An armed society is a polite society.

Correction. A man/woman who feels the need to pack 24/7 is a coward living in fear of the unknown. Carrying a weapon does not make you any more capable of defending yourself properly than someone who knows martial arts or someone who knows how to keep from being in situations where self defense isn't needed. I own a handgun, but I don't have the desire or need to carry it everywhere. Camping and Hiking are it's primary outings. Otherwise, it is safely locked away.

Ownership of a gun does not make one a citizen. Understanding of and participation in the process that governs them is what defines a citizen from a subject.

Gun toting advocates filled the Birmingham commission chambers

I don't know what the law in Michigan says. But in Florida you cannot carry a weapon into a government building. The legislators will pass the laws for you to carry, but they don't want you to come in and shoot them.

PS

Yes I believe in the right to carry and have a CWL

@Jessica - Really they look like white trash? Where are the confederate flags, overalls and other 'bumpkin' wear. I don't see ANY of that here.

They aren't going out to look awesome, they are properly demonstrating a valid point. The kid had no need to get arrested.

Hey MSNBC journalist, how about we maybe include Michigan's gun laws with the article to provide some context here?

someone should light up a string of firecrackers...

The lady in the photo is well armed.

An AR-15 and a pair of 38's don't mess with her !!

If that is what you really think then you have NO clue what it means to be an American.

@Ozzie. You sir are the first to make this insipid comment so I'll make one back. Illegal guns and criminals kill people. Law-abiding citizens don't go off and kill people on the weekend. They have it for defense, sport or hunting. Not such a bad thing.

Did the kid break a law or didn't he?? I don't want to know what people think the law should be, I want to know what the laws are today in Michigan.

someone should light up a string of black cat firecrackers...

LMBO!!!!!

Guns don't kill people - organ failure brought about by wounds caused by bullets fired through guns by people kills people.

Funny, I was also wondering if Locke is a man/woman.

If the teen who was arrested was not breaking any laws then he should be fine, since he should not have been arrested and will be found not guilty.

I realize this is a wider commentary on gun rights, however, and will add my two cents.

I don't understand the push from the extremes of either side. Firearms are a right granted to us in the Constitution. However, it does not ban safety regulations. I do not see why a waiting period is a big inconvenience when it improves safety. I do not see why there should not be a maximim monthly purchase of firearms, which would limit illegal weapon smuggling.

As an independent I believe in a lot of things including guns. I own 1 for every member of my family in the household. I am not a member of that crazy NRA, and you won't see me marching like this, unless millions of us are marching on Washington. It would have to get REALLY bad for that to happen, since protesters are TYPICALLY(not always) to the left and are anti-gun! The founding fathers gave us the right to keep arms IN CASE THE GOVERNMENT GOES TOO CRAZY! That's the only reason I keep them, just in case. But I don't carry one with me everywhere I go. Just want to give my family a fighting chance for the apocalypse(or revolution, which ever comes first.)

FrugalDemocrat

"However, it does not ban safety regulations. I do not see why a waiting period is a big inconvenience when it improves safety."

Bang on bro... agree with you a 100%... As Homer Simpsons says in an episode of the Simpsons when he goes to buy a gun....

"Awww... But why is there a waiting period... I am angry and mad now...."

Did the kid break a law or didn't he?? I don't want to know what people think the law should be, I want to know what the laws are today in Michigan.

Yeah, me too. I thought I'd find some fact mixed in with all the opinions since MSNBC failed to establish context but nope, just irrelavent opinions. Just check another news outlet, this is the wrong place for fact.

Brad,

Just because you carry 24/7 does not make one a "coward living in fear of the unknown". My grandfather carried at all times in public and kept a gun handy on his own property, not because of the unknown, but because of known threats, such as individuals on mind-altering drugs or those who see the elderly as easy targets. My father carries in public and keeps one handy elsewhere because there are dangerous individuals present in society. One can try to avoid dangerous situations, but sometimes they seek you out. There are cases everyday of criminals attacking people in their homes or in public, and if you really believe that kung fu, ju jitsu, karate, tae kwon do, and MMA are a match for multiple assailants or an assailant with a gun, then you're delusional.

A police officer pulled a woman over for speeding. He asked her if there were any drugs or weapons in the vehicle, and she replied, "Well...yes. There are no drugs, but I've got a .38 in my purse and a .45 in the glove compartment and I've got a license for them." The officer asked if there were any other weapons. She replied that she had a 9mm under the seat and another .45, a shotgun, a .308, and a 30-06 in the trunk. The officer then asked her what she was so afraid of, to which she replied, "Not a damn thing."

LOL! I'd love to see anyone try to overthrow the gov't with their guns! Never going to happen. The government has BIGGER guns and nukes to boot. Love to see you guys try it though...

A Redneck with a gun ... what could go wrong????

Funny, I was also wondering if Locke is a man/woman.

Hmm... if you're confused, I suspect your compass is not calibrated correctly.

No point arguing. I get called a coward because I have a target shooting hobby, I don't even need to carry or carry concealed. Whatever, you call me a coward, I call you a fool. We can say the other's wrong all we want but I'd rather not. I got tired of trying to always be right when I was 12.

OMG...its a fricken old m1, relax people.

In case ya'll missed it, criminals don't buy guns legally so the only thing you can accomplish but limiting access to firearms is to make sure you're populous cannot defend itself.

One, I have no problem with law-abiding citizens owning and using guns. But do we really have to make it so easy for gang-members and drug cartels to get their hands on them? Two, there are right-wing folks and left-wing folks but the vast majority of us are in the middle and just want it safe out there for our kids. Let's try to work together as one nation, ok?

Hey, Elliot, go to Somalia sometime and see how polite they are...

I can't believe we have so many people in this country that just do not get it. By having the Right to carry arms, we are a free citizen. If you choose not to, that is your Right. If I choose to, that is my Right.

As a retired soldier, I can speak from experience that in many countries in the world, the citizens have been dis-armed, and subjugated. I don't walk the streets with my gun on my hip, of even carry it hidden, which I do have a permit for. But I do not like anyone, including our government, telling my that I do not have the Right to do so.

It's not fear that makes me own a gun. It's common sense. The criminals have them. Crazy people can get them. Why should I depend on the police to drive from the other side of the county to defend me and my family? They are almost always too late. Home invasions are up, police forces staffing is down.

If you choose to be an unarmed target, so be it. Not how I want to live.

And say it any way you want to. Guns don't kill people. That a$$ hole that's breaking into someones home right now is armed, and he will kill you to steal your stuff. I'm just hoping I'll be quicker than him if it's my home.

So, is Locke a shemale or a woman packing a strap on to go with her adam's apple?

A Redneck with a gun ... what could go wrong????

What's the basis for assuming these people are "Rednecks" (whatever that is defined as)? They look, with the exception of their firearms, like people on the streets of almost any city in the US with similar weather. No excessive tats, no skinheads, reasonable grooming. Perhaps everyone is a Redneck except for you? Or all white people? Or???

And, DID anything go wrong? You seem fairly concerned that something would.

What cracks me up is these people proudly display the fact that they are wimps so afraid of their own shadow that they cannot leave their house without a hand cannon.

One clarification: They never carried openly. My grandfather carried and my father carries a concealed weapon with permits (.40 Sig Sauer and .38 S&W respectively). My grandfather would still be packin', but unfortunately he passed away several years ago.

Hey little lefty handouters, we understand your real problem with weapons, you know that you can never take the country socialist as long as the citizenry is armed.

It seems that there is always one or two, that want to sit behind a keyboard and call some one a coward, or redneck.

Dem leftys tend to be loud shrill life forms, who like to be able to say or do anything and walk away smiling and of course if you run your mouth at at an armed individual, the potential is there to learn some manners the hard way.

My 5' 2" 1o1 # wife carries a weapon with her most of the time, you call her a coward or a redneck, she will ruin your day.

Guns don't kill people, but fools with guns do. So when a fool with a gun swaggers around the streets in broad daylight are we supposed to believe that he simply wants to waste a few roadsigns. Of course not. He (or she) should be arrested. He is obviously a threat. People without guns are not all fools; as the gun lobby likes to proclaim, loud and often.

I believe there are some gun owners who are sane and responsible citizens, but as yet I have not met a single one. In a civilized society, if you have a brain you don't need a gun. Are we living in a civilized society?

I consider myself a liberal democrat and pretty much agree with frugaldemocrat. I am pretty happy with the gun laws we have now. I see the need to limit and regulate large and fully automatic weapons. When it comes to small arms and hunting rifles, these are still lethal weapons, so having a permit to ensure that you have had safety training and you aren't a criminal seems like common sense to me.

I know it is not fool-proof, but I think it is better than anything goes gun shows with no background checks where criminals/drug-dealers could just stock up on weapons without a second thought. And believe me, there are enough of us on the left that the evil government will never be able to take all of your guns away...despite what Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin are saying that the evil-Kenyan-Muslim- who spent years listening to an anti-American Christian preacher non-citizen occupying the White House is planning on doing. I'm more worried about someone from the right getting in there and mandating that every-one own a gun, you know an unfunded government mandate, to protect us from an over-reaching federal government.

@MSG(retired) And say it any way you want to. Guns don't kill people. That a$$ hole that's breaking into someones home right now is armed, and he will kill you to steal your stuff. I'm just hoping I'll be quicker than him if it's my home.

Totally agreed. Guns don't kill people. Just because stabbings and poisonings are not big causes of murder doesn't mean that they wouldn't be if guns were taken away! It just the most efficient means to accomplish your goals(I'm not some psycho, I'm just stating the facts.) Take away guns, and if you really want to kill someone you're going to use a knife, sword, IED, or poison, etc.!

So, is Locke a shemale or a woman packing a strap on to go with her adam's apple?

Locke doesn't seem to have a particularly unusual laryngeal prominence (a.k.a. Adam's Apple) for a female. Males and females both have them -- male's, on the average, are more prominent but Locke's certainly doesn't look outside of female norms from the picture posted here. Maybe you are used to looking at very obese woman whose fat layers hide any external visual hint of their laryngeal prominences?

Similarly, males are, on the average, taller than females. If a woman is 5'6", do you suspect her of being a shemale because she's over the average female height of about 5'4" in the US?

Stephanie Locke used to be a dude. Cut off his gun and picked up a rifle? Weirdos.

Archie (Bunker?) - Exactly. If your dimwitted wife feels insulted (perhaps while walking past a public library, or a college), she'll ruin someone's day by emptying a magazine.

If they have brandishing laws then there you go. I live in WV where everyone has a gun yet we aren't allowed to just tote them anywhere. That would be silly.

@hyprocrisy1776

I know it is not fool-proof, but I think it is better than anything goes gun shows with no background checks where criminals/drug-dealers could just stock up on weapons without a second thought.

There is NOWHERE including gun shows in this country that you can buy a gun without a background check, unless you're a criminal/drug-dealer that's obtaining the weapon ILLEGALLY! Even if you've bought a dozen guns from the same shop and are on a first name basis with the owner, there's still a background check performed for that 13th weapon! Get your facts straight.

Bill From braincookies.com

Well Bill, just being a gang member doesn't disqualify you from buying a gun. Being convicted of a felony does, so any felons that have them are breaking the law (again)... it's a big Gun Control crowd myth that felons can just walk into a gun store or a gun show and buy one. Most states have NCIC instant checks, and the ones that don't have waiting periods and checks. Criminals generally steal their guns anyway. And drug cartels have the money to buy direct from any third world country that has them for sale... not just guns, but also grenages and rocket launchers.... So Liberal gun control does nothing at all to stop crime. It's designed purely to disarm law-abiding citizens. I've stood in the gas chamber at Dachau, and have seen what happens when citizens give up their right to protect themselves. The 2nd Amendment codifies a right that precedes and supercedes govt at any level.

I bet Stephanie Lip Locke could make my gun go off.

I wouldn't want to be pushing a baby stroller past these idiots.

