Community | August 23, 2009 | 68 comments

What it Means to Wear a Gun in Public

Image
wayseeker
By David Sirota

Bringing a weapon to a rally isn't about exercising your own rights -- it's about threatening other people's rights.

Those of us living in the Rocky Mountains are steeped in America's famous gun culture -- and we therefore know well the binary debates surrounding the Second Amendment. Firearm enthusiasts -- the vast majority of whom use weapons responsibly -- believe the Constitution protects their right to bear arms. Gun control advocates counter that the Constitution doesn't give anyone the inalienable right to wield automatic weapons that can kill scores of people in seconds.

This is the stultified freedom-versus-safety quarrel that seemed to forever define gun politics -- that is, until anti-government activists started bringing firearms to public political meetings.

In early August, a protester came to a raucous Tennessee congressional forum packing heat. Days later, President Obama's healthcare event in New Hampshire was marred by a protester posing for cameras with a pistol and sign reading, "It is time to water the tree of liberty" -- a reference to a Thomas Jefferson quote promising violence. And this past week, 12 armed men -- including one with an assault rifle -- not only showed off their firearms at Obama's Arizona speech, but broadcast a YouTube video threatening to "forcefully resist people imposing their will on us through the strength of the majority."

These and other similar examples are accurately summarized with the same language federal law employs to describe domestic terrorism. Generating maximum media attention, the weapons-brandishing displays are "intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population." Yes, the gun has been transformed from a sport and self-defense device into a tool of mass bullying. Like the noose in the Jim Crow South, its symbolic message is clear: If you dare engage in the democratic process, you risk bodily harm.
rs our democratic ideals by declaring that politics may be war, but in America it is "war without bloodshed" -- and without the threat of bloodshed.

With that implicit threat, the incessant arguments about gun ownership have been supplanted by a more significant debate over which should take precedence: The Constitution's First or Second Amendment?

The First Amendment ethos guarantees people -- whatever their politics -- a fundamental right to participate in their democracy without concern for physical retribution. It is the primary amendment because America was first and foremost created not as a gun-owners' haven, but as a place to shelter citizens from oppression.

Over two centuries, we have taken this tradition seriously, enacting statutes reinforcing freedoms of speech, creating the secret ballot, and outlawing harassment at Election-Day polling stations. This is why, whether tracing roots to Colonial England, Nazi Germany or any other tyranny, so many Americans say they came here specifically looking for protection from political persecution.

While the First Amendment doesn't ensure credibility or significance, it is supposed to guarantee freedom from fear -- a freedom that is now under siege. Citing the Second Amendment and the increasingly maniacal rhetoric of conservative media firebrands, a small handful of violence-threatening protesters aims to make the rest of us -- whether pro- or anti-health-reform -- afraid to speak out.

And so we face a choice that has nothing to do with healthcare, gun ownership or any other hot-button issue that protesters of both parties are fighting over. It is a choice about democracy itself.

One option is willful ignorance: We can pretend the ferment is unimportant, continue allowing the intimidation and ultimately usher in a dark future where "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

Better, though, is simply making public political events firearm-free zones, just like schools and stadiums.
  1. groups:
    Community,   Opinion
  2. tags:
    Guns,  The Constitution,  2nd Amendment Rights,  1st Amendment Rights,  2 more
  3. recommended by:
    Vierotchka
  4.     
    |

68 comments // What it Means to Wear a Gun in Public

  • MilchMann
    • 0
      MilchMann  

    • The real problem with this whole debate is that both sides are really right. There is no clear cut logical distinction between the two... so unfortunately (from my stand point at least) we are going to have to deal with it until the legislative or judicial branch does something... and they are not guaranteed to be against or for it either... people have found a way to violate and exercise a constitutional right at the same time... I can not think of one single instance where this has happened before, this is actually quite unique... and I hope some how we end up with a supreme court ruling on it so that it will definitive... one way or the other.

    • 3 years ago
  • remanns
  • wayseeker
    • 0
      wayseeker  

    • We don't have to shoot each other in public in this country. We have trained police to protect us from dangerous people. But the police can't do their job with out laws against this type of idiot toting a gun in public.

