Will the Rittenhouse verdict turn guns into a tool of political intimidation?

Will the Rittenhouse verdict turn guns into a tool of political intimidation?

A protester carries his rifle at the Capitol in Lansing, Mich., April 30, 2020. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya)

Image without a caption

By Paul Waldman

Columnist

Today at 1:08 p.m. EST

Kyle Rittenhouse’s acquittal on charges related to the incident in which he killed two men and wounded a third — and his elevation on the right into a hero — may make it more likely that people will assume they’ll be let off if they commit acts of violence or even murder. As The Post reports, defense lawyers say “that jurors are increasingly receptive toward the use of deadly force by ordinary citizens who claim they were protecting themselves.”

But there’s another possible effect of this verdict: It could change the face of political protest in America. As they share their glee over Rittenhouse’s acquittal, conservatives may now decide that carrying guns — especially military-style rifles — is itself a powerful form of protest that can be used to intimidate both their political opponents and officeholders.

Carrying guns openly is, perhaps more than anything else, a kind of speech. It’s meant to communicate a clear message: I may decide to kill you.

Story continues below advertisement

The intimidation is the point. And some on the right are already suggesting that carrying guns should become a tool of political engagement, a way to terrorize the supposedly dangerous left into submission.

We may see it a lot more in the future: Whenever liberals gather to march in support of abortion rights, or to protest police brutality, or to advocate for greater health care access, they could be met by visibly, elaborately armed conservatives fantasizing about becoming the next Kyle Rittenhouse — or at the very least, showing the liberals who’s boss.

After all, what better way is there to Own the Libs than making a bunch of libs literally fear for their lives?

It’s not as though we haven’t seen this before. In April 2020, protesters converged on the Michigan Capitol carrying weapons to protest the state’s emergency measures to stop the spread of covid-19. Gun advocates have brought weapons to hearings in other state houses as well. While no one has yet shot a legislator in a state house, the message is clear: Protesters are saying not just “We don’t like this policy,” but “If you don’t change this policy, we may decide to kill you.”

Story continues below advertisement

But now we should worry about the display of weapons as a tool of protest moving from the right-wing fringes into the conservative mainstream.

For some time, weapons display has been a means of identity signaling: far-right politicians such as Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) or Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) pose with guns to show they’re real rootin’ tootin’ conservatives; other candidates air ads showing them popping off rounds to get the Republican base’s blood pumping.

But that’s a performance meant for a broad audience who will see it through the media. It’s not aimed at intimidating people occupying the same physical space as those politicians.

According to the gun safety group Giffords, in more than 30 states, openly carrying a handgun is legal, while in 44 states it’s legal to openly carry a long gun. The reason for the latter is that many laws were made when the only reason most anyone would carry a rifle is to go hunting. But today, those lax laws are exploited by people who get a thrill from walking into Starbucks and terrorizing patrons with an AR-15 slung across their backs.

Story continues below advertisement

And that’s who we’re talking about: insecure men (almost always men) desperate to feel the power their ordinary lives don’t provide them, so they can find something resembling manhood by inspiring fear by others.

But it’s even better if you can use the threat of murder to shut down the political speech of your opponents, or multiply the effectiveness of your own. Mad at your congressman for his position on a new infrastructure bill? You could paint a sign to hold up at a protest at his district office. Or you could just show up with an AR-15 in your hand, so he knows that you may decide to kill him.

The Supreme Court recently heard a lawsuit against a New York state law that restricts people’s ability to take guns outside the home; judging by the oral arguments, the court’s conservatives will almost certainly strike down that law and require every state to allow guns in waistbands, holsters and pocketbooks. Every time you go out in public there will be a good chance some of the people around you will be armed.

Story continues below advertisement

Gun advocates used to say that “an armed society is a polite society,” by which they meant that we can all be forced into good behavior if we live in a state of constant terror, knowing that even the most minor disagreement could result in murder. The same horrific logic may soon be applied to political disagreements: If I offer up a vivid visual threat that I may kill you because we disagree politically, I may be able to shut you up.

Given how common the threat of violence has become on the right, it won’t be a leap for more and more conservatives to decide that carrying guns is an appealing tool of political action. The thought is terrifying — which is exactly why they’re drawn to it.