Fed Up - What drivel! For example, the last sentence of your inane post is nonsensical on so many levels: The 2nd Amendment does not codify anything (I suggest you look up the word), it did not precede or supercede government at any level in any way (again, I suggest you look up those words - try a book titled "DICTIONARY"), and even if you accept the SCOTUS's ridiculous discounting of the "well-armed militia" qualification, the 2nd Amendment does not establish a more important right than any of the others enumerated in the Bill of Rights, many of which have justly received far more attention and achieved far greater prominence in everyday life.

Perhaps we should arm pre schoolers with automatic weapons, that way they can settle their personal disputes the NRA way. Why not as long as it sells more guns, lets face it people all of these phoney gun protests are really about gun manufacturers making more money not about common sense. I know I'm being sarcastic, but come on, a protest with what looks like ten or fifteen people, what a load of.............

FrugalDemocrat,

Firearms are a right granted to us in the Constitution.

Incorrect.

The Constitution does not grant any rights to individuals. It describes a system in which the People and the States relinquish some of their autonomy to the Federal government -- exactly those enumerated as being reserved to the Federal government (mostly via Article I, section 8).

The Bill of Rights didn't grant any right to anyone - it merely affirmed that such rights existed and actually enumerated a few of them.

The Constitution didn't say, for example, that the Federal Government could ban guns, so they couldn't. It didn't, for example, allow Congress to establish a national religion, so they couldn't.

The Bill of Rights was something of an "afterthought". It was created, at least in part, to appease the anti-federalist's concerns that the Federal government would grab too many powers. Many (most?) of the Founding Fathers found the Bill of Rights to be unnecessary and there was concern (it turns out valid given your post) that it would be interpreted to be granting specific rights and imply that the Federal Government was all powerful as long as they didn't encroach on these listed rights. Indeed, this is why we have, at the end of the Bill of Rights:

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Subsequent (sometimes flawed) jurisprudence and amendments have, of course, changed the landscape and nuances a bit.

Interestingly, it's my understanding that by the time the BoR was actually drafted and ratified, there wasn't much strong appetite for it, but since the Constitution had been ratified with "side agreements" that a BofR would be adopted, the process was completed.

...million psycho march?

The real cowards are all the people on this thread who are so terrified of guns in the first place. I really hope you people end up needing one some day but don't have it.

codify, lololololol

I'm codified, ratified, bonafide, petrified, electrified, crucified.

@Mike-275880

I wouldn't want to be pushing a baby stroller past these idiots.

Why? Do you think them a bunch of baby murdering psychos? Cause I'm betting most of the people in that crowd have wives/husbands/children and own weapons for the protection of said immidiate family. If anything the streets where they are marching are likely the safest in all of Michigan at the time of their march. You tell me a purse snatcher is gona stick up on old lady with when he sees this mob coming?

Frugal write:

Firearms are a right granted to us in the Constitution.

Perhaps I read too much into your choice of words, but in a discussion about rights, I think this is a fair comment. Our Constitution does not grant our right to carry arms. Rather, it acknowledges the pre-existing right to do so. In theory it binds govt to protect that right, so it's perverse that it instead is infringing upon it.

The Constitution grants us peasants nothing. It grants government certain powers which, since they are derived legitimately, we may refer to as authority.

I'm all for people owning weapons of their choice and that we should expand on that.

"An armed man/woman is a citizen, an unarmed man/woman, is a subject." Oh yeah?:

Those that have this "illusion" that a person with a weapon will somehow prevent a government from taking these weapons away, is wishful thinking, delusional and totally unrealistic. Your semi-automatic "whatever you have" is not going to stop the superior firepower of several dozen cops or our military armored hardware. The government doesn't come collecting weapons piece-meal, they do it in force.

As far as your "precious rights". . . Simply ask the Japanese Americans during the Second World War how quickly those rights vaporized. . . Where was the uprising then? Any government, even our own, ignores those rights whenever it suits them and they do it all the time.

Longtime resident Margaret Betts said while she supports citizens' legal rights, openly bearing arms in a community generally considered safe seems "silly."

"Just because you can doesn't mean you have to," she told the commission.

But you can. Therefore, no crime was committed.

In April, Birmingham Police Chief Don Studt acknowledged the constitutionality of Combs' decision to carry his gun, but said "this guy was creating a disturbance and he wouldn't cooperate."

Mayor Mark Nickita said while public input was appreciated, the commission was not set to intervene.

"The issue has gone to the courts," he said.

So the officer hassled the kid, he responded with indignity--knowing that he was not breaking any law-- and they call that a "disturbance" and admonish him for not cooperating with an officer who had no right to stop him in the first place. If this kid isn't acquitted of all charges at the first hearing, I would be shocked.

As for comments like these:

Gun enthusiasts of this ilk are simply cowards.

Yes, they do look like white trash. Cowards as well. Afraid of everything

perhaps it's just coincidence, but why is it whenever gun nuts go around marching with their guns to prove how awesome, macho, and freedom loving they are - they ALWAYS look like white trash?

are hypocritical. Your first amendment right to free speech is obviously being exercised here-- are you cowards as well for exercising that right? After all, more people have been killed over words than have ever been killed by guns. Are you any less a coward for exercising your right to free speech to call other people cowards from the anonymity of a chat board (people you don't even know, point in fact)? You either accept that we have these rights-- all of them, as enumerated in the constitution-- or you are a hypocrite. It's not as though these people roll about town with their AR-15s on a regular basis-- in this case, they are providing a show of support for a kid who did nothing wrong and was arrested for it.

To answer this:

I don't want to know what people think the law should be, I want to know what the laws are today in Michigan.

Open carry is 100% legal in Michigan. See here:

http://www.opencarry.org/opencarry.html

Good thing I didn't see that kid walking with his rifle down the street, otherwise I'd shoot him with the one that I carry because he must be a threat with his gun out like that. Gotta defend my city from those thugs! This would be a safer place if we all carried our guns wherever we go, right out in the open so everyone knows not to mess with us. What could go wrong?

The guy in the front row has his clown shoes on.

Have any of the gun nuts ever realized that by arming yourselves with ever more powerful guns, you're not leveling the playground, but actually giving police, gangs, and national guard the reason to up the ante???

You'll never be better armed than them (all of you claim you're arming against criminals and gangs but just admit it -- you're terrified of the police and armies of this nation), you'll never win in a conflict against them, and your interpretation of the "well armed militia" clause is deeply and horribly flawed.

You want to protect your country? Join the armed forces.

You want to look cool flashing a gun? Become a police officer.

Don't sit around demanding that the law support your infantile need to brandish a weapon, as if it somehow improves your limited endowments.

I believe I have the right to bear arms but I find it rediculous to have to brandish my weapons in public. My three hand guns are secreted in my home so I can get to any of them quickly should I have the need. Any of them would appear to come from out of nowhere.

Other than that, all the crazies that have to prove their manhood or womanhood publicly by making sure everyone knows they are armed and ready is STUPID.

What we need is to simply have testing of any that wish to have weapons that they know how to use them safely and with intelligence. I was trained in the military. That leaves guys like Zimmerman with cock trouble out of it entirely.

BTW; Before every right wing nut case jumps all over my post #1.56 let me just say..... I'm a gun owner and have been alll my life but I don't allow lobbists like the NRA to do my thinking for me. These protesters marching around in public brandishing their weapons is not only dangerous it's childish.

LOL DEEMO- You are right. Stephanie is one knockout sexy woman. No doubt tht is why she is prominant in the photo. If she gets a show, I will watch too.

Currently, there are only four (4) States that are Constitutional Carry: Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming and Vermont.

The following are three things I have come across that speak volumes:

"The Gun Is Civilization" by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.

If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force.

Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion.

Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force.

You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations.

These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job.

That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury.

This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst.

The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter.

It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone.

The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone.
I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don't carry a gun because I'm a cowboy.
I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.

I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man.
I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.

I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate.
I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.

I don't carry a gun because I love it.
I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party." -- Mao Tse Tung

The real cowards are all the people on this thread who are so terrified of guns in the first place. I really hope you people end up needing one some day but don't have it.

Oh pray tell, what makes us cowards? Could it be because....

1. We can leave the house and feel safe without carrying heat.
2. We don't believe we need to be augmented by a chunk of steel to defend ourselves.
3. We realize that in a polite society, carrying an offensive weapon is just an instigator.
4. We trust in and believe that in the event of sudden emergency, the peace officers and combined military forces are well armed and trained to defend us.
5. We know we can survive without shooting others
6. We have nothing to compensate for. <-- Yeah that's right, I said it!
7. We have created communities of respect and tolerance, and do not feel threatened by those communities.

If I were afraid of something that I thought I could not handle with my own bare hands, I'd carry a gun...but I am not afraid. I trust in this community, this nation, and this government. If this nation were given reason for retaliation by an act of another nation or party, I would gladly join our armed forces into battle to defend us.

I am not the one who lives in fear. YOU ARE.

Why is it that people don't understand that a "right" does not have to have an excuse to be exercised? The problem is that the police don't understand what "open carry" is and the public has bought into the demonization of gun owners by the media...including tv "entertainment" ie "HollyWeird" and yes, our own favorite of favorites..MSNBC. How many of you would go ballistic if a police officer arrested two gay people for being in public together? I mean, isn't that disturbing the peace and public lascivity? But if the police officer is offended, should he not take action?? No?? The reason these people are demonstrating is to bring the problem of police overbearance to the public. It is not up to the police to decide whether or not they like the law in a capricious manner....they are there to enforce the law as it is. We had a similiar situation in Louisville, Ky where a man was walking his daughter to school with his sidearm properly holstered as prescribed in the state statute, did not get on school property, did not display his weapon in any manner and was accosted by a member of the metro police for, you guessed it, "disturbing the peace and brandishing a firearm". Because there were 4 patrol cars showing up blocking traffic, etc. he was disturbing the peace.

The problem is that people are willing to not only throw away their own rights because they are ignorant, but are also willing to throw away the rights of others who wish to exercise those rights. It's like, ok, you have the right to free speech..just don't say anything unless you want to go to jail. It may not be long. Oh, I'm one of those turncoat liberals on the side of freedom.

What if we were to have the gun toter's 2nd amendment rights whittled away like they have the 9th amendment's abortion rights.

1. There's only 1 place in the state where you can buy ammunition therefore you need to be able to travel
2. you have to have a 24 hour waiting period before you can purchase gun/ammo, therefore you need to figure out some place to stay or drive back and forth what could be a considerable distance.
3. you have to sit through a gun dealer give the "do you really want to purchase a gun/ammo" lecture in which he/she discusses what you will be doing with said gun and are there any alternatives since guns kill real kids/innocents (not an embryo/fetus)
4. You need to sit though a movie of people who were killed by gun violence.
5. Repeat above for each bullet/shell you get since each one carries the potential of killing someone.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

This well regulated militia could be interpreted that the only people that can carry guns is organizations like the national guard, law enforcement and other state sponsored groups.

I for one do NOT like these armed crazies roaming the streets with guns that are not for skeet shooting or killing ducks, geese and deer or for putting down sick livestock, they are expressly made AND CARRIED to in the least, intimidate people and shoot people if the mood strikes them.

Hey Jess, et al - Why is it that you concerned, love filled, get along-go along libs immediately turn into hate fill mongrels the very minute a gun is shown in the hands of a law abiding citizen? Why must you call all gun owners "gun nuts" and accuse them of killing? Would you be offended if I referred to any who support abortion as "pro Death" and tell them of the blood on their hands? (Yes, some do already, and they get shouted down by the likes of you). You immediately go to the racist comments (like "rednecks", "white trash" etc) and would be all up in arms if I mention black on black crime in the black community.

And, as a matter of fact, I do believe in gun control. Both hands on the weapon and a tight grouping brings a smile to my face. And more people were killed in the front seat of Ted Kennedy's car than by any weapon in my gun locker.

When your life is in mortal danger this second, the cops are only minutes away. I'll choose to rely on my own devices to protect my family and self.

Well Played Spiddas

JonSmith93903

Hey, Elliot, go to Somalia sometime and see how polite they are...

You do realize in Somalia only the thugs have guns, right? Imagine Chicago if all the law abiding people were stripped of their firearms, hell, scratch that, just look at chicago and see how well their strict gun laws are working. Criminals will get illegal stuff, it's in their job decription. Why is it that the liberal states with the strictest gun laws have the highest armed crime rates?

