Ah, troublesome human nature.
What else could prove to be so consistently inconsistent? We confess to believing one way but then act in different way.
We want the Olympic games to be clean sportsmanship at its best, but then witness fairly widespread doping. We expect professional athletes to play by the rules but then chuckle at “Deflategate” antics during a championship playoff. We expect leaders to be people of honor, integrity, transparency and then end up with … well, you get the idea.
Here’s one that goes the other way, an inconsistent consistency.
There is a strong, vocal and powerful group that consistently works to make all kinds of weapons available to all kinds of people, many who go so far as to push legislation that guarantees the right to own and carry (open or concealed) weapons everywhere: public buildings, schools, hospitals, churches, etc. And carry not just small weapons but military-style and -grade weapons. After all, the Second Amendment, they say, must have no limitations whatsoever as a matter of constitutionally guaranteed freedom and safety.
But then the very group and political party that is so vociferous in its open-carry support and its determination that the more guns the better and safer we all would be, outlaws both concealed and open-carry at its national convention. How can it be that if more guns everywhere make everybody safer, they choose to deny such ‘safety’ to their convention delegates? Are they now worried about thousands of guns and ten thousands of bullets being carried about by potentially volatile, not always responsible adults of their own making?
And if they are truly the law and order group, deeply dedicated to support of police officers, how can they justify such public open-carry anywhere by anyone laws given the growing threat to police officers who are now forced to decide in a moment which gun-carrying persons in a crowd are for or against them?
Perhaps all those guns everywhere on anyone is a misguided “right” that consistently does put everyone at risk. Clearly what the group has said is not what it has done when it feels at risk.
They are consistent at least in that.
Kim Latterell can be reached at email@example.com.