    • 3 years ago
  • remanns
    • 0
      remanns  

    • Yeah,....kind of keen on Jefferson-----

      Jefferson repealed many federal taxes, and sought to rely mainly on customs revenue. He pardoned people who had been imprisoned under the Alien and Sedition Acts, passed in John Adams' term, which Jefferson believed to be unconstitutional. He repealed the Judiciary Act of 1801 and removed many of Adams' "midnight judges" from office, which led to the Supreme Court deciding the important case of Marbury v. Madison. He began and won the First Barbary War (1801–1805), America's first significant overseas war, and established the United States Military Academy at West Point in 1802.
      In 1803, despite his misgivings about the constitutionality of Congress' power to buy land, Jefferson purchased Louisiana from France, doubling the size of the United States. The land thus acquired amounts to 23 percent of the United States today.

    • 3 years ago
  • remanns
    • 0
      remanns  

    • "The fact of the matter is this: The sight of a civilian holding a huge weapon like this in public (at an event that has NOTHING TO DO WITH GUNS, mind you!) is purely meant for the purposes of fear mongering and intimidation".----Found_Avenue

      but No,...not.

      It means; "I will, at the price of my own life, even knowing it forfeit, fight, if need be". And I,...for one, ....am OK with that citizen. (I just might have to shoot him).

    • 3 years ago
  • Found_Avenue
  • remanns
    • 0
      remanns  

    • "Thomas Jefferson was considered a radical nut job in his time... so it only goes to say that he only appeals to them in this day as well".---fair enough. Not an artist worth his salt EVER drew breath who wouldn't see the hit coming and take it.---- O----and "Move ON'!

    • 3 years ago
  • mckcall
    • 0
      mckcall  

    • This is pathetic, pathetic, patheitc! Firstly, handguns were created to kill humans, not deer or any other wild animal, so any moron that brings a gun to a civilized meeting is instantly saying that he has no problem with killing human beings. Right, this is a bit of a f**king problem.

      People shouldn't have to put up with this crap, if these guys wanna water a tree, let's do it with their fluids, not ours!!!!!!!!!!!!! That should keep everyone happy...me included ;-)

    • 3 years ago
  • Found_Avenue
  • Found_Avenue
    • 0
      Found_Avenue  

    • STOP!

      Can everyone PLEASE acknowledge that there is a difference between...

      A) discreetly carrying a handgun in a state where it is legal to do so, for self defense reasons

      and

      B) brandishing an enormous assault rifle, slung over your shoulder, at a public protest about HEALTHCARE REFORM (which has nothing to do with gun control!) just to "Make A Point" to your nearby Commander In Chief about how unhappy you are with the way things are going...

      Scenario A can be justified because you are carrying a personal weapon for your own safety and piece of mind...

      Scenario B promotes the OPPOSITE of safety - it will evoke fear and panic in some, and a belligerent rebel yell in others. Either way, it has nothing to do with the ultimate goal of SOLVING THIS HEALTHCARE PROBLEM.

      "But I have the right, in my state, to carry a gun..."

      Ok. Try walking into your local library with an assault weapon slung across your back... just to have it on display and let people know you can't be pushed around. Try doing that when you pick your kid up from school. Hey, bring your assault rifle to church on sunday, just for kicks! Why not? Because it's dangerous, and you'll look ridiculous. Almost as ridiculous as if you had brought a gun to a protest about healthcare reform! And you won't be treated with diplomacy and kid gloves like at a protest... in most scenarios, if you take your handy dandy assault rifle out for a day on the town, you WILL get arrested for being a menace.

      The fact of the matter is this: The sight of a civilian holding a huge weapon like this in public (at an event that has NOTHING TO DO WITH GUNS, mind you!) is purely meant for the purposes of fear mongering and intimidation.

      I have chatted with many sane right wing folks about this, many of whom are proud gun owners (some were even members of the NRA) and they all think that an assault rifle at a civil political protest (that is NOT related to gun issues) is emphatically NOT OK. It's NOT simply "exercising a right to bear arms..." It's a stunt intended to instill fear and panic, and create problems, not solutions.

      If I could, I would assign a written essay to each person who totes an assault rifle to a healthcare rally... "What do YOU think should be done to fix the healthcare system in America?" Put down your gun, and actually THINK about your goal before protesting at a healthcare reform rally... If your goal is to terrorize your community and scare little children, then by all means, bring an assault weapon bigger than your arm, and proudly display it all day to anyone who will come near you. But be warned: if your goal is to MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD regarding a SOLUTION to the healthcare crisis, then don't bring a gun, because your gun speaks WAY louder than your voice does, and all it says is this: "I'm not intelligent enough to voice a coherent opinion about healthcare, so I'll distract you with the ridiculous and violent image of an assault weapon in the middle of an otherwise peaceful community."

