Do you approve of peacefully armed protesters?

[kingnereli]

Soooooooo I got a question.... If there's 135 people who are willing to go OC in a rally, why do I only have 30 people confirmed (more or less) for the OC Walk?

dburkhead is correct. I intend to be there but I really had to do a gut check to see if wanted to be a part of the test case. People will choose their own battles. Take what you can get for the maiden voyage and hope that it will spark something. You have spoke often of this being a "spark." Treat it as such and turnout may be better in the future.

However, 135 open carrying in down town Indianapolis would be a sight I would like to see.

 

[SavageEagle]

That there are 135 people willing to go to some event doesn't mean that there are 135 people willing to go to this even.

Remember, most of these folk do have jobs, families, and other obligations on their time and may well have concerns about this particular event.

That's just the way things are and badgering people about it is not going to help.

I know, I'm just trying to drum up support.. I guess this would have been better than to use...

You have spoke often of this being a "spark." Treat it as such and turnout may be better in the future.

However, 135 open carrying in down town Indianapolis would be a sight I would like to see.

I am treating it as such.

But

As you said 135 people OCing in Indy... well, it can only happen if everyone showed up!

Ok I'll stop.

 

[BloodEclipse]

I know, I'm just trying to drum up support.. I guess this would have been better than to use...



I am treating it as such.

But

As you said 135 people OCing in Indy... well, it can only happen if everyone showed up!

Ok I'll stop.

I see it like this, 1 guy did it in AZ. If we get 25-30 how many more people will be inspired to do it next? Even if they are not from Indiana? If we had 10 it would be a success.
Don't get caught up in the numbers and just focus on making it safe and informative.

 

[KiteEatingTree]

Be careful mixing 1st and 2nd Amendments.

I'm always delighted to see Americans peacefully protesting whatever they may disagree with, but it's a slippery slope to interweave 1st Amendment protection of free speech from government laws with 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms. Owning a gun, brandishing a weapon, firing it, etc cannot be considered conduct under the first amendment without creating a constitutional fallacy spiral. Symbols can be considered conduct, but any possible threat cannot be.

 

[Joe Williams]

I'm always delighted to see Americans peacefully protesting whatever they may disagree with, but it's a slippery slope to interweave 1st Amendment protection of free speech from government laws with 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms. Owning a gun, brandishing a weapon, firing it, etc cannot be considered conduct under the first amendment without creating a constitutional fallacy spiral. Symbols can be considered conduct, but any possible threat cannot be.

What a load of horsecrap.

 

[KiteEatingTree]

*yawns*

Whenever someone calls something horse crap, they don't realize the virtues of their supposed 'slam'. Organic fertilizer has helped Hoosier farmers for centuries. So with all gratitude, I appreciate the metaphor of knowing I'm helping Hoosiers with my comments.

 

[dburkhead]

I'm always delighted to see Americans peacefully protesting whatever they may disagree with, but it's a slippery slope to interweave 1st Amendment protection of free speech from government laws with 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms. Owning a gun, brandishing a weapon, firing it, etc cannot be considered conduct under the first amendment without creating a constitutional fallacy spiral. Symbols can be considered conduct, but any possible threat cannot be.

As I have mentioned elsewhere:

"Brandish" does not mean what you apparently think it means (From the Random House Unabridged Dictionary):
bran⋅dish

(Edited out some html that didn't paste correctly) 
Pronunciation [bran-dish] Show IPA
Use brandish in a Sentence
See web results for brandish
See images of brandish
–verb (used with object)
1.
to shake or wave, as a weapon; flourish: Brandishing his sword, he rode into battle.
–noun
2.
a flourish or waving, as of a weapon.
A weapon holstered, or slung over the shoulder is not being "brandished."

As for "mixing" rights, that argument is patently absurd. Would you also argue against "freedom of speech" and "petition for redress of grievances"? Or how about Freedom of Speech and "Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure" (as in saying, "I do not consent to any search")?

Rights are rights, singly or in combination.

 

[dburkhead]

Whenever someone calls something horse crap, they don't realize the virtues of their supposed 'slam'. Organic fertilizer has helped Hoosier farmers for centuries. So with all gratitude, I appreciate the metaphor of knowing I'm helping Hoosiers with my comments.

Well, if you took it out to the farms and spread it over the fields, that would be one thing.

Here, in this forum, OTOH, that's a different story.

Can you, for instance, explain in any meaningful terms what a "constitutional fallacy spiral" might be? I know each word individually, the words look like English, but the sentence itself doesn't convey any meaning.

