Liberal Activist Attacked by Zealous Conservative

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by August

Any setting where it isn't illegal to bear those arms is by definition an "appropriate setting".

you're joking right? Remember when I said "it's legal to wear a bright red shirt to a funeral, But we wouldn't do it". Exactly. Just because you can legally bring a gun around does not mean its socially acceptable to do so.

[August]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

you're joking right? Remember when I said "it's legal to wear a bright red shirt to a funeral, But we wouldn't do it". Exactly. Just because you can legally bring a gun around does not mean its socially acceptable to do so.

At some funerals a red shirt would not only be socially acceptable, it would not be at all unusual or even the brightest clothing being worn.

You don't get to deny people their constitutional rights because it goes against your personal social expectations.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by August

You don't get to deny people their constitutional rights because it goes against your personal social expectations.

I'm not talking about constitutionality, I'm talking about what one ought and ought not to do

[August]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

I'm not talking about constitutionality, I'm talking about what one ought and ought not to do

Again you don't get to decide what people ought and ought not to do.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by August

Again you don't get to decide what people ought and ought not to do.

But I can comment on it. I certianally can judge, and personally I think it's shameful. I'm sure my sentiments are shared by many other countrymen

[August]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

But I can comment on it. I certianally can judge, and personally I think it's shameful. I'm sure my sentiments are shared by many other countrymen

And not shared by others.

[gimpy117]

Originally Posted by August

And not shared by others.

of course. thats why some people bring guns to rallies. But I think violence, or the threat of violence has no place in american politics.

[tater]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

of course. thats why some people bring guns to rallies. But I think violence, or the threat of violence has no place in american politics.

The protest of bringing guns is NOT the threat of violence (though Jefferson would have no problem with that). The purpose is 2d Amendment rights and a constuctionist viewpoint (that the Constitution needs to be read in the way it was originally intended, and any "interpretation" that goes past that requires Amendment to accomplish.

It's a Bill of Rights protest, though it could also be a nod to the revolutionary nature of our founding.

[Aramike]

Where do you think the threat of violence is greater: a rally where everyone is armed or a rally where only one person is illegally armed?

...cause it seems to me that hardly anything violent ever happens amongst groups of armed individuals, and most of it happens when there's only one guy shooting at the defenseless...

[gimpy117]

id rather not have any individuals in a group armed if i had a choice.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by gimpy117

id rather not have any individuals in a group armed if i had a choice.

Yet you don't have a choice when it comes to someone who decides to illegally bring a weapon to a group with the intent of using it...

...so my question stands. In that case, where do you think the threat of violence is greater? Idealism isn't an answer.

[SteamWake]

Those crazy Tea Party conservatives...

#!

Oh... wait

[yubba]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

I got news for you. They don't have to try and portray anything. The Tea partiers are doing a good job of it all on their own between this and open carry demonstrations. I don't care who you are, you don't go carrying around weapons to make a point in politics. To this layman, gives the overall picture of a bunch of fringe whack jobs id rather not have anything to do with.

Then I guess socalism is your cup of tea . God bless Glen Beck and the TEA Party, let's take back our country.