    • 3 years ago
  • cztheday
    • 0
      cztheday  

    • I assume somebody has already posted this because it is so well known, but the reason men wear guns in public is quite simply to compensate for their lack of a dick. A man with a confident swing/sway (depends on the activityd has no need nor desire for a gun. A gun would simply interfere with his mojo. You can tell men who have EXCEPTIONALLY small penises from the way their hands constantly touch or at least hover around the handgun...

      Just think, with a little medication and the free distribution of those little vacuum tube thingies one sees in the classified ads in the back of the better men's magazines we could practically end handgun violence in this country...

      I have a dream...

    • 3 years ago
  • remanns
    • 0
      remanns  
    • cztheday:

      I respect you a great deal,...actually I think its fair to say I outright like you,... but THAT [your last point] is simplistic, (but funny).. Someone MIGHT wear a gun to say--- "I mean it; even if this IS,...BUT A GESTURE,.....I mean it". ( These folks ARE NOT IDIOTS; they know that guns THEY "can not see"[but REAL none-the-less] are trained upon them),

      uhm............sorry_-"'?))){[ /? 2 much of THAT perhaps

    • 3 years ago
  • Paratus
    • 0
      Paratus  

    • The author is wrong. It is about exercising a civil right not about threatening anyone. It is about freedom, something liberals know nothing about.
      Get over it. More whining and handwringing by the wing nut left.

    • 3 years ago
  • bluestranger
  • J_Jammer
    • 0
      J_Jammer [removed]  

    • Why wasn't this article written during the last 8 years of the previous President?

      I don't see a problem (legally) with carrying a gun in a rally. I see a problem with going HELLO I have a gun and I know how to use it.

    • 3 years ago
  • carmalite
    • 0
      carmalite  

    • People were arrested at a Bush rally for having an anti-bush T shirt.LOL They were released shortly but still!
      So the Republicans are threatened by fabric!!!!!But think its fine to carry an assult weapon to a presidential rally.

      All the gun carriers dilute the ability of the Secret Service to do its job and make that job very hard. Also some freak RW crazy could grab the other guys gun and shoot up the whole crowd.

      This was a RW ploy to threaten the president and to prevent sane discourse on the health care debate.

    • 3 years ago
  • J_Jammer
  • MilchMann
    • 0
      MilchMann  
    • carmalite:

      Secret Service that arrested the anti Bush guys

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20310306/

      From the article... found this part interesting

      " The ACLU said in a statement that a presidential advance manual makes it clear that the government tries to exclude dissenters from the president’s appearances. “As a last resort,” the manual says, “security should remove the demonstrators from the event.”The ACLU said in a statement that a presidential advance manual makes it clear that the government tries to exclude dissenters from the president’s appearances. “As a last resort,” the manual says, “security should remove the demonstrators from the event.” "

    • 3 years ago
  • J_Jammer
    • 0
      J_Jammer [removed]  
    • carmalite:

      makes it clear? I don't trust the ACLU's opinion on what is and isn't clear. They are not trustworthy. They are driven by things that normal people are not driven by.

      Obama has yet to start his Presidency---in his speeches he's already showed how tired he is on being disagreed with. What makes you think he won't go down the same road?

      All this speak about guns that were not even close to him (though it was still wrong) is strong evidence, as well as people who like him have commented, that he'll be doing the exact same thing.

      Hope to see the ACLU do the same thing against a President they probably like...a lot.

    • 3 years ago
  • Conniepae
    • 0
      Conniepae  

    • We don't have to bring guns to stop a few radicals from trying to take our country! We have many branches of government! You guys got a few crazies, we have prisons to lock you up if you cross the line. What you need to know is, we do have lines! You can't take our country because we elected someone who is not a republican! We are free to choose and we did! Suck it up! Barack Obama is President! If you do not like our President, you are free to leave, but you can't take it by force! We have an army! Bring it on!

    • 3 years ago
  • bluestranger
    • 0
      bluestranger  

    • The simplest solution is suggested in the article. No guns at political events. Now we have to strictly define what constitutes a political event.

