By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Man carries assault rifle to Obama protest -- and it's legal

TheRealMafoo on 18 August 2009
megaman79 said:
durtysouthhustlah said:
Tell me this - what if folks would have showed up at Bush town halls with weapons? I'll bet you my bottom dollar that they'd be decaying in Gitmo or Diego Garcia. Show me once in the past few years where anyone in any party was acting like total jackasses and doing crap like this - tea bagging, showing up to events where the president is with loaded weapons. The Secret Service has a watch list - and even makes sure folks aren't armed - and now, folks are just gonna show up packing heat because they can?

What tools. And motivated to do retarded stuff like this for quick fame and the like. Good luck with that crap.

So, who goes to jail if your gun you brought to a town hall gets taken from you and shoots the president?


Thats fucking correct, your point. JOURNALISTS were arrested at the Democractic and Republican conventions last year if you remember. Protesters were arrested and these were people WITHOUT GUNS or any other implements on them. 

They were protesting on private property. That's not allowed (well, you have no right to do it, I guess if the owner of the property doesn't mind, you can do it).



Around the Network
durtysouthhustlah on 18 August 2009

Mafoo, ever been to a Bush rally? They would keep the people so far back - and away from the actual motorcade. Matter of fact, the protestors weren't close at all to the route - and were screaming to no one and never saw Bush and Cheney. No, it's not criminal to be on private property with a loaded gun, but it's a very good way to attract a lot of unwanted attention very fast. And what about the safety of the attendees there? Let me drive past and get shot by one of those bozos. Mr. Bill will sue them and walk away with their double wide, shotgun and two sisters.

Megadude, you're on the money.



What, son, what? New York, New York!!!

deathgod33 on 18 August 2009

lmao, so i can just join the protest and carry around an RPG?



 

 

 

 

Jackson50 on 18 August 2009
TheRealMafoo said:"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." --Thomas Jefferson

Yes, preserving the right to revolt against governmental tyranny was important to the Anti-Federalists. They were responsible for the ratification of the Second Amendment. However, attributing the Second Amendment solely to the idea of revolting against a governmental tyranny overstates the importance of this reason in interpreting the Second Amendment. Preserving the right to revolt against governmental tyranny was an incidental reason. The primary reason for passing the Second Amendment was to ensure the continuance of local militias. Local militias were seen as necessary in protecting the people from Indians, Europeans, and similar threats. A personal right to bear arms was seen as necessary in ensuring the continuance of local militias. Honestly, both Rath's and Mafoo's respected reasons contributed to the ratification of the Second Amendment. It is not necessary to argue over why the Second Amendment was ratified. 



durtysouthhustlah on 18 August 2009
deathgod33 said:
lmao, so i can just join the protest and carry around an RPG?

No, you can bring legal weapons, not stuff like that. I'd love to see someone try it.



What, son, what? New York, New York!!!

Around the Network
deathgod33 on 18 August 2009
durtysouthhustlah said:
deathgod33 said:
lmao, so i can just join the protest and carry around an RPG?

No, you can bring legal weapons, not stuff like that. I'd love to see someone try it.

yeh, i got a little carried away there :D



 

 

 

 

highwaystar101 on 18 August 2009

What justification can someone have for owning an assault rifle? Ok owning a handgun or a rifle for personal or practical use like hunting, sport or *laughs* overthrowing the US government has a justifiable reason. But wanting to own anything bigger and far more deadly just seems a bit mentally sick, it's like buying a vat of napalm 'just in case you need it'.



Rath on 18 August 2009
TheRealMafoo said:
Rath said:

What they did do several hundred years ago in a situation and time very different to now. Of course you can predict exactly what their reactions would be.

This reminds me of the South Park episode where both sides argue that the founding fathers would have supported them.

 

This is now, they lived back then. Invoking what you think the founding fathers would do doesn't make your argument any more convincing.

We have had this argument before, and it led nowhere, so we can not having it again ok? :)

We have? I have a terrible memory =P

 

But yeah, walking around with an assault rifle in my opinion makes you more than a little bit nuts. Being allowed to do so is extremely nuts.



TheRealMafoo on 18 August 2009
highwaystar101 said:
What justification can someone have for owning an assault rifle? Ok owning a handgun or a rifle for personal or practical use like hunting, sport or *laughs* overthrowing the US government has a justifiable reason. But wanting to own anything bigger and far more deadly just seems a bit mentally sick, it's like buying a vat of napalm 'just in case you need it'.

The right to own a weapon is for the purpose of fighting a war, not for personal safety. You want a handgun in a war, or an assault rifle?

There is far more justification for owning an assault riffle then owning a handgun.



Rath on 18 August 2009

@Mafoo. Whats the justification for carrying an assault rifle around?

I mean if an assault rifle is for fighting in a war (which I consider to be a ridiculous justification for personal ownership, but that is an argument I can't be bothered with at that moment) then why are people allowed to carry them around when the country clearly isn't at war?

It doesn't make any sense to me.