You "SHOULD" carry a gun only if you plan to use it! Otherwise you're just fooling yourself (and trying to fool others into thinking you're BMOC)... YMMV

@Educated Thinker

and even if you accept the SCOTUS's ridiculous discounting of the "well-armed militia" qualification, the 2nd Amendment does not establish a more important right than any of the others enumerated in the Bill of Rights

There's nothing ridiculous about the SCOTUS ruling-- the "well-regulated militia" is a byproduct of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," not a prerequisite. See here:

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So no offense, but your interpretation is the invalid one, "Educated Thinker." Mayhap your education was discounted? God I hope so... This is basic English grammar, here...

Oh, and here's the link to read more:

http://constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Access to guns is a significant factor in American school shootings. If kids could not and did not bring guns to school, we wouldn't have Columbine, Virginia Tech or Chardon, Ohio. There have been crimes with knives and bats and fists. But school shootings are gun crimes endanger to others. This senario shows many proud conservative parents protecting/supporting Kids with guns that kill kids at school following their parent mentality to be hails as freedom hero?,as what shown here?

America is now becoming an extremist armed nation by fine example of freedom of second amendment right of these parenthood, compared to other nations with bloody histories and despotic leaders. True, we have polarized political speech, and that speech is about access to guns. But that's the reason we have an American school shooting problem that exceeds other nations has to do with access to loaded weapons by kids who should not have that access.

Bob Braincookies

Who let you in here? This is a restricted area. Right and left wing nuts who want to scream anonymously at one another are the only ones allowed in here. How did a rational person like you get past security? Geeez. There's another reason we all need to have as many guns as possible. To protect ourselves from reasonable people like Bob Braincookies.

Now tell me braincookieboy, how did in here? We have ways to make you talk!

Dustin - You live in a world of ignorance. You buy insurance in case the unthinkable happens, right? It is no different. I hope i never have to use my gun, but i know i will have it in case the unthinkable happens. It is simply another form of insurance. I will be ready, will you?

Also, because I am sick of the insipid back and forth, back and forth name calling, as if this were some slap fight in a kindergarten schoolyard-- let me make this clear and simple:

Owning a firearm, carrying a firearm does not make one a coward.

Not owning a firearm does not make one brave.

The reverse of both statements is also invalid.

A firearm is a tool, nothing more-- it does not have any direct bearing on one's innate sense of courage, bravery or fortitude--neither positively nor negatively. People who carry firearms do not turn into limp, jelly-wristed cry babies when they take their gun off. People who do not own firearms do not suddenly become blood-thirsty maniacs if they visit a range for some plinking. This is as ridiculous as claiming that anyone that puts a case of beer in their car is a dangerous drunk driver or that anyone who owns a hammer is a carpenter. Again, a firearm is simply a tool. Put into people's hands you will see as great a display of variety in its use as there are people. A Glock handed to a marine would be used and cared for in an entirely different way than one handed to a gang banging, tattooed member of the CRIPs.

"Gun control is the idea that a woman who is brutally raped and killed is somehow morally superior to the woman who shoots and kills her attacker." -- Unknown

"A firearm is a tool. Your weapon is between your ears! Use THAT ONE first." -- Unknown

we ignorants got the right to protect ourselves, ain't we?? it's a god-given right to pack heat... ain'that in the bible? besides theys good skwirl huntin in the city for vittles..

March of the douche bags.

A bi-partisan truth: You can count on a news photog to go for the boob shot!

big titas and guns.. it be our new world brother

Just give a prof of violence in any gun owner protest. Your comments are bias, the violence come in OWS and any lefty protest, they don't carry gun , but they use Molotov Cocktail, it is hilarious how people just speak without facts, gangsters and delinquents in Chicago don't use licensed gun to commit crime and also most of the crimes in Chicago are in poor neighborhoods, where Democrats have the control. However is it curious that in cities under control of Democrats and with toughest gun control , have more shooting and death with unregistered guns.

My problem is that I don't know if the gun toting citizen is law abiding. All I see is someone carrying a gun. I do not know his/her intentions

If a cop had seen two students carrying guns in Columbine and had not stopped them, what would you be saying then? You'd be asking why the students inside the school weren't armed to the teeth as well?

What about on a college campus in Virginia?

If you walk around brandishing a rifle, you should expect to be challenged by the authorities. Just don't be confrontational and realize they are trying to do their job.

WMG - Lacking time to debate your one-sided interpretation of the meaning of "well-regulated militia" to the rest of the 2nd Amendment (you are correct; my reference to "well-armed" was an obvious error which editing should have remedied), I will merely observe that Prof. Roy Copperud was a journalism professor, J. Neil Schulman was a novelist, and neither were Constitutional scholars of any stripe, and then refer you to the dissents in the 5-4 decisions of District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago. I also note that you had no comment or rebuttal to the thesis of my comment at 1.55. Telling, I think.

JACK335

blaming Columbine on guns is like blaming spoons for Rossie Odonnel for being fat...

ITS NOT THE SPOONS FAULT!!!

I have great gun control BTW...

I can put 6 bullets into the center mass of a target in about 3 seconds...

And I hope I never have to use it in a real life situation... but if that situation comes, I'll be ready...!!! (LORD WILLING)

perhaps it's just coincidence, but why is it whenever gun nuts go around marching with their guns to prove how awesome, macho, and freedom loving they are - they ALWAYS look like white trash?

I don't think it's coincidence, I think it's a prerequisite.

Jessica-1170252

I just want to point out that you are now saying that it is perfectly acceptable to judge someone by the color of their skin and the clothes they wear.....as long as they're white.

Thanks for clearing up the Liberal position. You and those like you are nothing but a bunch of racist hypocrites.

To anger a conservative, tell him a lie. To anger a liberal, tell him the truth.

T Roosevelt

I just absolutely love how that Stephanie Locke is carrying her rifle with her finger at the ready to hit that trigger. She appears to be expecting to be attacked by a horde of invading AK-47-totin' "illegals", or maybe a herd of rampaging giraffes......

It's one thing to do something because you can -- it's something else entirely to do it because you should.

"To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it."-- G. K. Chesterton

People seem to be ignoring the fact that all of these people with guns are participating in a demonstration/protest in behalf of a fellow citizen who was harrassed by the police under the color of law for exercising his Constitutional 2nd Amendment rights. Don't make a mountain out of a molehill and stop misrepresenting the actions and intentions of these citizens. It isn't like they go around with assault rifles loaded for bear in the middle of town every day.

More and more I thank the gods that I live in Vermont where the citizenry has never allowed our state legislature to pervert the original intention of the 2nd Amendment. I suggest every other State look at how it is (and has been for 200+ years) interpreteted and enforced.

Lastly, it seems to me that if anyone should be called "cowards" it should be those people who won't stand up and be their own first line of protection

Access to guns is a significant factor in American school shootings. If kids could not and did not bring guns to school, we wouldn't have Columbine, Virginia Tech or Chardon, Ohio. There have been crimes with knives and bats and fists. But school shootings are gun crimes endanger to others. This senario shows many proud conservative parents protecting/supporting Kids with guns that kill kids at school following their parent mentality to be hails as freedom hero?,as what shown here?

America is now becoming an extremist armed nation by fine example of freedom of second amendment right of these parenthood, compared to other nations with bloody histories and despotic leaders. True, we have polarized political speech, and that speech is about access to guns. But that's the reason we have an American school shooting problem that exceeds other nations has to do with access to loaded weapons by kids who should not have that access.

Hey Jack335 OFF. Why do you only mention bats and knives? What if a gun was available do you then think only a knife or bat is? What if one brought a large pipe bomb or fill his/her car with fertilizer and diesel(car bomb) maybe like Timothy Mcveigh and took out the whole school or office. Do you not see what others ar doing in the Middle East, Europe and other places with suicide and vehicle bombs. Seems to me schools kids have access to many of these materials and the knowledge to build them is easily acquired.

So I should give up my guns because of a few nuts, then what would be next? Give up my right to protest or free speech because of some unruley people or maybe abortion just because someone does not like it. Please stop telling others what rights they should have.

Also for the idiots saying these people look like or are Rednecks, why don't you educate yourself and see how this name/term came about. It is believed the use of redneck was to designate "a union member" was especially popular during the 1920s and 1930s in the coal-producing regions of southern West Virginia, eastern Kentucky, and western Pennsylvania, where the word came to be specifically applied to a miner who belonged to a union. These mean when striking wore a read bandana or cloth to signify they were fighting for there rights. The term is also believed to come from the southern farmers who worked the fields which caused them to have sunburned "rednecks" Either way this term was used for hard working men and was not an insult

Two thoughts here. I own and have no problem with people, responsible people, owning guns. Now, if I see someone tooling down the sidewalk carrying a rifle, I tend to get nervous and want to know what the little tyke is doing carrying a rifle on a city sidewalk. Too many lunatics out there. Conceal carry was created for a reason. Openly carrying a rifle or other weapon is not condusive to peace of mind and the cop should have stopped the kid, what if he'd let him go and the kid turned out to be another Loughner?

I also note that you had no comment or rebuttal to the thesis of my comment at 1.55. Telling, I think.

Your thesis was not incorrect. There is no reason to refute it. The 2nd amendment did not codify anything. It specifically limits the federal government from infringing on a right that was presumed to exist already. The grammar of the sentence is quite clear. As a result, I had no quarrel with that premise. On the other hand, calling the SCOTUS ruling of an individual right "ridiculous" was an affront to the history and language of the amendment.

If your are at all interested, this is another article worth looking at, which is an exploration of the history of the 2nd amendment:

http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html

Despite the domain name, which might irk your sensibilities, the article is fairly balanced and was written by David Vandercoy, Professor of Law at Valparaiso University School of Law. Whether or not his professorship is worthy of note I leave to your own judgment, but it is well researched and documented.

***************************AGAIN REALLY PATHETIC******************************

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - George Santayana

In relation to the Second Amendment to the US Constitution "Right to Bear Arms", in 2008 and 2010 the US Supreme Court made Rulings based on the Historical Context of the Second Amendment, and struck down the Washington D.C. Anti Gun Laws.

Prior to the "War of the Colonies" aka War of Independence the First thing that the British General Cornwallis and Henry Clinton (Ancestor of Bill Clinton) did was to seize all the Colonist's Militia's Armories. After the Massacres by the British Military of the Unarmed Colonists during Demonstrations (no Right to "Peaceful Assembly" to Demonstrate) the Rich Founding Fathers and the (Disarmed) Uniformed Colonist's Militias (trained to fight using Conventional Napoleonic Tactics) fled to the "Hot Bed of the Rabble (Revolution)" Philidelphia for refusing to pay the British "Tax the Rich" of the British Stamp Act (Law) Taxes to pay for the British Debt of the Napoleonic Wars, the British Military protection against the Indians (Native Americans), expansion of the Colonies (possible War with the French Colonists), pay for the British Colonies of the British Empire that were not doing as good as the Americas. The British then created British Laws to limit the types of weapons that the Colonists could own, and attempted to restrict any firearms that could be used against them.

After that occurred the INDIVIDUALS (no uniforms, no training, as Merchants, Fur Traders, Hunters, Shopkeeps, Farmers, etc. with the weapons that they already had and some provided by the French; Colonists learning to make ammunition by melting down pewter plates and eating utensils, making blackpowder) of the Colonies took up Arms and became the "Minutemen".

Using the first successful use of US (American Colonists) Asymmetric Warfare (Insurgency) these "Minutemen" firing from behind walls, buildings, tree, prone on the ground, etc. held off the British Military "Regulars" until the Rich Founding Fathers finally stopped arguing (typical US Politicians) and created the First Continental Army to fight the well trained and well armed British Military and then they could not figure out how to pay for that (more arguing and delays as mocked by Monty Python). The mistake of the British was believing that Conventional Napoleonic Warfare was the Honorable way to fight (and die), standing in rows in open fields, being at the scheduled agreed upon time and place of battle with no deviations. As far as the funding of the Colonist's First Continental Army, the Rich Founding Fathers did not want to pay for that, so they decided that "Donations" and "Contributions" would pay for that (resulting in Valley Forge, ill equipped under funded), the French Monarchy (King) steps up with money and even sending French "Civilians" (actually French Military) to "assist" (first use of Foreign Internal Defense at the Americas) the American Colonists. The German mercenaries get involved to assist the American Colonists to train the Colonists First Continental Army.

