Now, we have all heard the now-buzzword-phrase "common sense gun control" and how what it usually means is more restrictive gun laws. This isn't about that; the 2A community knows BS when they hear it and that phrase is usually attached to lines of thinking like the Second Amendment was written when semi-automatics didn't exist so they certainly didn't have them in mind. Fair point, assuming men like James Madison and George Mason were not (as far as we know) time travelers and may have not been able to predict advancements in technology when drafting the Second. To me, that point loses its edge entirely when we look at their intent in the Second which was simply that Madison;
"did not invent the right to keep and bear arms when he drafted the Second Amendment; the right was pre-existing at both common law and in the early state constitutions." -Michael J. Quinlan
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.Now debate was had because it was felt that the "religiously scrupulous" text could be used to destroy the standing militia. The Second went through many drafts and adjustments after that, including careful attention to punctuation and scrutiny over specific words used. If so much attention went into the structure of what has become the most controversial of amendments, one could safely assume that Madison knew firearms technology would advance and didn't address it because it is way besides the point. After much debate, our the final draft read as we know it today:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.Now, personally, I always wonder how different the debate would be if "Composed of the body of the people" had been left in, as it identifies every citizen as being supported by the Second and would have gone a long way towards killing the anti-gun crowds tired "They only meant militias" line but that's another conversation.
When I was in Mexico I wasn't required to know how to speak Spanish, just as the Mexican locals were not required to understand what I was saying. It was an inability to communicate and it was my responsibility to find a way to get my message across because I needed to. No volume of voice or pantomime of arms and hands would get them to understand me. I needed to learn the language.
"firearms experts" and journalists who cant remember what helicopter they were on, let alone be bothered to check facts. In a nation where people usually go with the first Google result as the truth or have such a strong confirmation bias that a reasonable conversation with them is akin to pulling a mattress through a mail slot, we have to try harder to show those on the fence or those against guns that the Second Amendment right is a recognition of a natural right, not a man-manufactured excuse to compensate for the size of ones genitalia.
We live in a low-information society (some people only read these for the memes) and most of that low information is gathered visually, because seeing is the easiest way to observe. If you don't like, or are afraid of what you see, how much work are you going to put into respecting its message?
Responsible open carry isn't a zero-retention kydex holster; a leg rig at the BBQ joint or two rifles slung. Can you do it? Sure; but it may be a bad idea for the same reason that I can stand across from an elementary school with a bullhorn and recite Celly Cell lyrics in between Easy E acapella because society isn't really down with my exercise of Free Speech in that case.
Responsible open carry is hard to define, but easy to practice. Again, my opinion is that open carry should be for a purpose, not for a statement. The tired argument of easier access and deterrence goes right out the window when you see how many police officers are killed with their own weapons and how occasionally an open carrier is robbed at gunpoint. Responsible open carry is having been trained in weapon retention and using a retention holster. It is a level of awareness commensurate with transporting a lethal device into every environment you go and its presence being obvious. It is polite difference to those who are bothered by the weapon and a willingness to educate in a reasonable way that goes beyond canned slogans or raised voices. It is a non-confrontational approach towards a protected right. Otherwise, you might as well pick up a bullhorn and memorize the lyrics to "Hit the Hooker" before heading out to exercise your First on some 8 year-olds.