 

[KiteEatingTree]

You're correct about brandish having a few different meanings. I meant it in the facetious flaunt variant. I have no issue with citizens following carry/conceal/etc laws, just that the 2nd Amendment provides a qualified right just as the 1st Amendment provides qualified rights. (see Robert Bork's very smart 1971 Indiana University Law Journal article on how the 1st Amendment to free speech qualified without a doubt)

I appreciate that robust debate, but be careful calling something horse crap or not addressing the crux of the argument. Doesn't make me look bad, just makes it seem you cannot engage an issue without ad homenem attacks, or just patronizing, which is a shame.

 

[Joe Williams]

You're correct about brandish having a few different meanings. I meant it in the facetious flaunt variant. I have no issue with citizens following carry/conceal/etc laws, just that the 2nd Amendment provides a qualified right just as the 1st Amendment provides qualified rights. (see Robert Bork's very smart 1971 Indiana University Law Journal article on how the 1st Amendment to free speech qualified without a doubt)

I appreciate that robust debate, but be careful calling something horse crap or not addressing the crux of the argument. Doesn't make me look bad, just makes it seem you cannot engage an issue without ad homenem attacks, or just patronizing, which is a shame.

What a load of horsecrap.

 

[BloodEclipse]

I'm always delighted to see Americans peacefully protesting whatever they may disagree with, but it's a slippery slope to interweave 1st Amendment protection of free speech from government laws with 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms. Owning a gun, brandishing a weapon, firing it, etc cannot be considered conduct under the first amendment without creating a constitutional fallacy spiral. Symbols can be considered conduct, but any possible threat cannot be.

Brandishing a weapon? What would you define that as?
Firing it? WTF?

 

[dburkhead]

You're correct about brandish having a few different meanings. I meant it in the facetious flaunt variant. I have no issue with citizens following carry/conceal/etc laws, just that the 2nd Amendment provides a qualified right just as the 1st Amendment provides qualified rights. (see Robert Bork's very smart 1971 Indiana University Law Journal article on how the 1st Amendment to free speech qualified without a doubt)

I appreciate that robust debate, but be careful calling something horse crap or not addressing the crux of the argument. Doesn't make me look bad, just makes it seem you cannot engage an issue without ad homenem attacks, or just patronizing, which is a shame.

Sorry, but just as "brandish" does not mean a weapon holstered or discretely slung over the shoulder, "facetious" does not mean "using loaded language in an attempt to negatively portray events far beyond their reality."

Those kind of word games will not fly here.

If you want to engage in "robust debate" you might want to try actually discussing issues rather than spouting gibberish like "constitutional fallacy spiral."

As for "qualified right," I happen to disagree. The classic "shouting fire in a crowded theater" says nothing about restricting the right. One is not prevented from shouting "Fire." Instead, one is simply held liable for using that right to cause harm--by wrongfully making that shout of "fire."

Now, many conservatives (and quite a few liberals for that matter) attempt to use the idea of "qualified" rights in an effort to justify things like restrictions on adult materials. They are, quite simply, wrong to do so. Once you decide "this is permitted while that is not" based on content, then the right is gone. Oh, the corpse may rattle along for a while, but, as the old joke goes, "we're only haggling over price." Some restrictions on such materials can be justified, but not based on content, but rather on actual harm done in the course of making them. A moment's thought should show how that would work. But, again, the restriction isn't on the 1st, but rather in holding people responsible for harm that comes as a direct, immediate, result of the supposed speech.

In any case, as written there is a restriction on the 1st: "Congress shall make no law...." The 1st, from the beginning, only applied to Congress. At the time the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were being written and ratified, several States did have State Churches--an actual "establishment of religion" as contrasted to what so many on the left claim to be one these days--and these were not considered Unconstitutional by the very people who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The States, on their own, dropped these churches long before the courts created the incorporation doctrine which applied certain parts of the Bill of Rights to the States.

The 2nd, however, has much more unequivocal language. It doesn't say that Congress shall not infringe, but that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. No limitation is put on that restriction. Unfortunately a long history of those in power (including judges) finding it politically expedient to keep "those people" from having firearms (usually the poor and minority groups--look up the history of Gun Control in the Reconstruction era South for a classic example) and so have twisted the law away from that straightforward statement.

I take a simpler view. The Constitution means what it says. It was not written in "Legalese" or anything of the sort. It was written in the plain English (as spoken and written by educated men) of the day. It means what it says, neither more nor less. The only "interpretation" it should ever need is occassional appeal to a dictionary with good historical usage notes to clarify what words meant when the document was written (words like "well-regulated" which did not mean "controled by the government" but rather "properly functioning" as in "a well-regulated clock keeps good time.")

