Protest guns as symbols of right wing violence

People that get a hard-on from firearms and explosives need to be locked away for their own, and the public's safety. It's not something to be excited about, it's a tool which has uses, but demonstrating a desire or even training, to use this weapon as a means of political intimidation is, by definition, terrorism and needs to be stopped. Terrorists are not just "them damn 'merica-hatin ayrabs," it includes these pseudopatriotic fucks that get their jollies by thinking about overthrowing the "gub'ment." I'm not in favor of outlawing firearms as I've stated numerous times, but I am in favor of keeping them out of the hands of terrorists and the deranged.

What really pisses me off is that these same sphincter muscles decide to call Atheists MILITANT when we put up a sign, but we can't call them militant, nooo, they love gawd and country (music) so couldn't possibly be militant.

Yup - far too many whackaloons with guns. Every state should have mandatory registration and forensic tests and the law needs to be tightened up for people selling their firearms; they need to sell to a registered dealer or else through a broker (probably also the registered dealers). Then bring on the psych tests to help weed out the obvious whackaloons. I think that'll just be a very small minority of gun owners (or wanna-be gun owners) and there'll still be a lot of weird people with guns, but hopefully fewer who are silly enough to think there is anything at all to be gained by displaying their weapons in public while the president is visiting.

Yup - far too many whackaloons with blogs and signs. Every state should have mandatory registration and forensic tests and the law needs to be tightened up for people exposing their propaganda; they need to publish through a licensed journalist or else through a corporate publishing house (probably also licensed journalists). Then bring on the psych tests to help weed out the obvious whackaloons. I think that'll just be a very small minority of bloggers (or sign toters) and there'll still be a lot of weird people with blogs and signs, but hopefully fewer who are silly enough to think there is anything at all to be gained by displaying their opinions in public while the president is visiting.

Sevesteen, before you start suggesting that you want guns treated the same way speech is, you might want to note that not all speech is protected and that the speech that guns in a political arena represents to most people is most decidedly not in that protected class.

The open carrying of firearms to a politically charged event IS an act of terrorism, by definition. It should be treated as such.

@Sevesteen
I see what you did there, 'cause blogs and sign holding is the exact same thing as showing off your guns!

but hopefully fewer who are silly enough to think there is anything at all to be gained by displaying their opinions in public while the president is visiting

Hmm,
Holding signs in public - using you're voice to show your opinion on something = Freedom of Speech
Showing off your automatic weapons while the President is in town - Using intimidation to attempt to scare others for your cause = Terrorism.

Sevesteen = Priceless
Asshat

Stephanie
The message isn't "do what I want or get shot", but rather "I'm a citizen, not a subject". He wasn't "in the arena" he was nearby, there was a specific physical boundary that he did not cross.

How do you legally define a politically charged event and the boundaries? An NRA convention with a politician speaking?

There are legitimate restrictions to second amendment rights--it is reasonable to ban guns where they are a legitimate threat to the president for instance. I'm fine with keeping guns out of the Capitol Building. I don't want to eliminate all restrictions, but I do want to see the second amendment treated equivalently to the first, the fifth, or all the others.

As far as I can tell, you're saying "because we allow some limited restrictions on speech, any restriction on guns short of a complete ban is OK". If we can pick and choose which parts of the constitution can be restricted at a whim, there's not much point to having one.

Hey, it just occurred to me that you can't even carry a sign on a stick at most public demos. If you can't do that, why should you be able to carry a gun?

Sevesteen, you can try to tell me that's what it means, but there's enough history of things like the murder of abortion doctors and federal employees that it's nothing like unreasonable to say it means, "If you oppose me politically, I will have my way by force." In the context of the debate that's going on and the rhetoric that's been used, that interpretation gets even more reasonable.

If you want to turn this into an all-or-nothing debate, you can do that, but it doesn't help your cause to refuse to grapple with context and nuance.

An "politically charged event" is one in which an emotionally reactive party shows up en masse. Many legitimate criticisms of banning firearms exist, screaming "you'll pry my guns from my cold dead fingers" is not a legitimate criticism, it is a threat of violence implying he (usually) or she (rarely) will engage in some form of violent resistance. When firearms are used for political means through intimidation or threats of violence, it is terrorism, plain and simple. Showing up in any area en masse with firearms in an organized fashion with a political motivation and implying violent action (the talk was not about guns at all) no longer falls under the protection of the freedom to assemble peacefully NOR under the second amendment. His speech had absolutely NOTHING to do with firearms, it had to do with our treatment of veterans! Why bring guns to a speech about the VA? It was done for pure intimidation. It wasn't to show how many people own guns and use them legally, it was to show how many people have itchy trigger fingers and get off to the idea of violent actions towards those they disagree with.

Self defense is my birthright as an American. Its a God given right, codified in this nation's highest law.

If you want my guns, please, I beg you, come and take them.

Mike, just leave them by the curb, we'll come and pick them up while you are at work.

Mike, thanks for demonstrating exactly what I was saying...

No rights are "god given"--they are society-given, you sir, are on your way to causing society to revoke the rights of all persons to legally own firearms for the safety of all in society. For that, I have nothing but contempt for many with your ideology.

