You can fire a standard Colt .45 perfectly well underwater, actually.
That being said, while I appreciate the concept, when the Oathkeepers say ‘We’re going to avoid this protest because it’s too dangerous’, mmmmaaaaaaaaaaybe you’re a little out there.
Seriously. Says it right there.
Kent State was excessive force by government troops against civilians, and has nothing to do with the protest at issue in this thread.
That’s your problem, not theirs. The law is clear. I don’t like to be around screaming babies, but the law allows that, too. My remedy is to avoid places where screaming babies are known to be. Your remedy is to avoid attending pro gun rallies.
The law clearly allows them to be reckless, stupid idiots, with a complete disregard for the safety of themselves and others, yes. I’m not sure why you think this is a good thing - or who you think you’re arguing against when you repeatedly declare that it’s legal. Are you arguing that “legal” implies “a good idea” or “wise”? Because while that’s a legal argument to make, I’m not sure making it is a good idea or wise.
My point is that guns, even in the hands of trained professionals, can become dangerous when emotions are running high and innocents can be shot and killed. The fat thugs I saw on video didn’t appear nearly as well disciplined as even young National Guardsmen.
Are you intimidated by screaming babies? If so I suggest you seek professional treatment.
Intimidation at work. “Don’t go to your National Parks, we might be havin’ a pro-gun rally.” Thanks ever so much.
New plan - hold pro-gun rallys outside of polling stations!
There is nothing reckless, stupid, or idiotic about carrying a gun in places where it is legal to do so. No one was shot, either accidentally or otherwise, at this event. As far as I know, nobody was threatened with a gun at this event. From what I understand, the long guns were not even loaded–ok, carrying an unloaded weapon is sorta silly in my book, but it is certainly not dangerous.
Lots of people own guns. I had quite a few before that tragic boating accident caused me to lose them all. Well, all except my Colt Navy .44, but it’s a replica black powder weapon, and few people care about those. People that own guns lawfully generally know how to use them safely, responsibly, and legally. Your whole argument seems to be that guns are bad, so anybody that likes them is bad, too. That’s nonsense.
As long as he has passed whatever qualifications to earn his permit, including background checks and probably shooting tests, yes. See, he is a “law abiding” citizen, therefore he does not break the law or consume while carrying.
Now, if that same person has earned their permit, is sitting a few stools down from me and is also consuming, in my state, the answer is no. At that time, he is no longer a “law abiding” citizen and has lost any right to carry concealed.
Simple, don’t you think?
Most of these people you mention don’t bring their guns to rallies, and given the cites that such actions tend to be treated by government as potential insurrections, it’s easy to see why an intelligent person might refrain - for their own good, if nothing else.
And it’s not silly to bring unloaded long guns if your intent is to intimidate. You can’t tell readily by looking.
How the hell were you intimidated? Were you at the event? If you’re getting all intimidated by what you see on TV, maybe you oughta just quit watching the news. Lots of scary stuff out there.
OK, fair enough. There is certainly a case to be made that it’s not good PR, and you’re not the first to make that point.
And, indeed, the same point is made by some gun rights supporters.
But the opposite view has validity, too: “There’s no rational reason for someone to be upset at my exercising a legal right. Therefore, even if some people get upset, many more will see it is essentially harmless.” And that sentence could be spoken by a Gay Pride leather boi as well as a gun rights supporter.
You may not agree, and your view has merit, but its not self-evidently correct.
That’s an argument from ignorance – because it hasn’t happened yet, we should assume it will happen.
Look how well that serves you: if it happens, you say, “Ah ha! Look! It’s happened!”
If it doesn’t, you say, “I’m sure it will happen!”
Either way, you win, eh? And for protesters who actually HAVE resorted to violence, like the global trade guys, a case I don’t need to speculate about because it’s proven, repeatedly… amused tolerance.
Right?
Cool so your response is it hasn’t happened yet so it never will. I feel so much safer now.
Guns, anger, disagreement. Yep a recipe for non-violence if I’ve ever heard one.
Except for the part where you’re talking strict legality when the question was about prudence. And the part where the question was directed at the person using the word.
So I don’t get to play because I wasn’t asked?
You can try addressing the post, for the first part. For the second, if you do happen to know somebody else’s reasoning, you can certainly provide that too.
I’ll try again. I feel that it is prudent for a law abiding citizen to be able to carry a gun. If they qualify, and are truly law abiding as you said, they pose no risk.
Can you conceive of a situation where it would be legal to carry a gun, but not prudent?
I’ll have to think about that one. Honestly, if one has passed all qualifications to carry concealed, and they are following all local laws, nothing is coming to mind.
Maybe if you worked around an MRI or something with a large electromagnetic signature or worked a job where your activities made any sort of secured carry difficult.
Concerning concealed carrying specifically, if done right nobody knows about it but the carrier.
Having read through the tread, I’m trying to ascertain if the issue is “Is it wrong to bring openly displayed guns to a protest?” or “Is it wrong to bring guns to a protest full stop?”
Because my answer to the former is “Yes, as there’s no need for you to be carrying an AR-15 or Hunting rifle over your shoulder in a non-hunting/sporting public environment and doing so at a political rally is only going to intimidate your opponents and members of the public, which is counterproductive to say the least.”
To the latter I say “No; if you’re legally allowed to carry a concealed firearm and you do so at a protest, that’s fine as you’re not using your gun to make a point. It’s a tool as much as a Swiss Army Knife or a pocket torch, and it’s being carried for the ‘right’ reasons, not because you’re taking advantage of something that legally allows you to be a dick.”
These are probably the same Angry Old White Men that had similar views when Clinton was in office.