Guy carries firearm while attending town hall meeting

[drankin]

I think in some places it is culturally/religiously acceptable to carry swords/daggers/other weapons. I wanted to know if those people can legally carry swords/daggers as a symbol of their culture/religion in the US?

That's a good question! Hearsay in WA state is you cannot carry a blade over x inches (I think it was 3", not sure). We have the right to carry firearms but I don't know about blade arms.

 

[cristo]

That is a point that I would defend, actually. That is the ultimate reason for private gun ownership - the last hope in the face of an oppressive government.

Maybe this was a valid point when the constitution was written, since the government had an army with rifles. But, times have changed. If you want to stop an oppressive government now you will need tanks, planes, nuclear weapons, etc., essentially you will need a private army.

Carrying an assault rifle in a crowded place is either just abusing the fact that you can, or is indicative of a crazy person.

 

[turbo]

Maybe this was a valid point when the constitution was written, since the government had an army with rifles. But, times have changed. If you want to stop an oppressive government now you will need tanks, planes, nuclear weapons, etc., essentially you will need a private army.

The situation was forced on the Colonists by the British, who made every able-bodied man train in militias and often pressed them into service. England did not have enough soldiers in the Colonies to fight the French, so they made the Colonists fight for them. They also made the Colonists maintain armories with weapons, powder, patches, ball, etc, and it's these very armaments that the Colonists used against the British, who had to resort to hiring German mercenaries to fight their battles.

It was very important to the US's founding fathers not to allow the population be disarmed - they lived through times in which the value of an armed populace was proven. And you don't have to have superior (advanced) weaponry to bring an Army to its knees. Did the Viet Kong have helicopter gunships, jets, air-to-ground missiles or nuclear weapons? No. Still they did well for themselves.

 

[seycyrus]

The government has always enjoyed a disparity in weapons, this has never been successfully used as a point to argue for the banning of weapons.

One of course would not directly engage a standing army with assault rifles and handguns, but their possession would allow for guerilla tactics which would comprise the initial resistance.

I think the protestor carrying the rifle was within his rights, but was clearly asking for trouble.

it is also my opinion that the person who conceals his weapon is a greater threat to the president than one who openly displays his weapon.

 

[kyleb]

Maybe this was a valid point when the constitution was written, since the government had an army with rifles. But, times have changed. If you want to stop an oppressive government now you will need tanks, planes, nuclear weapons, etc., essentially you will need a private army.

The British government had far more than rifles, and so did our Revolutionaries to a lesser extent. Our Bill of Rights reflects this too; acknowledging an unrestricted right to arms in general, not simply firearms.

Carrying an assault rifle in a crowded place is either just abusing the fact that you can, or is indicative of a crazy person.

I argue the crazy people are the ones who want to maintain a system were they fear anyone in the vicinity of our President with a gun, and slander those exercising their liberty to do so. If you don't like it, the rational thing to do is propose a law against it. However, I'd much rather we work towards a system were our President serves the will of the majority, and does so with respect to the rights of all. With such a system no one could accomplish anything notable by killing our President anyway, as whoever replaces him will follow the same course.

 

[drankin]

The bullet manufacturers are loving it.



To me this gets into the limits of the 1st Ammendment. We don't have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. Carrying a weapon into a crowd at a political event, esp one that includes the President, is much like yelling fire. It is provocative and potentially endangers innocent bystanders. If nothing else it could create a panic.

What if some other nut grabbed the gun and began threatening or shooting people?

When I was a kid, we sometimes went hunting with a neighbor who lived a block away. I always got a charge out of walking up the block with my guns. The funny thing is that back then, no one thought twice about a twelve year old openly carrying a high-power rifle or two up the street. Obviously we were going hunting and no one worried about it.

Yeah, perceptions have changed. People don't trust each other like they used to.

 

[turbo]

Yeah, perceptions have changed. People don't trust each other like they used to.

Depends where you live. Around here, people walk up and down the roads headed for hunting spots with their rifles and shotguns out. Also, if I grab my Glock 20 and walk up the road, neighbors know that I'll be haded for another neighbor's pistol range to practice. Luckily 10mm Auto is not a popular cartridge (quite a handful!), so it's relatively easy to find.

 

[drankin]

Depends where you live. Around here, people walk up and down the roads headed for hunting spots with their rifles and shotguns out. Also, if I grab my Glock 20 and walk up the road, neighbors know that I'll be haded for another neighbor's pistol range to practice. Luckily 10mm Auto is not a popular cartridge (quite a handful!), so it's relatively easy to find.