Anybody saying differently is selling something.

 

[KiteEatingTree]

Flaunt.

 

[dburkhead]

Flaunt.

A thesaurus is not a dictionary, nor does having a word listed as a "synonym" mean they are interchangeable. English is actually rather poor in true synonyms. What we call "synonyms" are not actually cases of multiple words for saying the same thing, but multiple words for saying somewhat different things. "Walk" and "Saunter" are listed as synonyms but they do not mean the same thing. (Going even farther out, "stagger" and "stroll" are both synonyms for "walk"; do you want to try to argue that any one is the defintion of another?) Likewise, "flaunt" might be listed as a synonym for "brandish" but it does not mean the same thing. But you knew that. That's why you used the word "brandish" rather than "flaunt"--because "brandish" had a different meaning which would carry the negative connotation you were looking for where an accurate description of what actually took place would not.

Even the courts have recognized that openly carrying a firearm is not brandishing it.

Like I said, those kind of word games won't fly here. Too many people will recognize them for what they are and will call you on them.

 

[BloodEclipse]

Symbols can be considered conduct, but any possible threat cannot be.

Your view of what consitutes a threat, fits your agenda.
The fact you find it threatening to see people legally armed says a lot about you.
For a threat to exist it has to be defined by law. It's not what you feel threathened by, because that would be different for each individual.

 

[SavageEagle]

Great arguements guys. I'm glad we have some really educated and well spoken people on our side! I feel dumb in comparison...

I will say I respect his opinion, but I think he's flat out wrong. Carrying a rifle with you somewhere is neither brandishing, nor wrong in any aspect. If someone feels it threatening, they have the choice to leave the area. I find a car driving too close to the center line threatening, but I don't make a huge deal or call the police everytime it happens. If I did I'd never get anywhere. I find stupidity threatening on many levels. Topping those levels lay in government. That doesn't mean I think it should be illegal.

I also find muslims walking around the circle with signs saying American's are helping kill Palestinians to be extremely threatening, but I'm not going to stop them from excercising that right to do so. I might highly disagree or think they are ignorant, but that doesn't mean I'm going to infringe on their right so speak their mind. If they had guns, I'm certainly not going to have a fit about it. Chances are, if they're downtown Indy with signs and such and openly carrying firearms, they must be citizens allowed to do so. I might avoid the area but I don't want to stop them from excercising both rights.

I don't see where you get "Qualified Right"? How do you QUALIFY for a God given right? Does God himself make that decision? I thought we were all equal in the eyes of the Lord? Do you say who's qualified? The gooberment? That phrase doesn't make any sense to me and has no place near our Constitutional and God Given Rights...

IMHO of course.

 

[Joe Williams]

snip

I will say I respect his opinion, but I think he's flat out wrong.snip

Why do you respect his opinion? His opinion reeks of contempt for the American citizen, and the Constitution. There is nothing to respect about that. These people, the kind who hate freedom and the American ideals, use attempts to be civil to them as a weapon. They've spent the last four decades being anything but civil. His post was not civil. We are being defeated because people want to show respect to people who are espousing contemptible ideologies. If we wish to remain free, we must grow a big enough pair to call them what what they are, and to not pretend their viewpoints are worthy of being treated with respect. We must respect his right to speak out against freedom. We have no obligation to pretend his speech is anything other than reprehensible.

 

[SavageEagle]

Why do you respect his opinion?

snip

One reason and one reason only. Because honorable men and women have died defending his right to say what he feels. It may be unAmerican, it may be a lot of things. Regardless, he has every right to speak his piece just as you or I.

This doesn't mean I agree, this doesn't mean I like the man. I don't know him well enough to form an opinion. I do think he's flat out wrong. But that's my opinion. Only when he doesn't respect my opinion in return will there be an issue.

 

[6birds]

Great arguements guys. I'm glad we have some really educated and well spoken people on our side! I feel dumb in comparison...
Chances are, if they're downtown Indy with signs and such and openly carrying firearms, they must be citizens allowed to do so. I might avoid the area but I don't want to stop them from excercising both rights.
quote]

Then why are you asking people to join you for a walk, (you know, to show our rights), and asking them to unload the chambers of the rifles?

 

[SavageEagle]

Then why are you asking people to join you for a walk, (you know, to show our rights), and asking them to unload the chambers of the rifles?