After the War of the Colonies aka War of Independence the Founding Fathers were so worried about another Nation coming to the Americas and Overthrowing them that they created a Law requiring ALL Able Bodied to Purchase Firearms and Ammunition, as it was the successful INDIVIDUALS that held off the British, and NOT the Militia (that had their firearms seized before the start of the American Revolution. “Completely ignored are laws requiring gun ownership.” (these US Laws are still "on the books").

Realize at that time most Nations were still Kingdoms including the American Colonist's Ally the King of France. The British did not all leave the "Americas" as most fled to Canada instead of waiting for British Boats to sail them back to England and risking the harsh voyage across the Atlantic back to England. In some cases the British Military were sent to the Colonies to redeem their Honor after being disgraced during the Napoleanic Wars, as well as being thought of as "expendables" to be left at the Colonies. (Historical Fiction of British writer Bernard Cornwell Sharpe's Rifles Series as Historical Documented Facts, Real People and Events, with Fictional Dialogues (that match the Historical events) defines the British Military of those days (the Colonies of the Great British Empire)).

By the way before any of you start to say ignorant things like the Founding Fathers were not Rich, or they did not flee, etc. you might want to read their Journals, Daily Logs, Diaries, Papers as being good Bureaucrats, the Rich that had time (instead of having to do daily subsistance Farming like everyone else), money to even afford paper and ink (book binding of their papers later on) and pay for their Education to become literate. They wrote DETAILED descriptions of everything they did, like smoking opium, naked air bathing, drank castor oil because they could not sh!t on a daily basis, how much money their property manager (managing their farm(s) or businesses) reported (they were the "Rich" Businessmen or CEOs of that time), what they thought about Democracies as "Mob Rule", what they thought about the "Average Citizen being too ignorant to determine the Highest Offices of the Land, President and Vice President", etc.. Their DETAILED papers were worst than some of those Tweeting today.

So based on the Historical Perspective above the US Supreme Court Ruled that the Founding Fathers knew the Difference between the Militia and Individuals and separated the two distinct entities with a comma.

STOP USING CLIFF NOTES OR WIKIPEDIA TO DO YOUR RESEARCH AND CONTINUE TO GET EVERYTHING "OUT OF CONTEXT" OR COMPELETLY NON FACTUAL: Wikipedia Disclaimer of Validity.

Example of NOT doing their Homework (Research) then posting NONSENSE:

blearyeyed,

As soon as you mention High School, what age is that, and what is the MINIMUM AGE required to purchase a Firearm Legally. I am not talking about those that continually flunk and are still at High School and graduate after age 21 (those of us that had to work are exempt as a valid reason for graduating much later.).

Then go research the Current US Laws on the Books, that make Firearms on School Property Illegal.

Baddog40 - What cracks me up is these people proudly display the fact that they are wimps so afraid of their own shadow that they cannot leave their house without a hand cannon.

Right to Lawful Assembly. And Baddog40 based on your other posts (elsewhere) we already know that you are a wanna be "gangsta" with a Baddog 40 (.40 caliber Glock) that is afraid that that little old grandma with the shotgun or "hand cannon" is going to cut you in two while you try to rob and rape her in broad daylight while everyone else is at work.

JonSmith93903 - Hey, Elliot, go to Somalia sometime and see how polite they are...

Once again the NON PARTICIPANTS that do not want to join the 1% of US Citizens of the US Military to go see for themselves, and those other UNINFORMED that voted for you NONSENSE Post.

At most of the Fundamentalist Islamic Nations it is ILLEGAL for Citizens to possess a Firearm.

In the case of Somalia, the Russians and Chinese Arms Dealers were more than happy to provide their weapons, and ammunition to the Somalis Warlords to defeat UN Mission Somalia I and UN Mission Somalia II.

Af I stated from FIRSTHAND Experience it is a Trait of Fundamentalist Islam to use Armed Force First and not "Empty Words" (Negotiations), as "The Dead do not complain". So when the Fundamentalist Islamic Jihadists of Al Sheebah started to destroy all of the Modern Non Islamic Western Farming created by UN Mission Somalia I and UN Mission Somalia II to end the Somalis Cycles of Droughts and Famines, what do you think that the Citizens fo Somalia would do other than either join Fundamentalist Islamic Al Sheebah or strave and face daily beating or if you protest too much shot in the fact in public and left on the ground as an example.

And just like all the of you, uninformed no real world experience with the life or death school of hard knocks, that voted for JonSmith93903 uninformed posts (that vote reflects on YOU) your uninformed DEADLY belief, "We did not harm anyone, so no one should harm us".

That "We did not harm anyone, so no one should harm us" belief is exactly why the Fundamentalist Islamic Jihadists are the Majority as the "Moderate", "Peaceful", "Liberal" Islamic Believers were/still are massacred by the Fundamentalist Islamic Believers Use of Armed First, so now the Sunnis (Defintion of Moderate Interpretation of the Holy Koran (Quran)) are the Minority. Shia (Definition Fundamentalist Interpretation of the Holy Koran (Quran) and the Holy Koran (Quran) as Current Law aka Shia Law (Sharia)).

I can go on to mention Iraq, here (Afghanistan), Pakistan, Libya, Egypt, Palestine, etc.. JonSmith93903 you and those that voted for your nonsense need to bury your faces in your hands in shame, as your being uninformed costs lives (of massacred Unarmed Citizens of those Nations, and US Military).

@ Merlin: I'm Jealous! Hopefully the rest can get things back to the way they should be!

You obviously have never been to a gun show. Heads there are VERY cool, the most polite people you have ever met because everyone has a gun. LOL

it takes a gun to be a real man...

I want nukes, no one would ever F*&K with me.

Why don't you come to Chicago and take a look around? We have double digit body counts EVERY FREAKING WEEKEND. Come here and LIVE in it and then make a stupid comment.

Really. They are?? How do you know this? Do you have mind reading capabilities? If my town did a similar march I would be out with my rifles as well, but in a case of defense I wouldn't shoot first, unless I absolutely had to.

Let's not make wide stereotypes when it's obvious you have NO idea what you are talking about.

ROAD: Is that a fact??? I've been to quite a few gun shows and the segment of society I see more often than not is White Trash who fancy themselves great patriots and upholders of the Constitution based simply on the fact that they are gun crazies. Somehow, I doubt that's what our founding fathers had in mind.

Sandy, you need to stop hanging around unstable people. I have been licensed and packing a gun for twenty years. Never has it ever occur to me to draw on someone, even with the most rude, vile people. The gun is for self-defense only against deadly force. I hope you never encounter such deadly force.

Jessica, it takes a real man to put on a seat belt. No 3,000-pound hunk of metal will hurt me. LOL

I never drive without a seat belt on, and I never go to a mall without a gun.

I can say this because displaying a gun is an implicit threat. There's no reason to display a gun like that unless you want other people to know that you have one and would be willing to use it under the right circumstances.

I'm not saying that people in favor of more gun rights cannot be cooler heads. But these people marching with their guns out are certainly not the cooler heads.

Gun shows are different. I'm not a big fan, but at least those are confined to specific areas and are on display for the purpose of buying and selling. There's a big difference between that and walking around the street holding a gun.

Ozzie Boy,

I believe you are less than sincere. Someone like you has no reason to go to a gun show, much less multiple shows. It's like an environmentalist going to demolition derbies.

I don't own guns Jess, and never been "eff"d with.

Do you not understand that the greater danger is the government banning guns?

Do you think people mess with you because your light doesn't shine that bright?

I work in the medical industry. Do any of you understand how many Americans are taking mood altering drugs? And how many of those people are gun owners? Bad enough they are allowed to drive a car.

Bunch of paranoid phallic projectionists! If there were a true mental health evaluation required for gun ownership, most of them would be empty handed.

Well, let's look at the facts.

How many police officers fire first and ask later? These are people who are allowed all the time to walk around carrying a weapon, lock and loaded. How is that working out for our society?

Just asking?

And a very wise man told me once, if you get a gun, you are going to have to use it...

bobtheflop,

I don't advocating carrying in the open. Surprise is why you carry for protection. If one carries open, he would be the first person to be taken out by a gunman before he has a chance to draw.

Surely they aren't "cooler heads". I mean, this many "gun nuts" in one location openly carrying there guns must have resulted in tons of shootings. It didn't? Weird.

Chicago has some of the toughest gun laws in the country and it's a freaking war zone as of late. A whole bunch of people are parading around this town with their guns and not a single person is hurt. Are you guys starting to see the light? It's the individuals, not the objects. You have a large group of individuals with guns obeying the laws here. You have individuals in Chicago doing the opposite. No law can fix the "gun problem" and, frankly, it's unfair to law abiding citizens to punish most because a few can't behave.

Gun control laws are like trying to stop DUIs by making it harder for sober people to buy a car.

Yea Joey Joe Bob! Legalize murder (making it illegal doesn't work either, does it?) Yee Haw!

I sure am seeing alot of F'ed up comments regarding peoples rights to gun ownership. Could someone please provide me with some details as to how you have authority to state whom has a right to own a firearm and whom does not.

Just curious...

IWGA

Idiots With Guns Association, join now!

Why don't you come to Chicago and take a look around? We have double digit body counts EVERY FREAKING WEEKEND. Come here and LIVE in it and then make a stupid comment."

This was gang violence by the LK and its not every weekend you lying sack. they are usually vendetta hits. and they are primarily in the same area.
More guns bring more death in this situation , nothing more.
Ive lived in Chicago have many friends there

Well, the Supreme Court just recently ruled in two different cases (Distr. of Columbia vs Heller in 2008, and Macdonald vs Chicago in 2010) that the 2nd Amendment is a PERSONAL right, not a collective (National Guard, for instance) right as gun control advocates have long argued. It said that that right supercedes federal, state, and local laws. And that "bearing arms" means just that. So handgun bans are unconstitutional, and that you can keep guns in your house for protection. Unless you've been convicted of a felony, judged by a court to be mentally unstable, or underage (below 18 for long guns, and below 21 for handguns) you have the right to buy and own guns.

I never drive without a seat belt on, and I never go to a mall without a gun.

An example of classic paranoid behavior. But it is almost always related to some sort of inadequacy as well. A shortcoming that has haunted them throughout their lives.

Vox,

I think we would likely be more concerned to hear the number of doctors and surgeons taking the exact same mood-altering drugs!

Edit headline:

Gun Enthusiasts to Gun Nuts

I'm very active in our gun community and even carry concealed, but I would NEVER consider walking down the street with an assault rifle. You're just begging to be shot by the local police. And I would even expect the police to confront people like this. It's irresponsible.

Im surprised about how many people are out there in support of Puff Daddy. I think his music sucks.

I love checking the message boards on stories about guns... it's like watching two deaf guys argue.

I support the right for adults to own guns, but that is not the same as emotional charged, hormone fueled teenagers walking around with loaded weapons. Teenagers rarely consider the consequences of their actions when their emotions are driving their decisions.

You obviously have never been to a gun show. Heads there are VERY cool, the most polite people you have ever met because everyone has a gun. LOL

Blatant lie. The only reason they are polite is because they assume you are of a similar political and ideological background. The next time you are at a gun show, tell people that you are of a different political association... then tell us how "polite" they are to you.

In addition, most gang members have guns, are they "polite" to each other? Most militia members have guns, are they polite to people of different ideology?

Gun ownership is neither a catalyst nor a byproduct of polite behavior.

What if we were to have the gun toter's 2nd amendment rights whittled away like they have the 9th amendment's abortion rights.