    • 3 years ago
  • wayseeker
  • GodsnLiberals
  • wayseeker
    • 0
      wayseeker  
    • wayseeker:

      No I haven't and I don't want to and that's why we need laws to prohibit guns near some places like public gatherings. It is the job of the police who are trained to enforce those laws and not another angry citizen.

    • 3 years ago
  • Found_Avenue
  • DeliaTheArtist
    • 0
      DeliaTheArtist  

    • "HONESTLY people..at the next rally..BRING YOUR OWN GUNS..fucking meet and play thier game"

      A few words of wisdom for you, G&L...

      "Overcome anger by love, overcome evil by good, overcome the miser by giving, overcome the liar by truth."

    • 3 years ago
  • GodsnLiberals
    • 0
      GodsnLiberals  
    • DeliaTheArtist:

      yeah okay...i dont think you are angry..i think you are scared..BIG DIFFERENCE..

      again..if you are not willing to BLEED for what you believe in..then you will FUCKING loose it..and the 'taker' is standing there with a gun...

      **please note that about this time you will hide behind law enforcement that you once called fascist and racist**

      BRING A BIGGER GUN..trust me on this. remington 870..cheap..easy to handle..good at riots

    • 3 years ago
  • DeliaTheArtist
  • wayseeker
    • 0
      wayseeker  

    • Bringing your own gun escalates the problem. Law and order defuses the problem. It has to do with remaining a civilized society.

    • 3 years ago
  • unclecharlie
    • 0
      unclecharlie  
    • wayseeker:

      Well, as one chief of police stated, he was proud of one homeowner who used his gun on someone breaking into his home, and threatened his family. The cop said if he (the homeowner) hadn't used his gun, the cops would have arrived at the scene, with nothing to do except take crime scene photos of the homeowner's dead body sprawled out on the floor, killed by the robber.

    • 3 years ago
  • MilchMann
  • remanns
  • MilchMann
    • 0
      MilchMann  

    • An even more recent example of tyranny, threats, and there effects... the Taliban and cutting off peoples fingers for going to the polls. Jim Crow is a good example, and I have used it myself, but the fact that these people toting around guns in public are the same ones that have the "united we stand" bumper stickers, and are using the same tactics of oppression that their supposed enemies use... it just blows my mind away.

      How is threatening violence if your opinion is not the one excepted in any way productive to a free society?

      It may be the most blatant hypocritical stance I have ever heard proclaimed... ever... through out the history of time... I mean this rivals the Weather Underground and blowing people up to stop a war... just pure idiocy...

      I am dumbfounded.

    • 3 years ago
  • remanns
  • GodsnLiberals
  • remanns
    • 0
      remanns  

    • "While the First Amendment doesn't ensure credibility or significance, it is supposed to guarantee freedom from fear --" UHM,....except,...no, that is not its intended purpose. It is meant to "empower" the citizens and encourage them to
      exercise their individual natures and initiative, NOT "remove fear" from their lives and make them "comfortable ". Thats "freedom" not "comfort". This country was envisioned and founded by people WITH balls FOR people with balls.
      As A NOTE, I sure as hell wouldn't bring a gun FIRST, but I damn well would both wear my Chavez t-shirt and bring my sidearm after "the other team" introduced them

    • 3 years ago
  • GodsnLiberals
    • 0
      GodsnLiberals  

    • HONESTLY people..at the next rally..BRING YOUR OWN GUNS..fucking meet and play thier game..YOU HAVE THAT RIGHT..they bring thier guns..BRING YOUR GUN..

      that is how this country was freed from tyranny WITH A GUN..if you think they are tyrants..then deal with it..

      or are you guys hoping you can stop a bullet with a whine..

      stop smoking weed ..it makes you guys weak minded and too pussified

    • 3 years ago
  • Mayeffie
    • 0
      Mayeffie  

    • In response to the Thomas Jefferson quote, there was an article in the Chicago Tribune today written by a noted journalist that stated that quote was touted by Timothy McVeigh!

    • 3 years ago
  • locutus
  • unclecharlie
  • MilchMann
  • FallenMorgan
    • 0
      FallenMorgan  

    • The phrase on the man's sign comes from Thomas Jefferson, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." That's a bit scary.

