Carrying at political speeches

[stevie_d_64]

Second Amendment Absolutist

a.k.a. - "gun nut"

Peas in a pod muh man!

[KBCraig]

For my own part, I'm not going to get drawn into a discussion of whether we have 2A rights to wear suicide bomber vests while standing at a rope line to greet the president because, "..if he won't trust us not to push the button he is not worthy of our trust...", or whatever the absolutist argument of the day happens to be.

Daggum absolutists. Having to go and believe what the Constitution actually says, and all. Sure does upset a lot of "reasonable" restrictions, eh?

You do have an absolute right to wear a suicide bomber vest while standing at a rope line to greet the president (or a candidate). The president (or candidate) has every right to be somewhere else if they find your presence unacceptable. In a private venue, the operator has every right to eject you.

What you don't have, is a right to detonate that suicide vest if anyone other than yourself is in the blast zone.

Not all candidates worry about ordinary citizens carrying guns. Here's one standing mere inches from my .45:

[frankie_the_yankee]

Whether the Constitution prohibits anything not explicitly authorized is without question. While lawyers may argue it, and even get courts to agree with them, the underlying black-letter law is inarguable.

1) Isn't that statement self-contradictory?

2) What is the reality? What happens to someone who attempts to breach whatever the Secret Service has defined as appropriate security in a given situation?

3) Don't we gun owners, self defense advocates, and CHLs pride ourselves on living in the real world?

[frankie_the_yankee]

Daggum absolutists. Having to go and believe what the Constitution actually says, and all. Sure does upset a lot of "reasonable" restrictions, eh?

Not really.

Where the issues come in is in how we determine what the constitution actually means.

Anybody can read what it says, one word at a time. Determining the meaning is usually a bit more complicated.

The question is, do we have an orderly process whereby we agree to peacefully abide by the rulings and interpretations on these matters issued by the courts, even as we may disagree with some of those rulings in the short term and/or take orderly steps to change them?

Or do we reserve the right to each determine for ourselves what the constitution "really means", and act on such determinations regardless of how our fellow citizens may feel about it (or regardless if they each have their own opinions as to what it means, that may differ from ours)?

There is obviously a school of thought that follows the latter path that I seem to run into from time to time. In truth, I find it quite puzzling, as I cannot distinguish it from a state of anarchy.

[anygunanywhere]

Daggum absolutists. Having to go and believe what the Constitution actually says, and all. Sure does upset a lot of "reasonable" restrictions, eh?

Not really.

Where the issues come in is in how we determine what the constitution actually means.

Anybody can read what it says, one word at a time. Determining the meaning is usually a bit more complicated.

The question is, do we have an orderly process whereby we agree to peacefully abide by the rulings and interpretations on these matters issued by the courts, even as we may disagree with some of those rulings in the short term and/or take orderly steps to change them?

Or do we reserve the right to each determine for ourselves what the constitution "really means", and act on such determinations regardless of how our fellow citizens may feel about it (or regardless if they each have their own opinions as to what it means, that may differ from ours)?

There is obviously a school of thought that follows the latter path that I seem to run into from time to time. In truth, I find it quite puzzling, as I cannot distinguish it from a state of anarchy.

I believe I heard this argument from a left handed chief executive when confronted with a stained dress a few years back.

Depends on what your definition of "is" is.

Depends on what your definition of "infringed" is.

I'll take the common accepted definition, not the one put forth by the current majority of the governments both federal and nation-wide.


Anygunanywhere
Second Amendment Absolutist

[seamusTX]

Since the late unpleasantness was concluded in 1865, the system has proceded in an orderly fashion and every outrage has been tolerated. The few malcontents who bucked the system were dealt with. It's just a question of what each person will stand for.

- Jim