1. There's only 1 place in the state where you can buy ammunition therefore you need to be able to travel
2. you have to have a 24 hour waiting period before you can purchase gun/ammo, therefore you need to figure out some place to stay or drive back and forth what could be a considerable distance.
3. you have to sit through a gun dealer give the "do you really want to purchase a gun/ammo" lecture in which he/she discusses what you will be doing with said gun and are there any alternatives since guns kill real kids/innocents (not an embryo/fetus)
4. You need to sit though a movie of people who were killed by gun violence.
5. Repeat above for each bullet/shell you get since each one carries the potential of killing someone.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

This well regulated militia could be interpreted that the only people that can carry guns is organizations like the national guard, law enforcement and other state sponsored groups.

I for one do NOT like these armed crazies roaming the streets with guns that are not for skeet shooting or killing ducks, geese and deer or for putting down sick livestock, they are expressly made AND CARRIED to in the least, intimidate people and shoot people if the mood strikes them.

Monkey@Keyboard
Edit headline:

Gun Enthusiasts to Gun Nuts

I'm very active in our gun community and even carry concealed, but I would NEVER consider walking down the street with an assault rifle. You're just begging to be shot by the local police. And I would even expect the police to confront people like this. It's irresponsible.

Evidently there is a little bit of precedence for it in Michigan:

Friday, July 25, 2008
The Open Carry debate in Michigan
Barry County has had its share of 2a political battles over the years before CPL's were approved. Now things are heating up again. This is the latest one here. from the Free Press

HASTINGS -- Most of us probably don't know it, but Michigan is among the 44 states where it's legal to carry a gun in public without a permit.

To make that point, about 40 gun advocates walked out of Richie's Koffee Shop Inc. late Thursday afternoon with handguns holstered at their sides, part of a small but growing national movement to stand up for the constitutional right to bear arms. They strolled down this tidy west Michigan town's main street, barely causing a stir among passing motorists and pedestrians.

...The event, tinged with local gun politics, was the latest statement from gun advocates around the country to promote and defend the open toting of handguns.

Chuck that's a good one! Vendetta hits that makes me fell a lot safer maybe he's wrong and it's every other weekend!

Bassai: During my concealed carry class, the police in my state said, "Yes, you can carry out in the open. And we can walk right next to you with our hands on our pistols and look for ANY infraction to arrest you."

If you're not responsible enough to get trained, you're not responsible enough to carry and people who carry out in the open are not required to get trained.

Thank You itgranny!

i thought the right to bear arms comes from just post-revolution when people felt they wanted to freedom to arm themselves against a military/police force.

I thought this right had to do with the military services having all the power in their native countries.

I do not believe it is a "freedom" to be trifled with. The picture shown here is pretty scary!

Someone please tell me the need for the automatic weapon/scary huge gun the blonde woman is totin'?!!?

Have we devolved to such a state that it’s become necessary to revert back to days depicted in Hollywood western’s were every man carried a six-shooter on their hip?

This over zealous support for an 18 year old who was carrying a rifle seems misplaced and unnecessary. I realize that those on this post will scream at me about second amendment rights but please, this demonstration was over the top and most of you know it.

What was his reason for carrying an M1 rifle? Was he taking it to a pawn shop? Was he on his way to a firing range? Was he being a wild and crazy teenager looking to get some laughs? Whatever his reasons, this over blown display of support is out of bounds. I know that having a picture of a pretty buxom blonde toting an AR14 with her finger at the ready fire position makes for good copy, but is it really necessary?

I just wonder if these same people would have come out for him and their copies of Catcher In The Rye, if he was busted for walking down the street with that once banned book?

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

My concern is that someday these people will start to lord it over their neighbors - back to feudalism.

Rick-868962

Vox,

I think we would likely be more concerned to hear the number of doctors and surgeons taking the exact same mood-altering drugs!

You're not necessaril wrong there either. I just wouldn't use the term "more concerned".

So, let me get this straight.....the good people of Michigan are having their civil rights subverted by their Governor by taking over cities and throwing out the elected mayors, city councils, and hired city workers and these kooks are worried about some dumbass 18 year old being arrested for: if not a crime it's at least an act of outright stupity at least, and illegal at most, by brandishing a weapon, disturbing the peace, and obstructing a police officer. Get your priorities straight people of Michigan and take your state back from the party and people of Loonies and march in the streets for something worth protesting for, your own state and laws of your state and counties....Oh well, you get what you paid for by electing a Kook from a party of Kooks and just look what he's doing to your state....Just look at the picture above and that preety much tells the whole story and please tell me someone got the license number of the cab that ran the blonde over, just imagine coming home to that troll everyday, with a rifle slung over her shoulder no less!! hahahahahahahahaaaaa..

I like that Stephanie pointing the way ( leading)..will follow her on any type of protest!

Good thing the guy wasn't arrested for public indecency then, isn't it? Because the blonde leading the protest parade would be creating quite a different stir then, wouldn't she?

we ignorants got the right to protect ourselves, ain't we?? it's a god-given right to pack heat... ain'that in the bible? besides theys good skwirl huntin in the city for vittles..

(and no we ain't carryin gigantic carbines caus we got tiny dinkuses, wise acres..)

Hey PM, I don't know about you, but I wasn't looking at the gun.

itgranny, who regulates that "well regulated militia? By that definition, the Klan is a well regulated militia. They have a structure with rules and wait for it..................regulations. The "well regulated militia" argument doesn't wash anymore because most people who raise it, believe that it should be regulated by the what?.....................the government. When I enlisted in the service in 1969, I took an oath to protect my country from all enemies, foreign and domestic, understanding full well, as an instructor later told me, that that might someday include one or more elements of our elected government. I'm keeping my guns for that purpose, and some occasional target practice. I find it quite relaxing. And no I don't belong to the Klan or any other group. I'm a free thinking male human being that follows no one, but that lives, to the best of my ability, within the rules set forth by the society in which I choose to reside. If I happen to disagree with some of those rules, well that's what voting is all about, right?

"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."

My letter framed several questions about the test of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

Read more here: http://constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

ELLIOTT: Really? Is that why our homicide rate is in the stratosphere because "Guns don't kill people"???

Let's checkout the number of homicides due to stab wounds as compared to firearms. You gun whackos are just that, out of your frigging mind. You equate brandishing guns with freedom and being a patriot. At least that's what the NRA would have you believe. I suggest that it is possible to be a patriotic American without being a gun head case.

Lol! Obviously someone failed to read the article on this website yesterday of the FBI reporting violent crimes including murder are at their lowest rates in 50 years. Way to show up with the facts jack.

tinyurl.com/8ybbe9o

Here's the link for you too bro.

I always makes me laugh when people use the term "sport hunting". A sport happens when both sides know they are playing in the game.

March of the douchbags.

I don't get it. Why strut in public fondling your surrogate penis when you can be home actually using what God gave you?

And why is it that right-to-lifers are the biggest fondlers of them all?

Amen. put women in their place with those big knockers and a plenty of guns. it's a hillbilly paridise .. YEEEHAWWWWWWWWWWWWW

OMG, the gun-god-gay guys are out in full babble. Just a side note guys, I've had a gun for fifty years, but you are wrong about the founders and you are wrong about the second amendment. The reason our first government wanted _militias— to have guns was that during the war they had a very hard time getting men, money guns, and ammunition from the states. In fact, if the French had not supplied them with several of those items, they would have been in deep dreck. What they hoped was, if Britain tried to get its property back and there were armed militias in the states, the soldiers would show up with their own weapons. Avoiding, they hoped, the need to get thousands of muskets and ammunition from the French.

Our early government was not the least bit interested in Koch slurper patriots defending against tyranny from congress or the president. In fact, when a few tried it in Pennsylvania, the sainted G. Washington leaped into the fray and marched at the head of an army into PA and quickly squashed what was seen as an unruly bunch of rioters.

Lookee, lookee! A Bagger pin-up!

(eye roll)

Sandy, Missouri post 2.2

Those are the same kind of people who shoot first and ask questions later

That would be the criminals, not the average citizen.

As for you, people would be more alarmed about someone carrying a gun that says things without first getting facts straight.

If they would send that crowd to Chicago it would clean up quick. Black trash (I can say that right since MSNBC just had an article subtitled: "White Trash Meet Litter"?) shooting sideways not aiming while dancing to young peazy lol (J/k but I saw that in a documentary about the civil war in Liberia)... against probable marksmen with assault rifles. I wonder what the gun crime rate is in Birmingham as opposed to Chicago??

like Zimmerman, right? ... shooting first, ask questions later. Nothing more dangerous than these insecure lunatics with their weapons...

Capt Curtass- Well regulated, in the lexicon of the day, meant simply "well trained". It had zip zero zilch to do with goerned, licensed, or governmentally controlled. So, while your KKK comment does happen to be right on point IF you allow today's liberal anti-gunners to set the criteria for nterpreting the 2nd Amendment, it is irrelevant if you go by the actual words, as written, in the language of the day in which it was written.

BTW- your group request has been accepted! welcome aboard!

If I am armed and getting my head bashed into the concrete I am going to kill them and ask questions later for sure. My logic would be as soon as this guy knocks me out and finds my gun while he searches for money he will shoot me with my own gun so better to be tried by 12 than to be carried by 6. Thats real life, sorry you cant deal with it.

bobtheflob - I don't know if a bunch of people walking around with guns prominently displayed are "cooler heads"

That is the point YOU DON'T KNOW other than what is spoon fed to you bobtheflop in this article or do you read minds too.

itgranny,

Pathetic SPAM (your posts#1.72, 2.28, etc. Reported as Spam) attempting to correlate to unrelated things.

GO READ Fed Up-2683606 POST#2.21 that ALREADY NEGATED YOUR POST #2.28 even before you spammed.

voxrationis - I work in the medical industry. Do any of you understand how many Americans are taking mood altering drugs? And how many of those people are gun owners?

Sure, then answer these questions. Who smokes marijuana with formaldehyde laced with cocaine as "amp" as the ILLEGAL gun owners. What are the effects of "amp". Did anyone do an analysis of if Trayvon Martin sampled (smoked) some of his own product/merchandise. And did the Police find the two "40s" (.40 Caliber Glocks) that Trayvon Martin bragged about in his tweets, texts, and facebook (including photos) while setting up the times and places for his "friends" to buy "amp". Then answer the question as to why "normal" people would imprison themselves in a Gated Community (my spoon feeding you the answer): US teen guilty of murdering 2 British tourists, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46885491/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/

PM NYC - I do not believe it is a "freedom" to be trifled with. The picture shown here is pretty scary! Someone please tell me the need for the automatic weapon/scary huge gun the blonde woman is totin'?!!?

Instead of posting Emotive Non Factual Opinions on Newsvine "Get Smarter Here" as a Forum for Adults to discuss Facts; at least learn (research) the Subject Matter first.

Do you even know the difference between "automatic weapons" (and the US Laws) and semi automatic weapons. As it is CLEARLY OBVIOUS FROM YOUR Self Incrimination (you providing proof of yourself being uninformed and uneducated) that you know nothing just like those that voted for your post.

Neale Osborn,

Go read the Charters that established each of the Colonies, then the later Governments that established the storage locations, funding, Rules, Uniforms, etc. of the Colonist's "Militias". Of course all of these in writing made it very simple for the British Generals Cornwallis and Henry Clinton to know the locations, inventories of all the Colonist's Militia Armories to seize before the start of the "War of the Colonies" aka War of Independence, Revolutionary War, etc..

I am not arguing against you just maybe some information (Facts) you might want.

JimD-406742,

Why don't you have some courtesy and read Fed Up-2683606 POST#2.21 that ALREADY NEGATED YOUR POST#2.49.

Andrew-2169556 - I don't get it. Why strut in public fondling your surrogate penis when you can be home actually using what God gave you? And why is it that right-to-lifers are the biggest fondlers of them all?

And you know that how, Andrew-2169556, your firsthand experience? You actually checked out their penises, they fondled you Andrew-2169556.

