Open-carry activists rally to challenge gun laws

Open-carry activists rally to challenge gun laws

www.msnbc.msn.com

Those coming to the "Restore the Constitution" rally give Obama no quarter for signing the law that permits them to bring their guns to Fort Hunt, run by the National Park Service, and to Gravelly Point on the banks of the Potomac River. Nor are they comforted by a broad expansion of gun rights in several states since his election.

(visit the link for the full news article)





[mod edit: title - to same as source]

Headline: Please use the original story headline from your source.

[edit on 21-4-2010 by 12m8keall2c]

Where demonstrations were once solely about the Second Amendment, speakers now quickly link protecting gun rights to safeguarding all other liberties and decry the new health-care legislation as unconstitutional in its mandate that individuals must buy coverage.

They're taking their guns to Washington, and they've got some points to make.

Demonstrations and protests are at an all time high. with constitutional issues headlining them all...

www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by DarkspARCS


Well, I'm glad I am not alone with my anger then.
Not to plug my thread but:

Someone explain to me how our right to bear arms is NOT infringed?

Sorry, DarkspARCS.
Good read though.

reply to post by DarkspARCS

Nor are they comforted by a broad expansion of gun rights in several states since his election.

Nor am I comforted by the fact that every lunatic in the country will now not just be allowed but be encouraged to openly carry guns, risking my safety and my life at the behest of politically motivated special interest groups, under the pretense of upholding their constitutional rights.

What about my liberty to walk the streets not threatened, hindered or frightened by gun violence or killed in cross fire?

Isn't that right to my unfettered LIBERTY protected and promised to me somewhere in the constitution?

reply to post by DarkspARCS


Well,I wonder if this will be the catalyst for declaring
martial law and forcibly disarming the american citizen?
I think I should start packing my B.O.B. now!

reply to post by rusethorcain


Just a question here:

Could you please show us any one single time, when a lawfully carrying citizen, used their weapon in a felonious manner?

I have not been able to find even one instance.

We need to remember that criminals will carry no matter what the law..

Semper

Is everyone really that nostalgic for the good ol' days and the untamed wild wild west? I think they have an amusement park at Disney that will bring back these good old days for you with fake weapons - this is where most guns belong and are safest in my opinion.

We are civilized now (or trying to get there) and we do not need them openly carried. This does not encourage civility. It encourages intimidation, fear, accidents and unrest.

reply to post by rusethorcain


You only have to worry about criminals having guns.
Law abiding citizens are NOT a threat to your personal
safety.People like you, who disarm others, unknowingly
disarm the wrong ones.
I am also a pistol-packing mama with a license to carry.

Originally posted by semperfortis
reply to post by rusethorcain

 

Just a question here:

Could you please show us any one single time, when a lawfully carrying citizen, used their weapon in a felonious manner?

I have not been able to find even one instance.

We need to remember that criminals will carry no matter what the law..

Semper

OK. This may be true but what about accidental deaths from these guns? When a gun is openly carried or even in the home it is not always secured properly. It could (and does) easily get into the wrong hands. Until we figure a way to prevent these accidents and guarantee guns are irresponsibly handled I think we should approach this cautiously.

I believe gun owners themselves should be promoting RESPONSIBLE gun use and ownership. Teaching the newbies about the hazards and dangers of these weapons. Just my opinion.

Edit: To speak to your point, I know a few people who would be dead now if they did not have a gun in the house for protection. And I still think we should approach this cautiously because the accidents outnumber the lives saved. I think that people fighting for these rights should acknowledge almost anyone at all can get a gun. I admitted myself into a psychiatric hospital many years ago and I have a legally registered handgun. Took me three days to get it. What does that tell you about the restraints, precautions and laws presently in place? Do we really want to relax them more?

[edit on 19-4-2010 by rusethorcain]

Originally posted by mamabeth
reply to post by rusethorcain

 

You only have to worry about criminals having guns.
Law abiding citizens are NOT a threat to your personal
safety.People like you, who disarm others, unknowingly
disarm the wrong ones.
I am also a pistol-packing mama with a license to carry.

I am armed as well. It is to protect me in my own home. Fortunately I live in a civil society where I do not need to carry my gun on the street. If I did there is no limit to the number of people I might likely want to shoot.

Because I choose to remain unarmed on the street, in traffic and during the course of my daily life many "people like you" (to quote you)
are much, much safer. And I don't go to jail for a senseless murder.

Like Obama and the "taxes" quote...You should be saying 'thank you' and think long and hard before you allow this to come to pass. As they say, be very careful what you wish for.

I think carrying a gun should be a privilege like diving a car and not a "right" automatically extended to everyone who wants it.

Had my say. Peace to all. Thank you semperfortis!

edit
I WAS respectfully leaving this thread but changed my mind again...









