Quote:
Originally Posted by flip
I'm sorry but you'll have to clarify.
So you support the fact that the 2nd amendment was created to support militias to protect themselves from government oppression and yet you say he is exercising his right by carrying an automatic weapon in public. How does that make any sense. You support the idea that the 2nd amendment DOES NOT mean the right to bear arms 24/7 and agree that it was created to keep the government honest or face revolt (far from a worry now in the US) but for some reason that guy is exercising his right? What right is that exactly? You just agreed that the so called "right" you support is not the right that is protected in the 2nd amendment. So I ask, What right exactly was this guy exercising?
So was he on his way to a militia meeting? I'm pretty sure he was at a presidential speech (if I've been following this thread correctly).
What part of that is exercising his rights? Do you really think he was sending a message to the corrupt tyrannical government?
|
Thats why I dont get all "warm and fuzzy" about it. I agree with you, he IS exercising his right, however, his right has been so misconstrued as to what the 2nd amendment means that it goes beyond what it was created for in the first place.
Yes, this guy
by law has a right to carry that firearm in public. Is it needed or warrented? Of course not.