    • 3 years ago
  • GodsnLiberals
  • unclecharlie
    • 0
      unclecharlie  
    • FallenMorgan:

      i.e., Thomas Jefferson was scary? He was one of our founding fathers, for cryin' out loud! It says, that if people don't rise up to arms against tyranny, that the people will be enslaved. If you love your freedom, sometimes a call to arms in a neccesity. We'll just have to see how much Obama can bend the bough before it breaks.

    • 3 years ago
  • MilchMann
  • J_Jammer
  • MilchMann
    • 0
      MilchMann  
    • FallenMorgan:

      They were called the Federalists... the people who supported Jefferson were called Jeffersonians. The Federalists were in the majority, that is why we have the bill of rights... the Federalists would not pass the constitution with some of those things in it, so they were taken out.

    • 3 years ago
  • J_Jammer
  • MilchMann
  • DeliaTheArtist
    • 0
      DeliaTheArtist  

    • Forgive my bleeding heart liberal attitude for 5 seconds, but it seems to me that if it were a lot of black people, or god forbid middle eastern looking people, toting guns into political meetings they would be labeled terrorists and dragged away by the police. But when white people do it, they want to be made out as patriots. Correct me if I'm wrong here, because I don't know that the majority of them are white- are they?

    • 3 years ago
  • Mayeffie
  • Mayeffie
  • StandaboveUnderstand
  • GodsnLiberals
    • 0
      GodsnLiberals  
    • DeliaTheArtist:

      it means YOU can arm yourself against these people whom you feel threatened..

      why dont you try to see what would happen..if black people go to a rally and have a gun...TRY IT..jesus you have that right..thee people are willing to confront your ass because they feel they are threatened by your liberal ideology..what about you?? how far would you go to defend what you believe in..***the faith and resolve on oneself comes in play again here**

      that is the beauty of this called right..you dont like him walking around with a gun..then walk around WITH A BIGGER FUCKING GUN..

      get it yet??

    • 3 years ago
  • Conniepae
    • 0
      Conniepae  
    • DeliaTheArtist:

      GodsnLiberal is a misguided person! We have bigger guns, they are called law enforcement! We pay for our guns! What we need is laws, which will protect us from radicals who think their guns are bigger than ours (law enforcement).

      If we need laws to be able to use our guns (law enforcement), then it's time for Congress to act. No guns allowed at political events (period). Only our paid guns (law enforcement) to keep the peace! People should be able to attend political rallies without fear of violence breaking out. We should not be forced to believe people packing guns in public are safe enough to participate in the political process! All it would take is one crazy to start a gun battle when people come armed for battle.

    • 3 years ago
  • div
    • 0
      div  
    • DeliaTheArtist:

      Gods, you missed the ENTIRE point that delia made. If a minority person walked in with a gun, how many guns would be pointed at him or her? But if a white person walks in with a gun, they're upholding their rights, and the general public will fight for his/her right to carry that weapon.

      A bigger gun does nothing if the authorities will haul your ass off when they see you with it.

    • 3 years ago
  • J_Jammer
    • 0
      J_Jammer [removed]  
    • DeliaTheArtist:

      I don't know...how many?

      There are minorities that own guns in Texas and they go places without having guns pointed at them.

      Is she stating that if a minority were at a protest against Obama (for whatever reason) that Obama's people would pull them out because they were not white with guns?

      Someone has called these "white" people terrorist.

      name calling is just lame to begin with...well that is if one doesn't like it and yet does it themselves.

    • 3 years ago
  • DeliaTheArtist
    • 0
      DeliaTheArtist  
    • DeliaTheArtist:

      I'm not just talking about minorities HAVING guns. I'm talking about what the response would be like if non-white people attempted what these white people are doing- bringing guns to a political arena and calling it patriotism. Maybe I'm jaded but I just don't think the response would be the same!

      "Is she stating that if a minority were at a protest against Obama (for whatever reason) that Obama's people would pull them out because they were not white with guns?"

      No, this isn't about Obama, it's about other American's reactions.

    • 3 years ago
  • J_Jammer
    • 0
      J_Jammer [removed]  
    • DeliaTheArtist:

      It's about Obama. Would you have cared if said people were doing this at a Bush protest?

      Same question you're proposing...except about one man instead of an entire minority.

      The problem with the question that is posed by you is that you're asking for speculation and playing on people's knowledge of prejudicial information....not on what would actually transpire. Unless you have a story that shows that that would happen one would have to assume that they wouldn't be treated any differently.