[edit on 19-4-2010 by rusethorcain]

reply to post by rusethorcain


Where is this civil utopia you speak of? I feel much more fearful and intimidated when denied the ability to protect myself, and I'm not a small man. The weak have a right to protect themselves, be it with a sharpened stick or a modern firearm. Either you absolutely ensure others safety or let them ensure their own. Which is more likely?

reply to post by rusethorcain


If you don't trust yourself to be armed outside of your home,
traffic...maybe you shouldn't be armed at all!

reply to post by mamabeth


My point exactly!
True enough but these are your laws I am obeying. Not mine. I prefer the European socialist model of society where in you reign in some of your individual indeed constitutional rights if the result over all is, tens of thousands of less deaths.

The number of gun related deaths I'd like to see listed for us somewhere is the number of good guys cops and innocent civilians killed or injured by guns compared to the number of bad guys killed, or injured by guns. Not including those police weapons that we select to protect us.

Though a perceived advantage in exercised "freedom" I'll bet THESE numbers would show a real measurable disadvantage to lax gun laws.

Freedom to kill? Freedom to protect yourself? If you even perceive a need to be armed in public - your "society" needs fixing. And it would be the first thing to try...
Rather than passing out matches to deal with spilled gas.

The number of gun deaths per country with stricter gun laws compared to ours cannot be denied or argued with.

We all see them and allow the second amendment verbiage to shout louder than facts and explain and excuse them away.

If cars caused that many deaths we would all be required by law to wear seat belts regardless of how it inhibits our freedom of movement. Oh yeah, that we are. Why? To decrease fatalities.

Criminals have guns. Criminals will be the only ones to get guns. We will be defenseless against armed predators, it is a constitutional right...all of these concerns and arguments fade to a distance when you consider number of deaths.

This is the paramount concern behind any sane motivation to control guns.
Number of innocent deaths. With this figure at the forefront any Constitutional rights to bearing arms should be secondary and amended to lower this number.

I said I was leaving the thread but not only am I a crazy gun owner, I lie a lot! Kidding just HAD to edit in these final thought.
NUMBER OF INNOCENT DEATHS trumps "Constitutional rights."

Now I am leaving for real. I know the rest of you are already at the rally's. I am wearing a bulletproof vest out today! It's gonna be a scorcher!



[edit on 19-4-2010 by rusethorcain]

Originally posted by rusethorcain
Is everyone really that nostalgic for the good ol' days and the untamed wild wild west? I think they have an amusement park at Disney that will bring back these good old days for you with fake weapons - this is where most guns belong and are safest in my opinion.

We are civilized now (or trying to get there) and we do not need them openly carried. This does not encourage civility. It encourages intimidation, fear, accidents and unrest.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But my opinion is that my gun belongs strapped to my hip - and I am EXTREMELY civilized! It is also my opinion that an armed society is a polite society!

Originally posted by semperfortis


Could you please show us any one single time, when a lawfully carrying citizen, used their weapon in a felonious manner?

I have not been able to find even one instance.

Your question is somewhat of a logical trick. A lawfully carrying citizen ceases to be a lawfully carrying citizen when they use their weapon in a "felonious manner".

Are you suggesting that no one has ever obtained a gun and permit to carry through legal means, and then gone on to commit a crime with their weapon?

Officer mourned, suspect arraigned

Local story from Cleveland area. Suspect with legally purchased handgun and state-issued permit to carry a concealed weapon murders officer during routine traffic stop. Does this case fit your criteria?

reply to post by quango


Yes

Thank you

I was not trying to be facetious, I just did not know of one..

The point though is that if someone wants to break the law, and they need a weapon to achieve that goal, some pesky little law is not going to hinder them in the least...

After 24+ years in Law Enforcement, I have NEVER had to take a weapon that was carried by a law abiding citizen for their own defense..

I have however, confiscated literally HUNDREDS from criminals...

Just sayin

Semper

Believe me, I'm all for gun rights, but those idiots trying to link that to healthcare & other issues are just undermining the point they're trying to get across about guns.

They're not related.

reply to post by Destiny Of Souls

In fact is it not the gun rights people, no matter what this article is trying to lay at their feet. It is the MSM trying to link the two by innuendo and straw interviews with those that come under the heading of useful idiots. Infiltrators singled out in the crowds to give the impression that this statement is true and give it legs!
As I'm sure Semper will agree, when trouble strikes in seconds, the police are minutes away, or on the other end of town!

Zindo
Ann Gerhart is an anti-firearms slug and an payed acolyte of the Brady Bunch and George Soros!


[edit on 4/19/2010 by ZindoDoone]

Concerning my own quote

I think that people fighting for these rights should acknowledge almost anyone at all can get a gun. I admitted myself into a psychiatric hospital many years ago and I have a legally registered handgun. Took me three days to get it. What does that tell you about the restraints, precautions and laws presently in place? Do we really want to relax them more?

Teen angst. To be fair....after a week of testing they said there was nothing wrong with me and asked me to stop taking up a bed.