The Illusion of Power: Guns & Intimidation

And Common Sense from a Roanoke Judge

As I wrote in my recent Roanoke Times Op-Ed, “Judge’s Ruling on Roanoke’s Gun Law a Victory for Common Sense,” the debate over open carry laws is often framed as a matter of self-defense or political expression. But in reality, it’s about intimidation—plain and simple. In that piece, I recounted my firsthand experience witnessing open-carry rallies at the Virginia Capitol, where armed individuals were clearly more focused on projecting power and dominance than engaging in thoughtful dialogue. This experience, coupled with the recent ruling in Roanoke, underscores a critical point: commonsense gun laws are essential to protect public spaces and the democratic process.

When I read the recent news about a Roanoke judge upholding the city’s commonsense gun law, I felt both relief and frustration. Relief, because it’s a win for public safety. Frustration, because laws like this one shouldn’t even be controversial.

Open-carry advocates insist their weapons are symbols of self-defense or political expression, but let’s not kid ourselves. I’ve seen these people in action, and their motivations are as transparent as they are troubling. They aren’t defending themselves or engaging in meaningful political discourse. They’re strutting.

Years ago, I witnessed firsthand what these “open carry” rallies really look like. At the Virginia Capitol in Richmond, before Governor Ralph Northam and the General Assembly wisely outlawed firearms on Capitol grounds, armed individuals roamed freely, rifles slung over their shoulders. They weren’t there to discuss policy or engage in debate—they were there to intimidate.

And it worked.

The sight of a group of people casually wielding AR-15s in the halls of democracy sends a clear message: We’re in charge here. It’s hard to have a productive dialogue when one side is armed to the teeth and the other is unarmed, their words hanging in the air under the weight of potential violence.

It’s no different in Roanoke. Advocates for open carry argue that bringing their weapons to public parks or government meetings is about protecting themselves or exercising free speech. That’s just plain bullshit. Let’s be honest: no one brings a rifle to a picnic or a PTA meeting for “self-defense.” They bring it to send a message.

The real message isn’t about freedom or rights—it’s about power.

The political speech argument, meanwhile, is laughable. Guns are not campaign buttons or bumper stickers. They’re tools of destruction. Using a firearm as a medium for political expression is like showing up to a debate with a bullhorn—it drowns out any possibility of meaningful dialogue. And what kind of democracy thrives when one side of the conversation is too intimidated to speak?

The truth is, this is about ego. It’s about compensating for a perceived lack of respect, relevance, or authority. The self-defense argument is flimsy; the political speech argument is absurd. What remains is the unmistakable stench of bravado.

But this isn’t just about ego. It’s about the erosion of public safety and the corrosion of democratic norms. Public spaces are meant to foster community and dialogue. When guns are present, they become spaces of fear and silence.

The city of Roanoke had the courage to draw a line, and the judge who upheld that line deserves applause. Brady’s description of the law as “common sense” hits the nail on the head. Prohibiting guns in certain public spaces isn’t an assault on freedom—it’s a safeguard for it.

This issue extends far beyond Roanoke or Richmond. Across the country, we’ve seen armed individuals at state capitols, protests, and even polling places. The trend is clear: intimidation is being normalized under the guise of constitutional rights.

What’s at stake here is more than public safety. It’s the soul of our democracy. If we allow public spaces to be overtaken by armed agitators, we lose something vital—the ability to speak freely and openly without fear.

The fight for commonsense gun laws is often framed as a battle between safety and liberty. But that’s a false choice. Real liberty cannot exist without safety. A community in fear is not a free community.

The people of Roanoke understand this. Their law, and the judge’s ruling to uphold it, is a reminder that we can and must push back against the normalization of intimidation. The question now is whether others will have the courage to follow their lead.