It's pretty much the city folks. They don't even know their neighbors let alone trust them.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Depends where you live. Around here, people walk up and down the roads headed for hunting spots with their rifles and shotguns out...

It's much the same here but this area is rural. The gang problem in Los Angeles is what changed things there. Back when Tsu and I first started living together, in Van Nuys, California, things were going downhill quickly. It finally reached a point where I would stand by the window with my shotgun and make sure she got to her car, when she got called into the hospital at night.

Every year, just before deer season opens, this place can start sounding like warzone when people start test firing their weapons. All of the lots around here [with a few exceptions] are five acres minimum, so everyone can shoot on their own property. We hear plenty of big guns with rapid fire mixed in from time to time as well. One year it sounded like someone was firing a 50 cal machine gun!

 

[cristo]

The situation was forced on the Colonists by the British, who made every able-bodied man train in militias and often pressed them into service. England did not have enough soldiers in the Colonies to fight the French, so they made the Colonists fight for them. They also made the Colonists maintain armories with weapons, powder, patches, ball, etc, and it's these very armaments that the Colonists used against the British, who had to resort to hiring German mercenaries to fight their battles.

I don't need a history lesson! In fact, the war was not fought as "England", but as the "Kingdom of Great Britain", which incorporated England and Scotland (after the treaty of union around 1700).

It was very important to the US's founding fathers not to allow the population be disarmed - they lived through times in which the value of an armed populace was proven.

Actually, I don't think that's true. Sure, they lived through times where the armament of the population helped them overthrow an oppressive government, but if it wasn't for the fact that the British had to fight a war on many fronts, or if the French and the Dutch hadn't helped, the "Americans" wouldn't have managed it. Still, I'll give you the point that the armament was proven to be useful.

Did the Viet Kong have helicopter gunships, jets, air-to-ground missiles or nuclear weapons? No. Still they did well for themselves.

The VC didn't have helicopters etc.., but they did have anti aircraft missiles, bombs, machine guns, artillery, tanks. However, you know as well as I do, that there is little analogy between a guerrilla army fighting foreigners on their home turf (namely, jungles, and terrain that the US troops are really not used to), and US citizens turning on their own government on home turf.

However, I'd much rather we work towards a system were our President serves the will of the majority, and does so with respect to the rights of all. With such a system no one could accomplish anything notable by killing our President anyway, as whoever replaces him will follow the same course.

Well, we can all dream!

 

[kyleb]

It's pretty much the city folks. They don't even know their neighbors let alone trust them.

On a related note; back in my mother's home town I knew a family who owned a cannon from the Civil War, which they fired off every Fourth of July. While it is illegal to buy, sell, or even transfer across state lines anything of the sort now, theirs was handed down though their generations from well before our government created any such laws. Hence, they were completely within their rights to own it and use it whenever they liked, as long as they did so with respect to the rights of others.

 

[drankin]

On a related note; back in my mother's home town I knew a family who owned a cannon from the Civil War, which they fired off every Fourth of July. While it is illegal to buy, sell, or even transfer across state lines anything of the sort now, theirs was handed down though their generations from well before our government created any such laws. Hence, they were completely within their rights to own it and use it whenever they liked, as long as they did so with respect to the rights of others.

Wow! Now that's a gun. I wonder if there is a law against building one for personal use. Wouldn't be hard to build.

Just found this: http://www.thewoodenboatschool.com/boatbuilding/bronze-cannon.php"

 

[kyleb]

Well, we can all dream!

Is that to suggest you prefer to embrace a system where our President serves the will of special interests rather than the majority and/or favors the rights of some over others?

 

[kyleb]

Just found this: http://www.thewoodenboatschool.com/boatbuilding/bronze-cannon.php"

That looks remarkably like the one I've seen fired, though obviously much newer.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Maybe this was a valid point when the constitution was written, since the government had an army with rifles. But, times have changed. If you want to stop an oppressive government now you will need tanks, planes, nuclear weapons, etc., essentially you will need a private army..

In fact, what we have learned all too well in the ME, and esp in Iraq and Afghanistan, is that we cannot win a war with planes and bombs. It requires door-to-door fighting. I once fell for the argument that you reference, but we have seen that it is simply not true. A well-armed public is in fact an army.

We all know that winning in Iraq meant winning hearts and minds. Were "the people" to side with the insurgents, we would have no hope of winning.

 

[kyleb]

To further this point; if the ME had the anywhere close to the planes and bombs we do, no one would have even thought of trying to trick the public into invading it in the first place.

 

[Evo]

It seems we've beaten the OP question to death and have moved on to more general topics.