Sticks with US flags are more dangerous than guns in Virginia....

Looks like the big business gun conspiracy is winning this one - guns are allowed in the State Capitol, but 12" dowels with flags on them are not because "they might be used as weapons"....unlike real guns apparently??

According to Virginia Capitol Police, the groups were informed beforehand of the restriction barring sticks at permitted rallies, because they can be used as weapons.

Other things that can be used as weapons: actual weapons.

While the moms tore out the dowels of their flags, capitol grounds visitors with firearms were ushered through the entrance. That day, Virginia Citizens Defense League and other gun rights groups organized a “Guns Save Lives” day. The Richmond Times-Dispatch reported that about half of the crowd was armed, packing weapons that ranged from handguns to assault rifles.

- Daily Kos

“We are sending a message that you cannot hand carry an American flag into a state capitol, but you can bring a loaded weapon,” Reeder told ThinkProgress. “Are guns becoming more patriotic than an American flag?

- original on Thinkprogress

Looks pretty insane to me.....

Looks like the big business gun conspiracy is winning this one -

As opposed to the anti business gun conspiracy that is responsible for destroying millions of jobs, and destroying billions in wealth creating more asinine laws. That the law against murder already covers?

Big Business gun conspiracy is hardly winning.

Since 1934 'machine gun' ban.

The American citizens right continually have been eroded, and for what ?

FOR EFFING WHAT ?

Holding millions of Americans responsible for generations for actions they don't do.

Then that same Government will turn around and give the same GD weapons to foreigner's and worse that is responsible for more death than any gun owner in America or will ever do.

Blah.

Pro Second Amendment now and forever.

Neither the Government nor my neighbor is the master of me.

This is ridiculous as many things can be used as a weapon that most people carry on
themselves, like pens, pencils, cigarette, lighter, a high-heeled shoe, our own hands & feet &
etc.

What's the next ban going to be?


Cheers
Ektar

reply to post by Ektar



"ok sgt. lets get everyone who shows up for this thing handcuffed and ankle bound! lets make this safe rally, right? Its national securitaaaaayyy afterall!"



reading this hurt my brain.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I would like to see the law in which the DailyKos and ThinkProgress is alluding to; as I haven't been able to find it. Me thinks that they should have asserted their Second Amendment Right (just as their 'counter-parts' were) and ask the officers to cite the legislation or code that denies them the ability to have such an object at the capitol building.

Otherwise, this looks like a setup in my opinion.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


That's a really good point which isnt' answered in any of het literature that I can see - the Moms demand action press release only has the same bland statement -

Moms carried American flags while waiting in line outside of the capitol — but all sticks had to be removed from the flags before entering the building due to safety concerns. However, guns — including semi-automatic rifles — are allowed inside the state capitol and even allow Virginians to get into an express line.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I am scouring the Virginia Code and Regulations...so far, I have come up blank. If this is the case, I stand with those that were denied but offer them this advise: demand an officer of the law to provide the law and/or regulation that allows them to deny them their right of entry into a public place.

neo96
.
.
.

Pro Second Amendment now and forever.

so nothing about the stupidity of the actual law (or regulation or abuse of power or whatever) saying the sticks could be dangerous then...??

reply to post by ownbestenemy


I would guess it comes under the regulations for public meetings on the Capitol grounds, which are located here - regulations for use of Capitol Square grounds

specifically:

C. No parades, processions, assemblages or the displaying of flags, banners, or devices designed or adapted to bring into public notice any party, organization, or movement shall be permitted within Capitol Square except as provided herein.

D. With the approval of the Governor, the prohibitions set forth in subsection C may be suspended by the Director of the Division of Engineering and Buildings to permit meetings, gatherings, or assemblages if, in his discretion, the general enjoyment and use of the Capitol Square is not impaired, if freedom of movement of the public is not disrupted, and if the welfare, health, and safety of tourists, visitors, and persons performing various duties on the premises or traveling thereon are not endangered.

so - everything is forbidden by C, except when it is allowed by the governor, who can make pretty broad conditions under D.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

so nothing about the stupidity of the actual law (or regulation or abuse of power or whatever) saying the sticks could be dangerous then...??

