Armed and Safe links to an editorial on the incident and takes it to task. I would also point out this indication that the Times-Tribune couldn’t even be bothered to crack a dictionary:
The gun-toters don’t seem to understand that not brandishing their weapons in public would not diminish their right while also not intimidating other diners.
Let’s look at the definition of brandish, shall we? From Merriam-Webster:
- Main Entry: 1bran·dish
- Pronunciation: \ˈbran-dish\
- Function: transitive verb
- Etymology:
- Middle English braundisshen, from Anglo-French brandiss-, stem of brandir, from brant, braund sword, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English brand
- Date: 14th century
1 : to shake or wave (as a weapon) menacingly
2 : to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner
If someone views a firearm properly secured in a holster as “aggressive” or “menacing” that’s not my problem, it’s theirs. The laws of this commonwealth permit the open carrying of a firearm in plain view, or concealed or in a vehicle with a license. There are 600,000 people in this state with a License to Carry Firearms. People in Pennsylvania are around armed citizens all the time, and they just don’t realize it. All these gentlemen did was choose not to hide their firearms.
I’m actually a bit embarrassed not to have raised the point myself about the author’s grossly distorted use of the word “brandishing.”
That may have been the most offensive part of the entire editorial, and I just let it slide.
Not one of my prouder moments.
Just another holier-than-thou jerk trying to portray gun owners as a bunch of bloodthirsty, shoot-em-up rednecks. Same old stuff. It’s like the euro-weenies calling all Americans ‘cowboy wannabes’. Not, true, but even if it were, it’d be better than the crime-ridden morass they’ve so lovingly created. Actually, I’m betting that an ostentatiously displayed firearm has PREVENTED a crime or two down through time, as well.