The Journal Gazette is upset that recent state restrictions on local gun control make it "more likely people will be carrying guns when they vote."
Most citizens with gun permits know that the Second Amendment exists to protect a person’s right to self-defense. It’s not intended to encourage people to display guns brazenly in public in a way that will intimidate or frighten innocent people.
Unfortunately, there is the possibility some less civic-minded gun owners may decide to test the law on Nov. 6 by prominently displaying their guns while voting.
This is almost too stilly to respond to. Almost.
In the first place, how does someone displaying a gun while voting "intimidate or frighten innocent people"? Intimidate or frighten to what purpose? Am I supposed to read the gun-toter's mind so I can vote for the candidate he wants me to vote for and thus avoid getting shot? Perhaps he will wear a sign so we don't have to guess.
In the second place, the "was not intended" approach is snotty and churlish. What it means is, "I don't particularly like this right you are asserting, but I guess I have to put up with it, so I'm going to do my best to make you feel awful about it." Making the obvious point that some people might abuse a right as a backdoor way to criticize the existence of a right or the morality of those who might want to exercise that right is sort of sophomoric.
Most civic-minded citizens know that the First Amendment exists to protect a person's right to self-expression. It is not intended to encourage people to display their misguided ignorance in public in a way that will frighten or intimidate innocent people.
