Man, what an awesome phrase!
"Added George: “Being legal does not mean it is a wise thing to do. Responsible firearms owners would not and don’t do this.”
No charges were filed in Wednesday’s public display of firearms."
Legal? Yes.
Stupid? Hell Yes.
Golly. Hard to argue with that. Literally.
Thanks for the answer. However the cite you posted says…
So I based my response on that. In revisiting the cite though I see further down that the new law appears to ban any open display, so I suppose we’ll wind up with some court having to tell the state that they can’t make it illegal to carry a gun into or out of a gun shop.
And for the record I agree that people carrying rifles and shotguns in public to protest gun laws is stupid.
Yeah, we know what the cite says, and anyone with an ounce of common sense read that “can no longer carry rifles and shotguns in public to protest gun control laws” quote and immediately recognized that they should check the facts to see whether the law specifically prohibited carrying guns for reasons of protest (because that seems extremely unlikely) or whether they were just making a statement about an effect of the prohibition. Jumping to the former conclusion is a sign of not being too bright, so there’s your cite.
Then why are you wasting time calling the police? Armed or not, if you look out the window and see guns heading towards your supposedly beloved children, are you just going to cravenly sit in your house/car and hope someone else saves them? You know damn well the police aren’t going to get there in time.
Yes, I agree, they should have been run over by a mother in her Volvo. Ironically, she needs a license and training to operate a car and the car has to have a lock and be registered.
(Serious question - cars are required by law to have locks?)
Anyway, that isn’t what I was suggesting. If it had been me, I’d have been out the door to escort my kids home while keeping an eye on the idiots and carrying my own gun. Down, with the muzzle pointing at the ground, but it would be there and I’d be glaring.
A good man with a gun is a match to a posse of a-holes with guns. Start training. 
Oh, so it’s your opinion that a report stating very specifically that under a new law people may not “carry rifles or shotguns in public to protest gun control laws” is sufficiently vague to make the reader wonder also if perhaps he shouldn’t investigate further to see if perhaps the new law also means it will also be illegal to carry a gun out of a gun shop?
Sorry, spinks, but that’s a leap of [ill]logic I’m not prepared to make. As a matter of fact, I’d consider anyone who’d make such a transparently silly, desperate and dishonest argument as that to be considerably less bright than most. And your post is my cite. 
hehehe… from a link above… needle dick is home schooled… why is that not surprising?
I nominate him and his dickless boy-wonder side kick for state senators on the Perpetually-Paranoid/NRA ticket!
How about contained within a case? That’s not “open” display. There’s no intentional or unintentional fear effect on local people.
What possible reason could someone dispute this caveat to the restriction?
If you want to responsibly own a gun - what’s the problem with needing to keep it inside a case unless you’re:
Using it to hunt animals! Like, right now!
Or using it to defend your home against an invader! Like, right now!
Or using it to defend yourself against an oppressive government trying to repeal all your rights. Like…right now?! Ermagerd! Get the guns out! The gubbmint’s coming the gubbmint’s coming! To take our guns!
No, I’m saying that a report that says that and also says this:
is pretty clear. The opening was obviously stating an effect of the bill vis a vis recent boneheaded events, not attempting to codify it. I’m sorry if you feel like it’s silly or “dishonest” to read the full text of an article before jumping to conclusions about the opening paragraphs.
Where did I say the opening paragraphs were an attempt to codify it? I said no such thing and you know it. What the opening paragraphs did do was give a specific intent for which openly carrying rifles and shotguns was to be prohibited. There was not the slightest hint that the law was intended to do more than that, nor was there any reason to suspect it was intended to do more than that.
The fact is you think you’ve found a loophole to use in order to justify an insult you threw my way and now you’re going to ridiculous lengths in an attempt to make it stick.
And Uber, I haven’t said anything about the case one way or the other. As for me personally, I haven’t the slightest objection.
You’re right. It was totally smart of you to read part of the article and come to the incorrect conclusion about what it was saying. Forget I said anything.
As a dyed in the wool 60s Hippy, tree hugging, vegetarian, whale saving, commune living, left wing, pro gay marriage, socialist, ex-neighbor of Dr.Tim Leary, Pinko, counterculture freak, I’d like to interject on the subject of guns in our society, if I may. First, these guys were idiots if they thought walking around a neighborhood with guns, legal though it may be, would help further their cause as pro-gun activists. It makes them look like extremist loons. I considered the possibility that such behavior might stem from some anti-gunners’ surreptitious effort to cast NRA types as dangerous and possessed of particularly poor judgement. If they were sincere gun bearers, trying to demonstrate “front of the bus” style, they made a bad choice. Seem to be “Useful Idiots” helping the other side at best.
But we’re still left with the controversy of the week here: “2nd Amendment, how do we love thee … let’s count the ways.” I must be the exception(al) (Liberal) that proves the rule, but I never got this Politically Correct panic about guns. Back in the 60s, my generation’s glory days, didn’t we have black-light posters of Che Guevara holding a rifle? How about the
Hendrix album cover with he, Noel Redding, and Mitch Mitchell dressed as Banditos, with six-shooters and bandoliers? How could Shaft have fought for Black Power without his trusty “piece”?
True, we were anti-war, and anti-establishment, and anti-violent. But really, back in the Revolutionary War times, wasn’t King George “The Man”? Didn’t the Founding Fathers give us this right, to bear arms, as a means of protecting ourselves from another tyrant overstepping the threshold of individual rights? I would think guns act to deter a Police State from evolving into power, so to speak. The frontier six-gun was, after all, called a “Peacekeeper”, not a “Violence Maker”.
My admittedly hazy (wink) memories of the 60s, the most amazing transition period in recent history IMO, contain little in the way of negative vibes or unwarranted fears about firearms, except for the guns leveled at us by the Authorities (Kent State). Nowadays, the self-described liberals are all in favor of guns in the hands of Police and Soldiers, but they don’t appear to trust themselves with that same power. I gather soldiers have killed far more innocents over the past years with arms than we have each other.
Anyway, I have no doubt that, since an anti-gun stance has become a litmus test for liberals, I’ll be drummed out of the club by the present power-block, but I was a card-carrying Liberal before most of the current crop of lefties knew who the heck Castro was, or what happened at My Lai. Who are the “good guys”? Who were they back then? Who had guns?
Who misused them most?
The guys who shot Evers, King, JFK and RFK.
The CIA?
Oh, but I came to no wrong conclusion. The article stated two different things at two different times with no hint from the first that a different second one was to follow. The conclusion I arrived at based upon the description I quoted was absolutely spot on. You know it, I know it, we all know it. I don’t know who you think you’re fooling but I doubt it’s anyone around here…well, ElvisL1ves, maybe, but it isn’t anyone with a brain. So give it up.
I take it from the article that this idiot has done this frequently before, yet his permit is valid.
Surely the fact that this imbecile is allowed to own weapons means that there is something wrong with the current system?