Additionally, if there ever is an obligatory firearm ban, I would gladly volunteer my services with any police force to assist (I would even do so after turning in my firearm) to remove the firearms from you and those like you without your consent just so I could deny you the fantasy-come-true of "fighting the government." That's what gets you off, isn't it?

contempt for many with your ideology

Jared

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights

The founders understood that what God gave only God can take. You can have all the contempt for me and my ilk as you please, but do so in the comfort of your own home brooding in the corner about what troglodytes we are. As one of the more than 80 million individuals in this country who owns guns you are in no position to do anything else.

Your offer to volunteer (big tough guy that I am sure you are) to help your local law enforcement agency in rounding up your neighbors firearms aside, the government agencies that would be taksed with this are comprosed with many more people like me than willing sheeple like yourself.

If there ever was an obligatory firearm ban I wouldnât have to worry about fighting the government, they would have to worry about fighting themselves.

Mike H.

As one of the 80 million gun owners in the country let me say that I don't believe in God. Therefor any rights you believe are from him I am not obligated to accept. I am a U.S. citizen and therefore I am a member of the same political/cultural contract as are you. From my perspective the gun nuts (if the shoe fits..) want fewer restrictions on guns (read zero) than are placed on speech.

P.s. I don't need a gun to demonstrate that I'm a citizen - I walk proud with no crutches.

In my lifetime, we've had one President who was shot and killed, another who was shot and seriously injured, and a third who narrowly escaped being shot on two separate occasions. So since when have people been allowed to openly carry handguns to a venue where the President was speaking? Where the hell was the Secret Service? Are people out there seriously defending the gun "rights" of the likes of Oswald, Hinckley, and Fromme?

This is organized intimidation. And the last thing we need is government by armed mob.

Mike:

1) The Declaration and Bill of Rights are two different documents.

2) The founders also thought slavery and limited suffrage were dandy. They weren't infallible.

3) You just told Jared that if he speaks in favor of gun control in public, he'll be shot. You might want to rethink that.

4) A firearm is not a magic wand (no matter what yours is replacing). There are plenty of ways to effectively deal with an idiot holed up in his home stroking his handgun without using a gun yourself.

5) There are a fair number of gun owners who support tighter gun control.

6) The difference between the armed people in government agencies and you is that they understand service and responsibility. That makes all the difference in the world.

7) Nobody really says, "sheeple."

If the founders had any idea that we would develop guns powerful enough to take out a crowd of people in seconds, and simple enough to be used by a child, I suspect that they would have slipped a few more caveats into the amendment.

You're cute, as a militarily trained individual and gun owner, I am a little more capable than you think. I do own multiple firearms, including several collections of old WW1 era rifles (which I would turn over to a museum before turning over to the government for destruction). My only used firearms are a .45 ACP Springfield and Yugoslav SKS. I consider it disgusting, actually revolting, that individuals such as yourself are willing to put your own interests before those of society as a whole.

As for that document, it was written by men, right? They were using "god given" to imply that these rights are universal (except for women and slaves) and not subject to revocation. It states these right include "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" and then it actually states (by the way, the Declaration of Independence, NOT the constitution) "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." So, if the majority of the governed consider firearms to be dangerous to society as a whole, and banning them would prevent a percentage of crime, then it is for the governed to decide, not by force, but by discussion; enforcement of this decision of the people is what the government is SUPPOSED to do. As soon as you use force for you way, you are the oppressor, not the oppressed and lose any justification to consider yourself as such.

The founders also thought slavery and limited suffrage were dandy. They weren't infallible.

I *respectfully* disagree with people who think we need to change the second amendment--that is at least honest. I don't have much respect for people who think we should ignore the "outdated" parts of the constitution without amending it.

If the founders had any idea that we would develop guns powerful enough to take out a crowd of people in seconds, and simple enough to be used by a child, I suspect that they would have slipped a few more caveats into the amendment.

...and if they knew that we would get the capability for ordinary people to communicate instantly with hundreds or thousands of other people without even meeting face to face, simple enough for a child to operate...

since when have people been allowed to openly carry handguns to a venue where the President was speaking?

They aren't and they weren't--they were on the other side of the security perimeter, well out of danger range. I personally have been armed while closer than that to Bush's motorcade, just by chance. He was in no danger either, even if I were a homicidal maniac.

Yes, but they were INTENTIONALLY carrying weapons as a show of force, that is the issue. Firearms are not signs, they are weapons.

And I agree, the founders had no idea we would have this kind of technology; that's why laws and regulations CHANGE.

"...and if they knew that we would get the capability for ordinary people to communicate instantly..."

Ah, you got me, of course they would be just as worried about the internet, what with it's lolcats and all, as they would be weapons designed for quick and efficient mass destruction. Perfect comparison.

@Mike, Sevesteen, and other conservatives:
I'll tell you the same thing I tell the few conservatives I'm willing to speak to on a semi-regular basis(Mostly family): The banning of guns won't happen because of democrats. It won't even be caused by liberals. It'll be caused by cowards that can't bear the thought of walking out in public without a prosthetic dick.

I love the "Come and take them" and "cold dead hands!" crap conservatives spew. It proves they're only patriotic when it's convenient.
Of course they seem to forget the 2nd amendment reads "Keep and bear arms" not "You can take a gun anywhere you want."

I say all that as an owner of (many) guns. I'm just capable of walking around in public without collapsing into pants wetting terror if I'm not dragging around a weapon.