Ryan Busse. Anyone?

[Gerald Martin]

My guess, you could own a a stealth fighter, Abrams Tank, and warship, but I'd never have to worry about it.

Yup, it's a culture problem, just not a "gun culture" one.

I agree that it’s a culture problem. Are you okay with the consequences of one of those Chicago gang bangers stealing my Abrams tank and running through your neighborhood as they attempt to even a score against some gang bangers from a different hood?

I’m part of gun culture too. When I was in 7th grade I took a cased 12 gauge shotgun into school and stored it on the shelf in the boys restroom so I could go rabbit hunting with my cousin after school. Nobody looked twice.

There’s no way I would be comfortable with my children’s classmates bringing a gun into their school today.

Until you can figure out a way to change culture, pointing out that it’s a problem with our society and culture isn’t going to keep folks who are fed up with violence from targeting the low hanging fruit that is the most optically provocative.

 

[Sytes]

TX or MT’s attorney generals would be if folks showed up armed to intimidate protestors at an abortion clinic or some other equally divisive thing? Where do we end up when both sides start asserting their open carry rights?

I'm not here to argue points... I do think there is something we must accept:

Take for instance Southern Baptist Westborough Baptist (Thanks @Gerald Martin ) vulgarity, disgusting signs when children and spouses go to their husband or wife's military funeral.

We, as Americans, have to accept nothing is perfect and even as much as we may hold personal opposing opinions, if an open carry person is at a protest and does NOTHING illegal (i.e. point the firearm at an innocent law abiding citizen) then we must accept this is his/her RIGHT as an American.

Same with the shits at our honored military funerals. Our Supreme Court ruled they are protected by the first amendment right.

Nothings perfect though to stomp on one right is to stomp on all, imo.

 

[Beignet]

I'm not here to argue points... I do think there is something we must accept:

Take for instance Southern Babtist vulgarity, disgusting signs when children and spouses go to their husband or wife's military funeral.

We, as Americans, have accept nothing is perfect and even as much as we may hold personal opinions, if an open carry person is at a protest and does NOTHING illegal (i.e. point the firearm at an innocent law abiding citizen) then we must accept this is his/her RIGHT as an American.

Same with the shits at our honored military funerals. Our Supreme Court ruled they are protected by the first amendment right.

Nothings perfect though to stomp on one right is to stomp on all, imo.

I agree with you and was happy to see articles over the last few years about a more diverse group of people asserting their 2A rights. They’re there for everyone.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I'm not here to argue points... I do think there is something we must accept:

Take for instance Southern Babtist vulgarity, disgusting signs when children and spouses go to their husband or wife's military funeral.

We, as Americans, have accept nothing is perfect and even as much as we may hold personal opinions, if an open carry person is at a protest and does NOTHING illegal (i.e. point the firearm at an innocent law abiding citizen) then we must accept this is his/her RIGHT as an American.

Same with the shits at our honored military funerals. Our Supreme Court ruled they are protected by the first amendment right.

Nothings perfect though to stomp on one right is to stomp on all, imo.

Agree I think the first set is probably bringing some civility back to the discourse.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I'm not here to argue points... I do think there is something we must accept:

Take for instance Southern Babtist vulgarity, disgusting signs when children and spouses go to their husband or wife's military funeral.

Small point of clarification. It’s Westborough Baptists not Southern Baptists.

It’s the equivalent of comparing Warren Jeff’s cult with mainstream Mormons.


Other than that, I agree with you.

 

[hossblur]

I agree that it’s a culture problem. Are you okay with the consequences of one of those Chicago gang bangers stealing my Abrams tank and running through your neighborhood as they attempt to even a score against some gang bangers from a different hood?

I’m part of gun culture too. When I was in 7th grade I took a cased 12 gauge shotgun into school and stored it on the shelf in the boys restroom so I could go rabbit hunting with my cousin after school. Nobody looked twice.

There’s no way I would be comfortable with my children’s classmates bringing a gun into their school today.

Until you can figure out a way to change culture, pointing out that it’s a problem with our society and culture isn’t going to keep folks who are fed up with violence from targeting the low hanging fruit that is the most optically provocative.

Did banning the Thompson machine gun end mafia violence?

That's how it was sold.

I'm not that worried about others targeting "low hanging fruit"

I'm much more worried about folks like yourself who know better, shrugging their shoulders.

Ya. I don't support soft on crime policies offered up in liberal cities by a certain political party(interestingly the one Busse campaigns for), that's why I don't live in Chicago. And, unfortunately, because I'm also a public land supporter, I vote for the people who aren't soft.

Yeah, I do worry about about some banger deciding he is going to gain his street cred by killing me and my family. Which is exactly why I'm armed.

Not because the NRA tells me it's dangerous. But because if a bullet is going to fly to decide whether a murderer lives or I do, I want 30. 50 if I can find it.

But no. I'm not worried Busse is gonna invade my house. Or you.

 

[Irrelevant]

Which, if you read, you already know that DURING the lives of the fellas who wrote the 2A, privateers had cannons. You know, the equivalent to the missles at it's time. They also had ships, with multiple cannons, what we call destroyers now.

Privateers. Meaning NOT GOVERNMENT NOR MILITARY.

Kinda seems like the folks who wrote the law, if they were against such things, would have said so. But that's my version of common sense.

A constitutional scholar such as yourself must realize that your interpretation of the Constitution, and it's meaning, means exactly jack shit per the Constitution?

 

[hossblur]

A constitutional scholar such as yourself must realize that your interpretation of the Constitution, and it's meaning, means exactly jack shit per the Constitution?