    • 3 years ago
  • DeliaTheArtist
    • 0
      DeliaTheArtist  
    • DeliaTheArtist:

      "It's about Obama. Would you have cared if said people were doing this at a Bush protest?" Yes I would. I don't think you need to show off your gun at a political meeting or protest. I think it sends the wrong message.

      A story? C'mon you must have some sense of history. For hundreds of years minority groups in America have been treated differently than white people- this is why my assumption is the exact opposite of yours. As I said, it may be jaded, but I think a group of middle eastern people, black people, or really any minority packing guns would be treated very differently than this group of white people has been. The evidence for such is hundreds of years of institutionalized and and societal discrimination against minority groups.

    • 3 years ago
  • J_Jammer
    • 0
      J_Jammer [removed]  
    • DeliaTheArtist:

      Do you know why that wouldn't happen? The ACLU? And why are they not standing up for the rights of those that have those guns? Because they are not minorities.

      And that is why that group is a waste of space.

      Just like PeTA.

      I am a minority, but I'm not going to sit here and play the victim card for all just because it will prove that the white man is getting away with something. That is NOT proof of whether it is right or wrong.

      using this example does not show that what you're stating is wrong for what they did. It's just an attempt to sound more profound that it's not.

      It is rather simple, they shouldn't have waved them around. End of story.

      Bringing them isn't against the law nor does it indicate anything other than that's what they often do. Just like you wear a belt or shoes or a shirt...they wear their gun. Woopty do. If they happen to misues then there's a problem.

      And yes if they had a misuse of the gun it might cause death, but that's the way the law works. If one thinks the law is stupid you'll have to fight it and deal with yet another stupid group the NRA.

      Let me just add the NAACP is stupid.

      BET is stupid.

      Any group that alienates itself from other people and doesn't do good for society as a whole (no matter the color) are a total and irreversible waste of space.

    • 3 years ago
  • boywhocould
    • 0
      boywhocould  

    • author states (1st amendment speaks not on the credibility of free speech), That is in play more then anything. We allow anyone to slander what they're apposed of which is in this citizens opinion, counter productive. Slander has nothing to do with debate and everything to do with what America is supposedly apposed to; (oppression of truth). We the people have chosen to search for truth in a democratic system. Found by consensus i.e "the majority". further more as an American I feel we should be an example to the world of a free people "United". . . not divided as our "rights" seem to be making us of late. (otherwise we are not the United States) By bringing a gun to an event as these people are doing they are not exercising their rights, they instead are brandishing a symbol of aggression to make their side seem more important (oppression tactic we see often in the east) and the media eats it up because of ratings. This is terrorism people!! perpetrated by those who might fear their message needs a boost that only a lethal weapon can extend. It is liken to a monarch brandishing many well trained and well armed solders to put down the peasants rebellion. . . and that is VERY un-American

    • 3 years ago
  • Ihatethemall
  • ProjectBat
    • 0
      ProjectBat  

    • To paint these people as domestic terrorists is to make them seem un-American. I think we all need to recognize that this isn't rooted inherently in the people, but rather the government. Since the left-wing politicians are currently in control, the right wingers are unamerican. Just as back when the right-wing Bush was in power, anti war and anti PATROIT act people were considered unamerican. It's all about the government infringing on our rights (and indeed we do have a right to bear arms) and the adverse reactions to them. I wish more people would support all the rights of the citizens, not just the ones we ourselves would use.

    • 3 years ago
  • carmalite
    • 0
      carmalite  
    • ProjectBat:

      You also have the right to wear your swimsuit to church, and to do lots of other things that sane normal people don't do.
      If we want to keep our right to have guns, we should exorcise that right responsibly. No one except law enforcement should have a weapon at a Presidential rally or any other public officials rally.

      This was intimidation and a threat against the president.

    • 3 years ago
  • wayseeker
    • 0
      wayseeker  

    • Do you think the author of this article is correct in his assertions concerning the issue of rights claimed by those who would carry a gun in public and the right of the general public to exercise gun control?

    • 3 years ago
  • Found_Avenue
    • 0
      Found_Avenue  
    • wayseeker:

      The answer can be summed up thusly:

      There are only two types of people in this world. Those who SOLVE problems, and those who CREATE them.

      So every day, each of us must work to be a problem SOLVER.... and brandishing a gun in a public place (even if it's legal) is not designed to solve ANYTHING.

    • 3 years ago
  • J_Jammer

top videos