A viral Instagram clip is making the rounds in response to a federal court ruling that struck down California’s ban on open carry in most urban counties. And while the court decision deserves serious attention, the reaction video accidentally proves something even more important: anti-gun arguments tend to collapse under pressure. Instead of engaging with the actual ruling, the woman in the video builds her entire case around a single word—“feel.” She says open carry feels unsafe. That’s the entire argument. No crime data. No analysis of rights. Just an emotional reaction dressed up as a reason to regulate what others are allowed to do.
The Political Deflection That Starts It All
The clip opens with the woman pointing out that the judges behind the ruling were appointed by Donald Trump. That sets the tone immediately. Rather than addressing what the Constitution says or how the court applied it, she tries to undermine the decision by pointing to who made it. This is the kind of framing that tells the viewer what to think before they even know what happened. It’s politics first, substance second. But that strategy falls apart fast. Rights aren’t supposed to change depending on which party is in power. If you only support the Constitution when your team is winning, you’re not supporting it at all.
“Feeling Unsafe” Is Not the Same as Being Unsafe
Her next move is the one that really set people off. She says she doesn’t want to see guns in public places like bars or grocery stores because it “feels unsafe.” That’s not a claim that open carry increases crime or puts people at real risk. It’s a personal discomfort. And discomfort isn’t a policy argument. If we start regulating rights based on what unsettles people, we’ll never stop. This is the core failure in so many anti-gun takes: they rely on emotional unease instead of objective danger. But the Second Amendment wasn’t written to protect what makes people comfortable. It was written to protect what keeps them free.
The Truth About Guns in Public
She talks about being afraid to see a gun in public, but completely skips over the reality that she’s already surrounded by firearms every day—she just doesn’t notice. Concealed carry is legal across much of the country, and millions of Americans carry daily without issue. The only difference with open carry is that now she can see what’s always been there. That’s not a new threat. That’s just visibility. If a right only exists when it stays hidden, it’s not really a right—it’s a temporary allowance based on someone else’s tolerance. And that’s not how any constitutional protection is supposed to work.
Why the “One Carry Method” Argument Doesn’t Hold
The video also references a dissenting judge who argued that California still allows concealed carry, so banning open carry shouldn’t be a problem. But that’s exactly what the majority rejected. If the state can say, “You can carry, but only the way we say,” it opens the door for endless restrictions. Today it’s no open carry. Tomorrow it’s a locked case. Next week it’s unloaded only. Eventually, the right becomes so buried in regulation that it barely exists. That’s why the court struck it down. Rights don’t mean much if they only apply in one narrow, government-approved format that can shift whenever it’s politically convenient.
Some People Can’t Conceal—And That Matters
Another thing this clip ignores is that not everyone can carry concealed. Women’s clothing often isn’t designed to hide a firearm. People with physical disabilities may not have the same access to holsters or concealment tools. By banning open carry, the state isn’t just choosing one method—it’s blocking people who can’t meet that method’s requirements. That turns a policy decision into a barrier to entry. Gun rights aren’t supposed to be exclusive to people who fit a certain mold. They’re supposed to apply to everyone. If one method becomes the only legal path, a whole group of Americans gets shut out.
What the Clip Really Reveals About the Gun Debate
The woman in the clip closes by saying the ruling makes America feel less safe. She doesn’t say the country is less safe. She says it doesn’t feel like it used to. That’s the entire framework of her argument—and the reason so many people pushed back. She’s not demanding data, clarity, or fairness. She’s asking for the world to match her comfort zone. But that’s not what rights are for. They don’t exist to soothe discomfort. They exist to protect freedoms, even when those freedoms make someone uneasy. If we start legislating based on vibes, we’ll lose more than guns. We’ll lose the structure that keeps freedom consistent for everyone.
Comfort Isn’t the Standard
What makes this clip so effective—as an example of the problem—is that she says out loud what many anti-gun advocates only imply. She isn’t scared of guns because of what they do. She’s scared of how they make her feel. And that fear becomes the basis for demanding limits on everyone else. That’s not policy. That’s preference. And if personal preference becomes the new standard for public rights, the Second Amendment won’t be the only thing under pressure. The real fight isn’t about guns. It’s about who gets to decide what’s acceptable—and whether your rights are subject to someone else’s discomfort.
Like The Avid Outdoorsman’s content? Be sure to follow us.
Here’s more from us:
