ARMED march on Washington

[EL PRESIDENTE]

 

[chris_in_pdx]

I understand your position. I think that you are too sensitive to the use of firearms by the vast majority of the law-abiding population.

There's one major problem with your point of view: a person carrying a gun in public doesn't have a sign on his/her forehead that reads either "law-abiding citizen" or "crazed-out extremest wackjob", and public safety, due to previous incidents, for better or for worse, demands that he/she be assumed as the latter rather than the former.

 

[Ed O]

All it's gonna take is one moron at one of these Tea Party pro-gun rallies to open up either on the crowd or the "authority figures" to set the "right to bear arms" movement back several decades. That's all I'm saying. These groups are playing with fire by their actions, and they have no one else to blame other than themselves if they get burned.

So people at a gun ralley get shot by a guy with a gun, who (presumably) gets shot down by the other people who are also carrying guns...

That would set back the movement why?

It seems that a person with a gun who goes to a gun control rally and starts shooting up people who can't shoot back would do more harm than that.

Ed O.

 

[Ed O]

There's one major problem with your point of view: a person carrying a gun in public doesn't have a sign on his/her forehead that reads either "law-abiding citizen" or "crazed-out extremest wackjob", and public safety, due to previous incidents, for better or for worse, demands that he/she be assumed as the latter rather than the former.

I don't think there is any such demand.

Guns are just tools. They are powerful tools, but anyone who's crazy enough to start shooting in a population where they know others are armed, too, is not going to be crazy for very long, because he or she is going to be dead.

Ed O.

 

[barfo]

I don't think there is any such demand.

Guns are just tools. They are powerful tools, but anyone who's crazy enough to start shooting in a population where they know others are armed, too, is not going to be crazy for very long, because he or she is going to be dead.

Ed O.

That depends on how many others there are, how prepared for sudden gunfights they are, and whether my weapon is fully-automatic or not. Er, I mean, the crazy person's weapon.

barfo

 

[chris_in_pdx]

I don't think there is any such demand.

Guns are just tools. They are powerful tools, but anyone who's crazy enough to start shooting in a population where they know others are armed, too, is not going to be crazy for very long, because he or she is going to be dead.

Ed O.

Martyrs from all backgrounds don't care about that, do they? They care about taking as many with them before they themselves are killed. Like the old guy who shot up the Holocaust museum several months ago. Would everyone packing heat have stopped him from doing that?

 

[Ed O]

Martyrs from all backgrounds don't care about that, do they? They care about taking as many with them before they themselves are killed. Like the old guy who shot up the Holocaust museum several months ago. Would everyone packing heat have stopped him from doing that?

Sure. At least stop him from shooting it up as much as he did.

But why would it be more likely to happen at a gun rally?

People can bring handguns anywhere.

Doesn't it seem more likely that a martyr would be able to kill more unarmed people than armed ones?

Ed O.

 

[MARIS61]

Not the first time a 5-4 supreme court decision has been called a "split decision."

This time it wasn't SCOTUS that was referred to, it was PUBLIC OPINION.

That ruling is also a split decision with respect to where the public stands on these issues.

In a recent Washington Post poll, 72 percent of all Americans said they believe individuals have gun rights under the Second Amendment, that such protections are not limited to "militias." Twenty percent thought the constitutional guarantee covers "only the rights of the states to maintain militias."

 

[bluefrog]

A few reasons right off the top of my head reasons:

1. Because they can.
2. To get attention to their cause.
3. To deflate the notion that violence is necessarily caused by the presence of guns.

They only accomplished 1 and 3. This event didn't get much publicity.

There are plenty of pictures of fetuses at pro-life rallies, and plenty of pot smoking at pro-marijuana marches.

I'd argue that these tactics harm their cause.

I understand your position. I think that you are too sensitive to the use of firearms by the vast majority of the law-abiding population.

Maybe. I've had a gun pulled on me by a crazy guy who thought I was in cahoots to rip him off. I don't support banning firearms for the record.

Could this armed march start a trend though? We've already seen some people arm themselves at Tea Party rallies and we've also seen violence at various protests. I hope not but it would make polices' jobs a lot more harder if people start arming themselves when they rally

 

[MARIS61]

Secondly, if I am a gun carrying drug dealer and I see someone with a exposed holster gun and I have a gun, I know that I can surprise this person by shooting him first cause I am going to take his gun and sell it for a profit. This makes it more likely that someone carrying a gun will bring about more danger for the people around him.

Same ridiculous arguement can be made to restrict people from driving nice cars, wearing a diamond wedding ring, or sporting $200 kicks, except innocent people are MORE likely to get hurt in those cases and the criminal lives to repeat the crime over and over.

Armed or un-armed, few people will simply hand over their belongings to some lowlife with a gun. I certainly wouldn't. This is why the vast majority of injured or killed robbery victims were unarmed ones.

 

[MARIS61]

All it's gonna take is one moron at one of these Tea Party pro-gun rallies to open up either on the crowd or the "authority figures" to set the "right to bear arms" movement back several decades. That's all I'm saying. These groups are playing with fire by their actions, and they have no one else to blame other than themselves if they get burned.

Tea Party and Pro 2nd Amendment groups are 2 separate entities, with very little else in common other than a desire to retain what few rights they have not lost.

And you are correct in that it only takes one moron with a gun, say a trigger-happy Portland Police officer or some Ohio National Guardsman, to open up on a crowd of unarmed civilians and set this country back 200 years.

 

[MARIS61]

I didn't think the idea of arming people in support of the 2nd amendment was a good idea.

Thankfully, our founding fathers were wiser than you, or we'd all be British pansies with poor dental health.

 

[MARIS61]

A few reasons right off the top of my head reasons:

1. Because they can.
2. To get attention to their cause.
3. To deflate the notion that violence is necessarily caused by the presence of guns.

There are plenty of pictures of fetuses at pro-life rallies, and plenty of pot smoking at pro-marijuana marches.

I understand your position. I think that you are too sensitive to the use of firearms by the vast majority of the law-abiding population.

Ed O.

repped.

 

[MARIS61]

There's one major problem with your point of view: a person carrying a gun in public doesn't have a sign on his/her forehead that reads either "law-abiding citizen" or "crazed-out extremest wackjob", and public safety, due to previous incidents, for better or for worse, demands that he/she be assumed as the latter rather than the former.

Sounds like you don't get out much, are afraid of your own shadow, and have no grasp of the most basic concept of our Justice system, "innocent until proven guilty".

It is not uncommon in Beautiful Central Oregon to be in line at the supermarket next to a guy with a .45 on his hip. Happens fairly often year-round, and all day long during hunting season. Local cops don't blink an eye and neither do local residents.

I don't assume every cop is a crazed loony who will shoot me despite the fact it is nearly a daily occurence in our nation, and despite the fact that an off-duty (now former) Bend Policemen once chased my car for 5 miles trying to run me off the road with his child in the back seat of his Taurus (combination of road-rage and roid-rage), then charged me with gun in hand when I stopped, screaming unintelligible jibberish in front of all my coworkers.

Most of cops use common sense and restraint, and I don't just assume they're all nuts.

 

[MARIS61]

Could this armed march start a trend though? We've already seen some people arm themselves at Tea Party rallies and we've also seen violence at various protests. I hope not but it would make polices' jobs a lot more harder if people start arming themselves when they rally

I certainly hope so.

Police are nearly always the instigators of violence at otherwise peaceful protest rallies, which are protected by Freedom of Speech, and the 2nd Amendment was enacted in part to prevent them from infringing on these lawful acts through armed intimidation of lawfully assembled citizens.

 

[Sug]

The wuss buckets won't ever do anything, they are small dicked idiots.

 

[MARIS61]

Sure. At least stop him from shooting it up as much as he did.

But why would it be more likely to happen at a gun rally?

People can bring handguns anywhere.

Doesn't it seem more likely that a martyr would be able to kill more unarmed people than armed ones?

Ed O.

Exactly. I mean if you are against the 2nd Amendment so much that you go there to make a crazy statement against it, taking a gun and killing people seems like it would kill only your credibility.

 

[MARIS61]

They only accomplished 1 and 3. This event didn't get much publicity.

15,600,000 results on Google for Second Amendment March.

 

[bluefrog]

15,600,000 results on Google for Second Amendment March.

I think you added a few 0s to that number. I just googled "Second Amendment March" (in quotes) and only got 352,000 hits. Besides, google hits is not a good measure of how well the media covers a story.

Also, you took my last quote way out of context.

I'm not saying the second amendment should be repealed, I'm saying it's not good to arm people at peaceful protests. Arming people at a violent protest is probably a very good idea.

 

[MARIS61]

I think you added a few 0s to that number. I just googled "Second Amendment March" (in quotes) and only got 352,000 hits. Besides, google hits is not a good measure of how well the media covers a story.

Also, you took my last quote way out of context.

I'm not saying the second amendment should be repealed, I'm saying it's not good to arm people at peaceful protests. Arming people at a violent protest is probably a very good idea.

Right number, wrong search engine.

It was Bing: http://www.bing.com/search?q=Second+Amendment+March&form=MS8TDF&pc=MS8TDF&src=IE-SearchBox

Nobody "armed" anybody.

 

[Stevenson]

When I lived in Oregon, our house was broken into and I shot the "fine young gentleman" who was scaring the heck out of my family and trying to steal what I had worked hard to buy. Sadly, however, I didn't kill him. I say sadly because a little over a month later that same "fine young gentleman" went into a house 3 streets over from mine and killed a father and mother in front of their children when he was trying to rob their home. Luckily for everyone else, this "fine young gentleman" was caught and locked away. Asked why he chose that house, and why he killed those people he reponded with this. "The last house I broke into I was shot. No warning, no nothin, just shot. I didn't go back to that house cause I didn't want to get shot no more, so I went to another house that didn't have no guns." How did you know they didn't have any guns, asked the officer. "I ain't sayin, but I found out they didn't, so I went there." Why did you shoot them, asked the officer. "Because I needed their stuff, and I told them not to try and stop me, but they didn't listen."

I say that story is a load of hooey.

 

[bluefrog]

Right number, wrong search engine.

OK, there were a lot of hits on Bing for 2nd Amendment March. I'll give you that. But it still doesn't prove your point that this event got a lot of media coverage.

Nobody "armed" anybody.

Sure they did. They armed "themselves"

 

[Denny Crane]

Things could have gone bad and there are a bunch of "what-if"s we could ask but I don't get the point of bringing guns to a march. Are they trying to intimidate politicians? Are they trying to accustom people to the sight of guns in public areas?

Do we need aborted fetuses at pro-choice rallies? Do we need kushy dank nuggets at pro-marijuana marches?

Some marches can be peaceful but violence erupts when tempers get heated (which is why I think they stipulated that every gun be unloaded). Seems like a recipe for disaster to me.

Civil disobedience.

 

[bluefrog]

Civil disobedience.

Agreed. But only when the right does it. When the left does it, they're being unpatriotic

or socialists

or communists

or Nazis

 

[Denny Crane]

Agreed. But only when the right does it. When the left does it, they're being unpatriotic

or socialists

or communists

or Nazis

I don't think that's true. I thought the vietnam war protesters were quite principled, as were the guys in the civil rights movement. They were willing to take a beating or spend time in jail for the cause. Not so true anymore, though.