Guess that must make things brought on aircraft 'stupid' then as well.

So it is ok to ban guns, shampoo, and other stuff.

Just 'not' sticks!

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


If that were the case, I would compel the "pro-gun" crowd that were there, to stand with their "arch" enemies and protest in unison against this selective application of regulation; which goes against the law.

When I say "against", I look at it in this fashion: the display or carry of a firearm is easily seen as an instrument of the Second Amendment and is clearly an "arm"; but that of a flag or the stick in which it carries it, doesn't necessarily convey that same meaning.

At that point (sad pun intended), those that were carrying their death-boding instruments of flags with pointing sticks should have proclaimed that they are their personal arms and are protected under the Second Amendment. They are in fact, bearing arms. It is counter to their reason of protest, but I would hope you see the irony here in that...

neo96
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

so nothing about the stupidity of the actual law (or regulation or abuse of power or whatever) saying the sticks could be dangerous then...??

Guess that must make things brought on aircraft 'stupid' then as well.

So it is ok to ban guns, shampoo, and other stuff.

Just 'not' sticks!

Just not sticks if you think guns are not dangerous......

you really have a bad case of selective reading today - perhaps you should take a nap??

Time for a hand gun painted like a US flag.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Definitely!

neo96
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

so nothing about the stupidity of the actual law (or regulation or abuse of power or whatever) saying the sticks could be dangerous then...??

Guess that must make things brought on aircraft 'stupid' then as well.

So it is ok to ban guns, shampoo, and other stuff.

Just 'not' sticks!

Neo, all he's asking you to do is to just say whether you think it's stupid or not to ban sticks because they might be used as a weapon, but not ban guns. This isn't complicated.

Back to the story, it really goes without saying that this is a dumb move. In fact, i'm really not sure how this would even possible to enforce, because as others have mentioned, if sticks are considered a weapon, wouldn't they be covered under the 2nd Amendment? It doesn't make any sense.

reply to post by technical difficulties


Why ?

I don't go walking about with sticks on my person.

neo96
reply to post by technical difficulties

 

Why ?

I don't go walking about with sticks on my person.

It's a simple yes or no question. All you have to do is give your opinion, so I'm not sure why you're having so much difficulty with this.

neo96
reply to post by technical difficulties

 

Why ?

I don't go walking about with sticks on my person.

It matters not, the Second Amendment speaks to "arms", not guns. Point being is that Second Amendment advocates should side with them on their own reasoning, in which it is to protect themselves; be it a firearm or merely a stick. If you cannot see that, then you are ignoring the basic principle of the Second Amendment in my opinion.

technical difficulties

neo96
reply to post by technical difficulties

 

Why ?

I don't go walking about with sticks on my person.

It's a simple yes or no question. All you have to do is give your opinion, so I'm not sure why you're having so much difficulty with this.

It is a BS question from a biased source Daily Kos.

Guess some people need to make 'sticks' constitutionally protected rights.

"Gunz are allowed but not sticks' !

Besides It is a state issue.

I don't live there so really none of my business anyway.

reply to post by ownbestenemy

It matters not, the Second Amendment speaks to "arms", not guns. Point being is that Second Amendment advocates should side with them on their own reasoning, in which it is to protect themselves; be it a firearm or merely a stick. If you cannot see that, then you are ignoring the basic principle of the Second Amendment in my opinion

If you say so.

Oh damn I have to wait 6 weeks before I can buy a stick, then I have to wait 6 months to shake off the leaves off of it so it will be 'quiet' .

It is more dangerous that way.

But first I can't even buy that stick without asking government for permission.

And then I might get one If I have lived a 'perfect' life.

And then there is the simple fact Guns are banned in quite a bit of public spaces. Then pocket knives on airlines, and shampoo( repeated) yet again.

So apparently the only thing government don't have the right to ban are sticks because it is 'stupid'.

Last time I checked the majority of people in this country think the constitution is just a GD piece of paper.

Especially the second.