In a way, this op-ed is begging the question, which could be phrased as: "Should a citizen carrying a firearm be regarded as an inherently threatening act that others are entitled to protection from?" Unfortunately, the author uses the conclusion to answer his own question: "The moral bravery political protest demands is no longer enough; to protest in response now requires the physical bravery to face down men with guns." In the society I know, only a tiny minority of private individuals would commit any kind of lethal violence in such a context. Basically, the author is (probably unintentionally) supporting his position based on people's known inaccuracies when estimating personal risk.

There is no question that any such legislation curtails the freedom of one party; the question is whether this is proportionate and justified. It will eventually come down to prevailing social norms. In this, the pro gun forces are already losing the battle of emotional impressions and imagery across much of the US. However, this is not uniform across the entire country. Also, as it is fundamentally a matter of perceptions and social norms, the "debate" has basically come down to both sides vilifying the other as somehow crazy or subhuman. The underlying issue is not the threat of violence in the public square. It's that this country has lost the concept of "loyal opposition" and real debate in the public sphere.

I have never heard of a protester getting maced or beaten at a protest where the protesters are armed. Maybe Occupy needs to learn a lesson from those "rednecks."

It is a lesson that cuts in both directions: In addition to obviously raising the stakes for police who might be tempted to provoke unarmed demonstrators, committing a crime while armed is going to get you much more serious charges, so one thing you can infer is that armed protesters are going to be more careful of their behavior.