where he demands proof of statements like “For every one person you turn on, two others are turned off.” I asked Sebastian in the comments of Alan’s “Sebastian Zumbos Himself” post to give evidence that leans heavily toward exercising a right causing a deterioration of the freedom to exercise that right.

I still haven’t seen a credible answer.

I posted more on Open vs. Concealed carry here almost a year ago.

Update: Forgot about the Hunters reference. I also meant to point out Sebastian’s post a week ago titled “High Public Approval for Hunting“. In that post, he said:

The danger I see is that hunters have not yet accepted the “no one gets thrown off the lifeboat” philosophy that most in the shooting community have come to understand.

He’s not quite doing that to open carriers just yet, but he’s dang near close, so I challenged him with it. His comeback was to say that unless he was working to make open carrying illegal or sitting by while others were working for that, then open carriers were not being thrown off the lifeboat. Well…let’s just say that seeing him jump on every opportunity to bash open carriers makes that hard to swallow. Not all so-called “Fudds” were necessarily working to make EBRs illegal, they just were not all that crazy about others having and using them. Sounds awfully familiar.

Update: Ouch. Fixed a couple of missing negatives in that last paragraph.