Rod_Father, and those that voted for your post,

"Ignorance is ignorance; no right to believe anything can be derived from it." - Sigmund Freud

How about this you go research what Organization trains the US Law Enforcement on Firearms Safety, Marksmanship, etc.. And don't be really uniformed by saying "Police Academies" (that are not able to with their Budgets). Hint: "Eddie Eagle" a guy in a chicken, er eagle costume going to Police Acadamies and Schools teaching (preaching) Firearms Safety, funded by donations.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIEBrb_wRYc

American Socialist,

Facts are more valuable to you if you do the Research YOURSELF, instead of being Spoonfed. And you will not say that someone is a liar, if the facts that you Researched YOURSELF coincide with the other person's Facts (you will not call yourself a liar). Wikipedia is NOT a valid source of information nor research, Wikipedia's own Disclaimer of Validity.

add to post#2.57

Fifth-Grader Finds Gun, Follows Eddie Eagle Procedure

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tk6DPcrhNKk

david - I unfortunately have used the term I am about to use to describe others but I must humbly apologize to them and state without any hesitation that you are by far the biggest GASBAG yet to make an appearance on here. You are your biggest fan - at least you have that...

David, about 2800 United States kids are killed each year by firearms (gun violence and accidents). These aren't fetuses, they are REAL kids.

Once again the right gets confused between uterine content and the genuine article.

WHAT?-4099780,

You may need to read this a few times to understand the meaning or get someone else to help you. I know you were being facetious but your analogy doesn't work. "Derrr, let's legalize murder" doesn't equate to lifting gun control measures because murder is a harmful act in itself. Gun ownership isn't. 99.9% of guns in the world didn't kill anybody yesterday. Restricting ownership isn't going to curb crime. Owning guns isn't going to cause crime. It's irrational fear to believe that guns = bad. Nobody seems to blame pools, knives, cars, ladders, etc. for the injuries they cause to the point that sales/ownership is being heavily restricted. Why do they do it with guns then?

Once again the right gets confused between uterine content and the genuine article.

While I am not the recipient of your comment, I was curious about your opinion on the following, related to fetus vs baby-- and I am not trying to provoke you, so please don't misinterpret my post.

How is it that, in American law, a drunk driver who causes an accident that results in a premature birthing event (miscarriage) can be charged with murder? Would this be, to use your lexicon, not "the genuine article"? (i.e. not a murder?) If this is, as it is currently defined and prosecuted as, murder (2nd degree, I believe), does this not implicate abortion as also murder?

Again, I'm not trying to provoke you, and I know that this is off-topic from the article at-hand, but I was curious of your opinion, based on the comment you posted above. I hope you will take it as the curiousity it is, and not as some kind of an affront against your preferred political persuasion.

EDNYLaw

Learn some history, it was George III.

Sorry I said King George instead of King George the III, god forbid I disgrace his liege. Better get my gun and join the ranks of the gun toting elite now that have made a faux pas and enraged the King!

LOL,

Orb, you beat me to it...

But besides the history lesson - the idea that you don't need, and apparently have not needed a firearm for protection since the 1700's.....well, you can't argue with stupid....

Adam and Orb: EDNYLaw didnt' say King George the first, he use the first person pronoun "I". You okay now? As in "I see".....

I thought EDNY meant "I" too

EDNY: It's "God" not "god."

OZZIE BOY, I would be very surprises if some one like you has ever been with in 6 blocks of gunshow, it's likely you would break out in hives, if you got withing handling distance of a weapon.

Sag,

It's God III.

If you really believe it's "God", better look up what he and his son said about violence, turning the other cheek, and doing unto others.

Ransom,

What did God III say? I just remember "Do unto others before they do unto you."

When every second counts, the police are only minutes away.

Glock 10mm, Double tap center mass and there is no need for a trial. Just call the coroner to haul your troubles away.

we need to defend the right to be stupid. that boy is my child. we done learned him good..

Your right to bear arms won't stand a chance under a Romney administration. It's funny how the Republicans always threaten that the Democrats are going to "take your guns away". Yet it is usually Republicans bent on taking rights away. Is that ironic?

Once Republicans take over the house and senate, and should Romney win, then there will be absolutely no reason for them to uphold the constitution, and it will all be over for America except for the memories. And it will be you fools who voted out of blind passion for an ideology that doesn't exist except in your minds.

Once those same Republicans have used the small-minded to buy their way into elected office, they'll not only come for your guns, they'll make it legal to do so. They'll have all the power they will ever need. They won't need you anymore, piss ant voter. They won't want any militias popping up, threatening to bring Democracy back for real. Because Republicans always pre-empt Democrats by using claims that the Dems are going to take away your rights. Then a few years later, they do exactly what it is they threatened the Democrats would do.

Don't believe me? Republicans always threaten that Democrats love to 'tax and spend'... but who has done more of that over the past 30 years, by far? Republicans.

Republicans are always complaining about an illusionary voter fraud, as if tens of thousands of illegal voters are voting for Democrats. And yet there haven't been enough votes from ALL voter fraud convictions combined, from local, state and federal elections over the past decade, to even come close to overturning even any one of those single elections... except for maybe Mitt Romney's Iowa "win". But these same Republicans have no problem imposing new laws and restrictions which will make it impossible for some people - mostly Democrats - from participating in fair elections. That's the REAL voter fraud, my friends.

Republicans are always complaining, "where are the jobs?", and yet when the President tries to stimulate the economy with a public jobs program just like what FDR did during the Great Depression, Republicans filibuster and stall, killing all bills and proposals. I mean, why would they want the economy to improve during a Democratic administration when they can make Americans suffer until they get into office to grab all the credit?

Americans are stupid. How stupid will become clear in the fall, especially if Governor "Trees are the right height" gets into the oval office.

Which brings me to my final point... Do you know what Mitt Romney was referring to when he said that trees are the right height in Michican? He meant for hanging people.

I believe President Romney will literally eat your children if you vote him into office. He will be especially fond of buttocks, eyeballs, and the palms of their little hands. Welcome back to the dark ages, America.

Gird your loins.

that's what I'mtalking about. But I have a Glock .40 friend that stays with me at all time.

I have a normal size (more or less) you know what, so I don't have the urge to carry a massive gun.....

Rick's Real,

Too late add that to the Democratic National Committee's President Obama List of Achievements, as President Obama's January 21, 2009 Patriot Acts (Plural) section on "Expanded Presidential Powers". Increased role of US NORTHCOM within the US Against US Citizens, like the US Military Use of Deadly Force Against Armed and Unarmed US Citizens, US Military and US Law Enforcement on Order (Presidential Executive Order, no approval of US Congress Required anymore due to "Expanded Presidential Powers") Seizure of Registered US Citizens Firearms as part of the US Insurrection Act (US Law). Inclusion of the Defeated as Unconstitutional US Senate S.1959 and US House of Representatives H.R.1955 as the George Orwell 1984 Thought Crimes Laws, in that the written or verbal statement is the Crime and not only the action, example definition "Anyone that states a radical change to (US) Government is a Homegrown Domestic Terrorist". Legalization of the Monitoring and Censorship of All US Communications (especially the Internet) as "Domestic Surveillance" of US Citizens (previously stopped and Ruled Illegal during the President Bush (43) Patriot Act (singular) as legalized by President Obama's Expanded Presidential Powers.). Those US Military not obeying the Use of Deadly Force Against Armed or Unarmed US Citizens subject to Summary Executions. Preemptive Detentions (later on December 2011 President Obama signs NDAA for Indefinite Detentions of US Citizens and even more Unilateral Expanded Presidential Powers (no need for US Congressional Approval/Authorizations)).

President Obama shown here during a Staged News Media Event January 22, 2009 signing his Patriot Acts, 3:48 minutes of 11:55 minutes:

Naomi Wolf: 'Obama can lock any US citizen up without trial'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLSeD19m3UE

Heck just watch the whole video, to find out about the other lies (verbal contracts, aka Campaign Promises, violated) like President Obama's Guantanamo Closure (US Taxpayer paid Free cable tv anyone? Soccer, cable TV at Gitmo? US lockup in Cuba quietly being upgraded, http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/07/12110360-soccer-cable-tv-at-gitmo-us-lockup-in-cuba-quietly-being-upgraded?lite).

RushISaPIG - I have a normal size (more or less) you know what, so I don't have the urge to carry a massive gun.....

So, RushISaPIG, you went around measuring everyone's penis to figure out what "normal" is.

Back in the day, before the US Military became "Politically Correct" the Drill Instructors had us butt naked (strip search) during a "Health and Welfare", grab our penises with one hand and individual weapons with the other and recite, "This is my weapon, this is my gun; this is for fighting, this is for fun".

david-475776

Good. What Obama did was prudent, given how your lunatic party has been carelessly tossing around the idea of 2nd Amendment "remedies" for electoral dissatisfaction, parading with your guns on your chests like some kind of Western vigilante mob. If black men and women in Detroit did that you would all @!$%# yourselves... and what a sad commentary that is on you, by the way. But why would you @!$%# yourselves? Is it because you don't believe they have the right to bear arms as all honest, law-abiding Americans have the right to do? And in the same respect, if some in your party are intent on attempting an overthrow of a democratically-elected U.S. Government by armed rebellion, then you can bet that democracy-minded and equally well-armed Americans will fight back to defend it. The time to enact legislation is before such an attempt is made, not after. Somebody though it was a good idea once for all U.S. Government military personnel pledge to defend America from all enemies; foreign and domestic. That wasn't just a Democratic idea, and Obama didn't make it so by divine decree either.

Wrong. There are just as many if not more gun owners that are on the left. Ever wonder why Obama and the Democrat Congress 2006-2010 never ever mentioned or drafted legislation for gun control? Ever wonder why left-wing congressmen like John Dingell are NRA members? Because it is you gun-hating liberals who are in the MINORITY on this issue.

Exactly, another smear piece by msnbc which is lite on content but big on pictures to scare the liberals who pee themselves when they see a gun to call for tighter gun laws !!!!

I understand a group protest with weapons as a rally call of support, my question is why was a 18yr walking around downtown with a rifle, that should raise a few concerns and besides cops always pile on charges and almost all get dismissed except orignal charge, which he can fight in court !

Road - "Because it is you gun-hating liberals who are in the MINORITY on this issue."

on what issue? that we dont want to live in a society where every person walking down the street is carrying a gun, proudly on display - in an effort to intimidate everyone?

and if i choose not to carry a gun, and call someone out for being rude or whatever, the odds are - my lack of gun will mean THEY can put their gun in my face and say "you got a problem with me" with no intent to shoot me, just to terrify me.

it's terrorism plain and simple, and I dont want to live in that world.

IF YOU DO - MOVE TO THE GHETTO AND LIVE WITH THE FOLKS WHO WANT TO BE GUN TOTERS LIKE YOU.

Mike - they are rallying because they want that kid to be able to walk around like a sniper and terrify people, only to claim "dont infringe on my 1st amendment rights!"

according to conservatives, I shouldnt fear the random white guy walking around with a rifle...he's just a freedom lover.

but any non-white doing the same thing, is OBVIOUSLY A TERRORIST NUT.

this is the reality, im sorry - you have a gun, im assuming you are intending to use it - soon.

and i want the police to get you the bleep off the streets - SOON.

Guns are for cowards. Real men use machetes.

Jessica,

Talk about paranoid. When was the last time someone put a gun to your face and said "You have a problem with me?"

Jessica - it was the kid's 2nd Amendment rights that were infringed upon. Feel free to read up on the topic at hand before speaking.

logical,

Don't call our police, soldiers and security guards cowards. If you choose to be defenseless when a home invader comes to your home, that is your choice. I hope you have the premium ADT system.

Jessica - you are presuming that gun owners are guilty until proven innocent. This is fundamentaly un-american. You make blanket statements that are border line racist, but have little understanding of the real world. I have a gun to protect myself, not to hurt and intimidate others. I have a wife and four children, and if there is an intruder in my home, i WILL shoot first and ask questions later. When you have people you care about this much, you will do anything to protect them.

As for carriing a rifle around in down town, that is STUPID. Keep your side arm concealed and only bring it out when you need to use it.

It is very interesting how MSNBC posted the article.
LOOK ! HERE'S PICTURES OF PEOPLE WITH GUNS, andthey'reprotestingakidgettingaticketandifyouwannaactuallyreadthefactsgotoanotherwebpagewherethestoryis, BUT DID YA SEE THE GUNS?
If you don't see the 'sale', your blindfold is on correctly

Michigan IS AN OPEN CARRY STATE. go to opencarry dot org and see for yourself.

