Open Carry Firearms

Somewhere over there:

 

One of the best movies ever made!

Look at all of the tension open carry caused throughout the movie, haha.

 

You're misunderstanding the wording of the 2nd Amendment. The phrase, "well regulated" does not refer to the regulation of firearms, it refers to the militia itself, meaning that the militia should be in good functioning order. See here: http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

It constantly amazes me that people labor under the illusion that the writers of the Bill of Rights would take the time and effort to ensure that these rights were specifically laid out...but at the same time, they were fine with future dimwits carving these rights up as they saw fit. If you read any of the writings of the Founders, you will realize that they believed in the absolute right to keep and bear arms, for all reasons, such as for National Defense, for self defense, as a final deterrent against tyranny, as well as an excellent form of exercise, both mental and physical.

Additionally, most of you seem ignorant of what precisely is an "assault rifle". An AR-15 is NOT an assault rifle. A pump-action or semi-automatic shotgun is NOT an assault rifle (nor is it an "assault weapon"). A pump-action, bolt-action, or semi-automatic rifle is NOT an assault rifle. An assault rifle is properly defined as a rifle which is capable of select-fire, or fully-automatic fire. That means that with a single pull of the trigger, more than one round will be discharged. For the record, these types of firearms have been HEAVILY regulated since 1936, before which time fully-automatic firearms were sold everywhere, even through the mail, with no real problems. The law was established , ostensibly, due to the use of such firearms by gangsters & bootleggers, etc...ignoring the fact that most of those weapons were actually stolen from police, and the military, also ignoring the fact that Prohibition had ended 3 years earlier, effectively ending the "gangster problem".

And before someone says, "But the Founding Fathers never envisioned AR-15s, and other awful 'assault weapons', so the 2nd Amendment should only apply to muskets!"...I say, "bull-feathers!" Many (most, if not ALL) of the Founding Fathers were exceptionally intelligent, well-read and well-educated, and several were even inventors. Considering that tanks, automatic weapons, and the like, had been envisioned and designed, and some having been built...I find it unlikely that they did not foresee the existence of semi-automatic and fully-automatic weapons, at some point in the future. Additionally, if we really believe that our rights exist only insofar as the technology of the 18th century would allow, then say goodbye to your freedom of speech as it applies to computers, internet, phone calls, or any sort of "modern" communication device.

While I believe in the right of all law-abiding people to carry a firearm for their own defense...I'm afraid your assessment seems dead-on. The OP and his group seem as though they may "need" the attention, and only feel powerful by having to openly display their firearms. Again, there are times when open-carry may be completely legitimate, but I don't believe any cause is being served by the OP and his crew. I carry a firearm, or two (Glock 31 or 32, occasionally a Glock 19 or 20, as well as a S&W M.642 at times) every time I leave my home (unless it is unlawful to do so at my destination...ball game, government office, etc.), but no one around me ever has the slightest knowledge that I'm carrying, and that's the way I like it!

 

enjoying some smash burger

 

Put in my hours as a crosswalk guide for school children today. School violence has gone down since the aid of the NRA

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lm8cDP6ddCg

 

Hotwater

 

lol.... no, a well regulated militia does not mean that you're totally cool with whatever you want to do with guns - it means congress can regulate the militia, and yes, the guns, any goddamn way they want. They could easily, under the wording of the second amendment, ban all guns not in the possession of a state-approved militia member, or tell you exactly what kind you can have and when.

Regulated means you do what you're told.

 

hey watch out everybody, this guys a billy badass!!!

 

ahhhh fuck yeaaaaaaaaa

 

Well...you know...I'm badass enough to go out for a burrito without having to carry a weapon. I guess that's something.

 

^
Maybe you're just scared to take it with you!

 

I'm wondering if you even read the provided link?

No, "regulated" does not mean, "you do what you're told". No where do I see that as a possible definition for "regulated".

Once again, as I'd mentioned before...I'm struck by the assertion that the framers of the Constitution would write the 2nd Amendment, because they wanted to make sure that the FedGov had the power to deny the citizens access to arms. Sure, the other 9 rights laid out in the Bill of Rights are there to expressly state those rights which neither man nor government may deny to other men...but the 2nd Amendment, and it alone, is actually describing a right that you DON'T have! Sure...that makes sense! Could someone please explain to me the logic, whereby this singular amendment, the 2nd, is the only "right" which the framers intended to NOT be an individual right?

And..before someone trots out that tired old saw that rights may be selectively limited, such as, "the freedom of speech is not absolute...after all, you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater!" That is false, False, FALSE! In fact, you DO have the right (if not the actual responsibility) to yell "fire" in a crowded theater...when there truly is a fire! I've seen people equate this as "proof" that the Gov may limit 2nd Amendment rights, but it's not. If the Gov limited 1st Amendment rights in the same manner as they do the 2nd...all patrons in theaters would be muzzled, so as to prevent them from yelling "fire". You see, you'd be assuming that they might engage in such dangerous activity, simply because they "could". This is akin to banning the possession of certain types of firearms, or firearms in general, from citizens based on what they "could" do. No need to separate the guilty from the innocent, the criminal from the law-abiding, just paint everyone with the same broad brush. After all, it's all in the name of "safety", right? But, just as patrons would be less-safe when muzzled, because no one could warn of a fire if/when one occurs, our society is less-safe, because gun owners are constantly "muzzled" by ridiculous laws. We have passed laws that prevent us from owning or carrying certain firearms, purely because some folks have and/or may at some point in the future commit a crime with them. So, the next time you find yourself in a theater, or any public venue, think of the absurdity of muzzling everyone, to prevent some potential unlawful activity that some small minority might commit, and that's how law-abiding gun owners feel every day. We are treated as criminals.

And as to the definition of an "assault weapon"...just because some half-baked moron of a politician thinks that a single-shot shotgun is an assault weapon, does not make it fact. When some jerk from California learns that "X" number of people a year are killed by being struck in the head with a rock, or pushed from a tall building, then you can bet that same jerk with want to redefine "assault weapon" to legally include rocks and tall buildings. And, in CA...he'll probably find enough morons to agree with him. A majority of morons does not define the truth.

So many people have such a deep-seated fear, hatred, and/or dislike of firearms, that they can't separate their emotions from fact and logic. They refuse to attempt to educate themselves, because they don't care to deal with unpleasant realities. There are plenty of things which I dislike and/or just plain don't agree with...but I don't feel the need to try to legislate those things away, just so I can "feel" good.

There seems to be no more need for me to participate in this topic. For a "hip" forum...there certainly seems to be an awful lot of close-minded folks here!

 

after a good burrito, my butthole turns into a weapon anyway.

 

But do you openly 'carry' it? (not that I imagine it to be that saggy)

 

it's usually concealed, but there was that one time i blew a hole in my pants...

 

Nah. I don't need to carry a weapon. I am the weapon and a much more versatile, effective and intelligent weapon than most people carrying a gun. Plus, everything around you is a potential weapon so carrying a gun is unnecessary weight to me and possibly a factor in escalating situations when someone who has a gun thinks he/she is a badass and should talk a bunch of shit when they probably don't have the balls to use the gun to begin with. (I would guess most gun owners aren't that shit-talking person who says "Come say that to my face")

And before anyone chimes in about having the balls to shoot someone....spare us the bullshit unless you've actually done it. You might think you would use the gun you're carrying around like it's a fucking parade but actually shooting someone is something none of us can say we could/would do for sure unless we're in that exact moment.