Bout the same as yours.

Guess I just believe the dudes smart enough to come up with these documents, we smart enough to see the folks around them owning weapons equal to the government, and didn't stop it, for a reason.

Founders intent.

Something I think about while reader Hustler, listening gangster rap

 

[Beignet]

In Utah. But we allow pretty much everything if you can scratch the check

I happened upon a big industry demo at a range in Nashville years ago and got to play with a lot fun stuff. Raytheon wasn’t there demo’ing any guided missiles though, sadly.

 

[hossblur]

I happened upon a big industry demo at a range in Nashville years ago and got to play with a lot fun stuff. Raytheon wasn’t there demo’ing any guided missiles though, sadly.

I saw, I think on the old guns and ammo show, in Arizona, a group with mounted Gatling turrets, full auto machine guns, who get together, and blow radio controlled model planes out of the sky. I believe RCBS sponsored. Looked like a blast to me.

Little spendy, but fun as hell

 

[morley.tyler]

Hows about this. The world is not black and white. Can we agree on that?

We all have many rights enshrined in the constitution, the bill of rights, as well as the 17 subsequent Amendments to Mr. Madison's Opus.

We all (w/ a few exceptions) have the right to own, nearly, any type of firearm we choose. And as many as we like.
But we must be good stewards of this right. Acting like a prick is not being a good steward.

The 1st Amendment gives me the right to call my neighbor's wife a (insert as nasty a name here as you wish) but when I've failed to be a good steward of my 1st amendment right, I should not be surprised when my eyeball meets his fist.

I could easily sit down and have a beer w/ @hossblur, @Gerald Martin, @FI460, Hell, even @mtmuley and have a nice conversation about families, hunting, conservation, or a football game. I cannot expect that we'll agree on everything, as we are informed by our life's experience.

Respectfully yours.

 

[RobertD]

Nevermind

 

[RobertD]

The 1st Amendment gives me the right to call my neighbor's wife a (insert as nasty a name here as you wish)

I get your larger point but this example is technically false

 

[morley.tyler]

I get your larger point but this example is technically false

 

[RobertD]

View attachment 212622

Mature response, enjoy not knowing what you're talking about I guess

 

[np307]

Bout the same as yours.

Guess I just believe the dudes smart enough to come up with these documents, we smart enough to see the folks around them owning weapons equal to the government, and didn't stop it, for a reason.

Founders intent.

Something I think about while reader Hustler, listening gangster rap

Jefferson also thought we would be smart enough to rewrite the constitution every 20 or so years and not use the exact same document for 200+ years

 

[bayoublaster7527]

Historic Gun Ownership Law Could Go Into Effect Next Month

The San Jose City Council voted by wide margins on January 25 to adopt two gun control measures not found anywhere else in the United States. The first would require gun owners in the city to purchase liability insurance covering losses or damages related to “negligent or accidental use of the...

www.themeateater.com

This ones a real gem……..just some more “common sense gun safety measures”. Is this the boogeyman? Thanks to meateater for calling it out.

 

[4ohSick]

Take for instance Westborough Baptist vulgarity, disgusting signs when children and spouses go to their husband or wife's military funeral.

You have to acknowledge that there is a huge difference between the most horrific sign and a loaded weapon. One can deter a home invader or mugger, and if you’re so inclined to carry you can’t do so without recognizing the power of that.

A decidedly left-leaning podcast was discussing this a while back, and they were far more comfortable with concealed carry than open carry - in the sense that you can still defend yourself but it isn’t perceived as threatening. I don’t believe there’s an honest argument that tactical chad’s showing up at protests aren’t trying to intimidate people - using their 2A right to infringe upon others’ 1A rights.

 

[Sytes]

I don’t believe there’s an honest argument that tactical chad’s showing up at protests aren’t trying to intimidate people - using their 2A right to infringe upon others’ 1A

I Hear what you're saying and my personal opinion may differ from the "Tactical Chad's".
IMO, subjective impressions by others are not the basis whether another is permitted his/her first and second amendment right.
That first amendment right is equal in every manner, by presenting, in public, his/her firearm. It's their "sign" that their second amendment is ever present.

It Means something to them. Whether you feel threatened by a law abiding American with an M4 slung or not does not negate his/her rights any more so than women with vaginas mounted to their heads, or Westborough Baptist protesting a military funeral.

Rights are not subjective to opposing opinions.

Though, as before, this is merely my opinion. Stomp on one person's right, stomps on all persons rights.

 

[sapperJ24]

I Hear what you're saying and my personal opinion may differ from the "Tactical Chad's".
IMO, subjective impressions by others are not the basis whether another is permitted his/her first and second amendment right.
That first amendment right is equal in every manner, by presenting, in public, his/her firearm. It's their "sign" that their second amendment is ever present.

It Means something to them. Whether you feel threatened by a law abiding American with an M4 slung or not does not negate his/her rights any more so than women with vaginas mounted to their heads, or Westborough Baptist protesting a military funeral.

Rights are not subjective to opposing opinions.

Though, as before, this is merely my opinion. Stomp on one person's right, stomps on all persons rights.

I am of a different opinion on this, and I'm not trying to pick on you, you're just the most recent poster. My understanding of the way this discussion has been trending is we're talking about individuals (private citizens), not the government, and the perceived extent of the first and second amendments.

There are clear limitations to to both the first and second amendments that I would contend to some extant are always subjective.

Harassment and intimidation are both illegal in Montana, and I would guess that most people accused of either would suggest it was within their rights to do or say what they did. That's their opinion, and the court may have another.