He has EVERY right in the state of MI to carry his gun.

No everyone qualifies for a CCW permit, plus I have heard the goverments in counites of MI are running way behind on processing all the CCW permit requests.

If you do not like a person carrying a gun in the open in a LEGAL OPEN CARRY STATE. Then move.

Why should they move? Just because you want to carry guns everywhere, does not mean that the rest of us who are not scared that someone is going to jump out the bushes every minute of the day, should give up our right to feel safe walking down the street. Who the hell are you to say that?

Jessica, you actually equate people who own guns to somebody that would simply stick a gun in your face and say "you have a problem with me?" And you're calling US the paranoid or fearful ones? Get some help.

Zannie, let's see... you're not scared of criminals... but you are of law-abiding citizens carrying firearms (not brandishing them about unsafely, or pointing them at you.. just carrying them)... so we should give up our right to carry guns (and actually BE safe) so that you can have a warm fuzzy feeling... yeah, that makes a bunch of La La Liberal sense...

Yes the criminals are running wild down the street, and yes how do I know that you won't get mad about something and raise that gun and shoot? I only have your word for it that you are a good guy. I am sure that the guy from AZ that shot and killed a another man who was yelling at him in the Taco Bell drive-thru thought he was the good guy too. Too bad the man that died was only walking dog and almost got hit by the driver of the car. Funny instead he got shot and killed.

And as I said before, rifles are meant for hunting, not walking down the street in a town. And just how many times have you been threatened going out doing errands during a normal day? I do not deny your right to have guns, but you need to have a little common sense.

amen my brother - we got our rights dang it!!! the fear of god be in those crimnals and minororities when they see them big assed guns, yeah man,,, yee-hawwwwwwwwwwww

I lived in a town and would go hunting by walking from my house with a rifle or shotgun since I was 14 (1969). I never got bothered because the paranoia just wasn't there and it wasn't unusual. So many people are just plain scared today whenever they see a gun in someone's hands. Too bad. They don't realize that they are watching too much TV and other media that only report bad things. It's not as bad as they think. It's just condensed. What ticks me off are my fellow Americans who don't understand a damn thing when it comes to guns. There's a reason that the right to bear arms should not be infringed and is prominently included as a second amendment to the law of the land, our Constitution. Thing's aren't really much different today from what they were then. I have the right to hunt and protect myself. Who else is going to do it?

No, mass shootings by white male teenagers are just a liberal conspiracy, right?

Rushisapig,

First I agree Rush is a pig, but to blame the white teenagers because they are much better marksmen than their pant-falling counterparts is preposterous! The only reason they kill mass people is because they aim when they shoot, if the average black shooter would get the same ratio of shots on target they would kill 10 times as many lol. Its funny because its true.

Not if everyone would just stop using guns

I'm SURE the criminals will get right on that buddy ;-)

Waiting, Howllen.

I'm also waiting for an end to house fires--but I still keep a fire extinguisher ready.

"Not if everyone would just stop using guns"

We have the right to own guns and that right will never be taken away from us. If the government takes our guns away, what should stop them from becoming a dictatorship? The military will stay with a Dictatorship as long as they get payed very well. That's what the USSR did, that's what America will do if the 2nd amendment is banished.

John-2032532

The sad truth is you are either prey or predator. It's your choice.

I love how all the gun nuts have nothing but bumper stickers to defend their view point.

John, please come and join us in civlization.

The sad truth is the movie "Idiocaracy" seems to be coming true. Too bad John's parents didn't use birth control.

When you have the US Constitution, you don't need much more. The bumper stickers are just to mess with your head.

The spirit of the second amendment is to insure we are protected from enemies, both foreign and domestic. If our government turns on us, it is our responsibility to fight back against them. I know this thought is scary, but it has happened over and over again in history.

Random: " If the government takes our guns away, what should stop them from becoming a dictatorship? The military will stay with a Dictatorship as long as they get payed very well."

CORRECT! The military is WITH the government. Now take your little guns and try to overthrow our govt. Do you REALLY believe you can? Try it! The government has the military with bigger, better guns than you--AND nukes. I'd love to see you try to overthrow it though.

Radical_Centrist. First your name is fooling no one. Centrist is a mile right of where you are.
Next, try the DOJ numbers. They've been shutting up anti-gunners like you for years.
But then again maybe the bumper stickers are about as long as you have attention for.

"Do you REALLY believe you can? Try it! The government has the military with bigger, better guns than you"

Yes, they do, but so did Great Britain in the 1700's. Just because they have better equipment than us doesn't mean they can take us. If everyone thought like you, we never would have won the Revolutionary war.

"AND nukes. "

LOL, do you actually think that the American government would nuke itself? If they launched Nuclear missiles at us, it wouldn't just kill the rebels, it would also kill their own forces.

Try it and see what happens.

"Try it and see what happens."

There is no need to rebel because our government isn't a dictatorship. If the government tries to banish the 2nd amendment or if they try to make a dictatorship related law, then yes, I would rebel and so would the other 50-75 million Americans.

I doubt that any American government would ever have the political will to wage total war on its own citizens, so much so that it would resort to using its heaviest weapons. Nor do I believe such bloodshed would be upheld by our military or tolerated by an armed populace. Should such a scenario arise, only by force of arms could we change the government, as it would be evident that our leaders are no longer listening to reason.

But luckily this partisan bickering that keeps Washington from doing any real work also helps prevent the formation of a military dictatorship.

I don't mind being prey. Come and get me, LOL

the right to bear arms is in order to form a militia in case someone was trying to overthrow the government. But, of course, you gun toting morons turn into, the government is trying to take away your guns when it was the government who gave you the right to possess them.

NRA is a bunch of idgits.

There is a distinct difference between a "gun nut" and a average citizen exercising their 2nd amendment right.

A average citizen:

• Buys a gun for practical security reasons.
• Respects the dangers and responsibility of owning a gun.
• Keeps it in a safe place and hopes he/she will never HAVE to use it, and goes on with their normal life.

A gun nut:

• Buys a gun out of the feeling of paranoia of immediate "kill or be killed" danger, inferiority complexes, or to just get attention.
• Brandishes their weapons for everyone to see for reasons stated above as often and legally as possible.
• Carries their gun with them everywhere on the off chance they might actually get to legally use it.
• Dramatizes and patriot-izes gun ownership like it grants greater citizen status.
• Believes that criminals don't/can't legally obtain their guns therefore legalized gun ownership can only stop crime.
• Believes that if everyone owned guns some kinda of polite utopia occurs totally ignoring the mathematics of the principle.... more guns = more gun related violence and crimes....

As a gun owning liberal I respect your rights to own guns.... But there is a point where it gets ridiculous and unnecessary.

You're a lot short on Constitutional understanding Rod_Father. The founding fathers codified the inalienable rights of all men into the Bill of Rights. Those rights precede and supercede govt. That's the whole purpose of the Constitution... to limit the govt's power to take them away. Right to speak, right to bear arms, right to property, right to fair trial, etc. None are given by govt... all are protected FROM govt.

Fed Up - It is going to take a long time to re-edicate people to the purpose of the constitution. It is there to limit the power of the federal government, not to give it unlimitted power. The federal government CAN NOT limit the rights that all people are born with. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The bill of rights is not addressed towards the citenzry, but towards the federal government. It is a list of what they are not allowed to do. The government DOES NOT GRANT RIGHTS!! I can not stress that last part enough.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).

Which part don't YOU get?

Radical_Centrist
John-2032532

The sad truth is you are either prey or predator. It's your choice.

I love how all the gun nuts have nothing but bumper stickers to defend their view point.

Bumber sticker?...check

2nd Amendment to the US Constitution?....check.

That should do it.

they say we got small penis and IS insecure - I show them my gun mr.

HA HA HA

David-2319136

The sad truth is the movie "Idiocaracy" seems to be coming true. Too bad John's parents didn't use birth control

LOL

Here's one liberal who is glad to see the peaceful show of support. However, as in any case, the kid was charged with a crime of brandishing a weapon and disturbing the peace. Nothing in the article suggested there was evidence that would support a conclusion to the contrary. Let the COURT do their JOB, if there was no evidence to back up the charges, then the kid will not get convicted.

But answer this question: Would this same crowd of gun rights advocates some out and show the same support if the kid was black??

An even more interesting question, if the kid was black, would he have been arrested or gunned down by the police?

John, Indiana - Race-baiting. Nice touch.

Not racebaiting, valid point.

No, actually he is making a very good point. I would guess a black youth "brandishing" a weapon would have been shot on sight.

I am from that part of Michigan, I like my guns, and I know all about that brand of white conservative gun owner. That being said, there is no way those same people would be out supporting a black kid carrying a rifle around downtown Birmingham. No way - not ever. Southern Michigan is pretty racist. Those very same people would say "see, we should all be carrying to protect ourselves" when really what they mean to say is "only white folk like us should be allowed to carry". This isn't playing a race card - I am white as snow - it's just reality.

if the kid was black, would he have been arrested or gunned down by the police?

In Birmingham, Romneys' former back yard? Bloomfield Hills and Birmingham, two of the wealthiest areas in Michigan, are both heavily r, massively arrogant, and more than half can be considered outright bigots. A black 18yr old carrying a gun in the open would have been shot on sight, no questions asked beforehand. I live less than ten miles from there and know exactly how the majority of people act. Not all of them have a big chip on their shoulder but far too many people do.

Though this kid had the right to open carry under the current Michigan law, common sense doesn't seem to be a quality that very many people use nowadays. I am a strong pro gun advocate but you still have to use some common sense when carrying. Just because you can legally do something, doesn't mean that you should do it. As the saying goes, discretion is the better part of valor.

Gun ownership is not going away no matter how much the gun haters want it to happen. Sensible laws and sensible ownership are fine. My way or the highway mentality went out of fashion back in grade school and both the anti gun and pro gun sides need to realize that. Common ground can be found to gun ownership, but both sides have to use common sense instead of acting on raw emotions of fear and/or intimidation.

we don't need your libril civilization. guns take care o things. me have gun, you listen. life so much simplar

Liberal race-baiters are plentiful on MSNBC message boards. They're always trying to divide people by race. I always assume liberals are racist until they prove otherwise. I bet you do, too.

Screw bear arms, I want some tiger arms or cougar arms.

i want to bare me mine skinny hairy arms and ain't no libral telling me other

Wait until another Columbine happens and see how many will be happy seeing a teenager walking around town with a rifle. Oh yea, as a parent you have to know that having a weapon isn't a sure fire bet from being attacked. In fact he may be in a situation that he isn't mature enough to talk or walk away from and end up shooting someone or getting shot.

Why would you see someone parading sown the street with their sexuality on display? I'ts their right.

Same reason people will walk down the street with a gun.

elliot, sexuality is not a threat. Guns are. Also an armed society is NOT a polite society. Look at the inner city gangs and the middle east. Those are armed societies. Do YOU think they're polite? The teabaggers aren't polite either. I asked one to prove the outrageous claim he was making and when he couldn't he decided to threaten to kill me with his revolver.

If you are threatened by the presence of a gun then you have problems. just like someone who feels threatened by someone else's sexuality.

As for a guy threatening to kill you--I sure hope you called the police.

Calling people teabaggers isn't exactly polite either.

Elliot: "If you are threatened by the presence of a gun then you have problems"

REALLY??? But I thought that was one of the PLUSES of being a proud gun owner--to make the criminal attackers feel so threatened by your gun that they will not attack you? Right?

It is never ok to use your gun to intimidate. If you point your gun at someone and threaten them, be prepared to go to jail. Guns are for protection, not for coercion.

So criminals should not feel threatened by your guns...hmmmm. And if you point your gun at them, you should go to jail. Hmmmm...

Confusing, isn't it?

Alverant

I'm amused every time a Liberal calls the Tea Party teabaggers. Teabagging is the name of a sexual act that gay men perform on each other. And unless they're hiding, I haven't see too many gay Tea Party members. But the fact that Liberals use the term as a derogatory moniker says loads about how they really feel about gays.

we just huntin skwirls (and maybe folks that ain't think like us .. :) so dont be a scared unless you in one of them groups

Then stay the hell out of Detriot.

But according to Elliot we have problems if we feel threatened by people with guns.

TNRebel-4016842

i work for the KKK too brother

"The gun loving COWARDS"

I hope you know that a lot of those "gun loving cowards" are military veterans.

Del-Ray - You call gun owners cowards, this is outrageous. What you are doing is called stereotyping. It is analogous to saying that all black people are criminals or that all Chinese people drive badly. It is not O.K., and it is not appreciated.

"Gun Loving Cowards" - Tell that to the 40 people who were wounded last weekend alone in Chicago. How about the 16 year old child killed by a criminal. What do you suppose the odds would be he would be alive had someone been there to defend him? Perfect - probably not but certainly better than being completely disarmed.

Tell that to the Texas Family that was the victim of a home invasion, multiple rapes of the women, and the senseless murder of the wife and children.

Yes, go on calling us gun owners "gun nuts". I will be sure to keep those words in mind should your wife or daughter ever find herself the victim of a crime. "Oh, I'm sorry, I'm a gun nut and you don't like guns. Therefore, I cannot help you - good day ma'am"

How did the blonde know her boyfriend's gun was shooting blanks?

Ans: she didnt get pregnant.

Q: Why don't blondes make good cattle ranchers?

A: They can't keep their calves together.

lol

There are no minorities in any of the pics , i wonder why?

Dangerous idiots like Tea Party advocates and most definitely the people in the pictures above. These dangerous idiots trump all, even minorities as far as danger to society. Idiots = NRA = Tea Party

Those are not assault rifles. Some are AR-15's (Designed by Armalite Rifle)

Learn something for a change.

So freaking glad I didn't know what type that ridiculous gun actually was. Does it even matter? It is a rifle and it has a huge clip. What civilian purpose does it serve? Why do we allow pistols with high capacity magazines other than to inflict mass damage? Does Jared Loughner mean anything to anyone?

ProgressivesNow: the big clip is in case Bambi gets up off the ground and comes atcha! wink, wink

Oh, you mean that psycho liberal? Yea, that guy was nuts huh.

" Why do we allow pistols with high capacity magazines "

You don't allow them. You just have no right to restrict them.

Just like the Nazi's to try to disarm the citizens.

Ant it matters what type of gun it is because it shows that you have filled your mind with the media fear mongering that created the term "assault weapon" to describe any non hunting weapon.

I with "progressives" could be more open minded.

Yes ProgressiveNow it metters what gun it was!!! People like you trough around words like "assault rifle" and you don't even know what it means. How can you have a reasonable discusion on a topic when you don't even know the definition of the terms being used. Like you say the rifle has a "...huge clip." Again wrong, it is called a magazine, totaly different thing from a clip. Perhaps before you coment on this issue again you study up on it a little.

assault - v. - to make an assault upon. To attack or assail.

"assault rifle" - a non-existent phrase, conjured up by the left for fear mongering in regards to firearms.

Congratulation's, not only are you ignorant about the subject matter, but you're illiterate too.

So freaking glad I didn't know what type that ridiculous gun actually was. Does it even matter? It is a rifle and it has a huge clip.

It is a magazine not a clip.

How about so you can practice your target shooting without having to reload the magazine every five or ten shots? You anti-gun Brady Bunch liberals only think guns are simply for killing people.

Bunker mentality - gotta arm them against the blacks, mexicans, liberals, Democrats, Obama, modern women, muslims, europeans, science, history, education, etc, etc. these peckers are scared of everything...

I agree, the kid should not be walking around town with a riffle on his back. Good luck protecting yourself from a mugging with that thing, more likely you will be giving the criminal a new toy. Riffle are four hunting, handguns are for protection. This kid gives normal gun owners a bad name, and they should not be marching to support him, they should teach him why what he did was unnecessary and has only drawn negativity to the cause of gun ownership.

I do not know of any city where you are allowed to walk around with a riffle over your shoulder. I wish this article had mentioned the local law concerning this.

AwakeForTheFirstTime

You are absolutely correct... a riffle is pretty much useless for self-protection... a RIFLE, on the other hand, is quite effective at stopping threats... especially semi-automatic rifles with large capacity magazines... which can be used to repel even large groups of perpetrators.... which is why our military issues them to our fighting men and women...

Everyone has the right to bare arms. Just don't forget the sunblock.

That's my question

Why was he even doing it? and you have to look at it from the other side also. What would you think if you were downtown and saw a person with a gun? There was no legit reason for him to be carrying a rifle in full view downtown where normal people don't carry guns (at least not in full view) he was doing it for shock value and he got it. While he may have had the right how would have felt if you were there with your kids? I know I would be concerned. How do I know he's not a nut out to start shooting people?

He is just a gun nut that wanted to draw attention to himself and now all the other gun nuts are running around with their guns to prove what?

"

AwakeForTheFirstTime

You are absolutely correct... a riffle is pretty much useless for self-protection... a RIFLE, on the other hand, is quite effective at stopping threats... especially semi-automatic rifles with large capacity magazines... which can be used to repel even large groups of perpetrators.... which is why our military issues them to our fighting men and women..."

Let me guess..He felt threaten downtown so he had to strap a rifle on his back and go show every one what a bad ass he was? This isn't about self defense or the right to bare arms, its about a gun nut trying to draw attention to himself and his guns.

It is a proud moment. We are free to keep our arms as our forefathers intended. Which the reason why no military force in 200 years has invaded us. The American citizen ranks just behind India has the best equiped armed force on the planet. Let's keep it that way

Actually, the real reason no military force has invaded us is purely geographical: As a practical matter, we only share a border with two countries. Private gun ownership has nothing to do with it.

I'm pro-gun, but... the British actually invaded our country precisely 200 years ago. And we accused the Mexicans of the same thing only 30 years after that. So, yeah, history is fun.

if the mexicans had just been smart enough not take their siestas all at the same time, lolololol.

Naptime!

CET2011

Incorrect. Yamamoto was quoted as saying that the reason that Japan never attacked California after Pearl Harbor is because he knew that there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.

They are proud to be stupid..... They are proud to be in your face gun owners .... like it or else .... LOL

I'm lost here, didn't we get attacked by Japan, or do you not consider Hawaii to be part of the United States? I also consider 9/11 to be an attack on this country, by a smaller, radical, insane army of interbred morons.

Hey genuises...the reason why no one invades us is because of our professional armed forces (the military) and their heavy artillery, fighter jets, technology, etc. NOT because of civilians openly carrying firearms in the streets like the idiots in this picture. I support private gun ownership, but this photo really is embarrassing.

Everyday people climb behind the wheel of a 4000 lb hunk of metal being propelled by an ungodly amount of horsepower and drive at speeds that would vaporize a human being if hit... and we're worried about guns? Why are guns always singled out? How many people are killed every year by automobiles? Are we ready to ban cars yet? Nope.

2pitbullSS

The argument will be made that a vehicle's primary function is to transport people, whereas guns are designed to kill. Cars inadvertently kill people, where guns are used to do that on-purpose (vehicular murder notwithstanding, apparently).

My retort that guns are also used for sport (IDPA matches, for example, or the US Olympic Rifle Team) as well as hunting are never received with even a modicum of appreciation for the culture that surrounds responsible firearms ownership. I own two firearms that have never killed anything or anybody-- save some metal, glass and paper targets. Does that fact stop the anti-gun lobby from trying to seize my "arsenal"? Nope... To their minds, guns are an abhorrent evil that should be immediately dissolved into rainbow pudding and skittles, disregarding the fact that, in the whole history of mankind, technical innovation has never ceased to exist. You could melt down every single gun on the face of the planet today, and tomorrow guns would be manufactured. You can't stop the machine of human ingenuity.

An even more interesting question would be, would all the gun rights advocates come out an march in defense of the black 18 y/o kid if he was arrested for the same reason??

He WAS 18 once, but he's a big music mogel now, so they would be chasing him down for his autograph...................................oh,.....maybe we're not talking about the same guy I'm thinkin of.

John and Curtis - BEST COMMENTS OF THE DAY!!! Thank you.

More like a well armed mob that would wet their britches if somebody opened up on them.

It appears that only you would be that stupid.

Fed up, stupid, and an owner of many guns.......

Good grief Lauren, how can you find a bunch of extremist zealots running around on the street with guns comforting? Get a grip. This is one of the most frightening pictures since Manson was out. I will take my chances with a police force that is trained at least.

Yeah, that guy with the suit and tie on looks real menacing, tex! /sarc

Sorry, WMG, I should have pointed out that there are serial killers, paranoid schizophrenics, and thieves running around in suits and ties, maybe in your home town.

BTW, please point out the guy with the tie in the picture with tits and murder weapons. All I see in the picture is a bunch of maniacs with guns strapped on their paranoid bodies.

Why is it that folks like you are so paranoid of a 20 year old from Mexico trying to feed his family and cannot see the danger in the faces of these NRA zombies?

Why is it that folks like you are so paranoid of a 20 year old from Mexico trying to feed his family and cannot see the danger in the faces of these NRA zombies?

Dude, I live in New Mexico. I meet Mexican nationals every day-- I have no fear of them. You are projecting your fear unto me and twisting the source of that fear to suit your agenda. I mean, Mexicans? Really?

BTW, please point out the guy with the tie in the picture.

Second photo, center frame. Holstered pistol on right hip.

I should have pointed out that there are serial killers, paranoid schizophrenics, and thieves running around in suits and ties, maybe in your home town.

Sure. Mafia hit men routinely dress pretty sharp, at least in the movies. The only Mafioso I knew in real life wore shorts and sports shirts or t-shirts most of the time, though. I'm just pointing out that you see firearms and immediately think these people are psychopathic "gun nuts" or "NRA zombies" (whatever that means), when most of these guys are probably ex-military or hunters that have been shooting guns since they were 10. In the photos, most of those guys look like pretty ordinary citizens, other than the fact they're armed. I mean, in the first photo we have 6 guys visibly wearing polos (business casuals), 2 in button up shirts, 2 in t-shirts and 1 gal in a pretty normal summer top. Remove the firearms from the photo and you have any main-street in America. These are your car salesmen, front desk clerks, managers and city planners.

Maybe it's because I live in NM, a gold-star open-carry state, and I see and handle firearms pretty regularly, but nothing about the photos had me trembling in my boots. (And no, I am not a member of the NRA-- as much as you might like to distill the matter of gun ownership into a battle between "NRA zombies" and utopian heirophants of liberal idealism, the truth will not so easily fit that simplistic duality. I know many self-identified liberals that own firearms-- we're a blue state, from the last election (though our governor is republican)-- but most people in NM don't have any problem with firearms. Maybe it's a regional thing? In any case, don't project your fear of firearms unto me under the guise of some sort of Xenophobic hysteria. You'll find that I don't fit that mold, no matter how much you might like to try and cram me into it.

and if you pissed that person off what might he do? Perhaps shoot your head off and then claim self defense.

Well said. I believe the gun nuts call that "standing your ground".

@laurie

I live in NM-- a gold star open carry state. I see people with guns on their hips occasionally. Not a one of 'em ever turned loose on the public like a rabid animal. That scenario is a by-product of your own fears. Hell, I've open-carried a few times, and I've never been one to control much of anything but my temper. Aggressive? Hell, I've never even been in a fight before. Hope I'll never need to be in one either. But if I am? Well, I'm smart enough to know that this close to the border, with as many gangs as bang around Albuquerque, I'd be better off armed than not.

You ever read Cormac McCarthy? In the book "No Country for Old Men" (also a movie of the same name), he writes:

You aint supposed to carry a gun in a public place. Did you not know that? In particular a gun such as that.
Let me ask you something.
Go ahead.
When the shootin starts would you rather be armed or be legal?

That's as good advice as I've ever heard on it, I reckon. Up to you to decide the merits. But the facts are plain: bad people have guns. There isn't any amount of hand-wringing and complaining that will ever change that fact. If history is any judge, anyway.