BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: gnu
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 03:57 PM

John P... "And even if we were to agree that it guarantees each individual the right to bear arms, it doesn't say that we don't get to make any rules about when, where, and what type of arms we can carry. "Infringed" clearly refers to the basic right, nothing more. Saying that it refers to anyone's right to go anywhere they want with any type of weapon they want is reading things into it that aren't there. "

Now yer catchin on. Except for that whole paragraph... I never said any of that. Quite the opposite.

Anyway, I hope understand why I took umbridge to your comment about not being able to read... if you didn't, no harm done. Until attitudes change on both sides, and the real issues of poverty and such are addressed, there will be violence within, by gun or knife or tooth... even under law and legislation... a battle which has not been fruitful to date.

If you wanna change it for the better, do it. Debating the text doesn't seem to be working.

gnightgnu

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: gnu
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 04:27 PM

Trigger Happy by Wierd Al.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: John P
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 05:27 PM

Well, debating the text is the only way to start changing the usual interpretation. I agree with you about the roots of violence. I'd still rather have someone coming after me with a knife than standing 100 feet away and shooting at me.

Isn't Weird Al great? Apparently endlessly witty.

I've been asking the any-gun-anywhere-anytime crowd for years what they make of the militia clause, and I still haven't heard an answer that means anything . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Stringsinger
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 05:34 PM

The "facts" on this issue are subject to interpretation. Gun violence is cited by the Center of Disease Control as one of the leading "diseases".

My complaint is that carrying guns to a political rally is bullying. It attempts to force
ideas down someone's throat. If not, then why carry?

The people that feel the need to carry suffer from paranoia. If they got into a gun battle with a professional criminal they would lose.

It doesn't deter professional criminals. That is just an opinion, not a fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Bobert
Date: 05 Jun 10 - 07:34 PM

First of all, thank you John P fir your well documented usage of "the people" as found in the Constitution... I have read thru it several times over the years and never picked up on those nuances... But I see is plainly now that it has been explained...

As for the 2nd ammendment, there is no clear answer that will make everyone happy... The gun-control side wants everyone to view the intend in terms of "militia" and the gun side wants to limit the discussion to the last half of the ammendment...

The decider, unfortunately, is the NRA which is the most powerful lobby in the country, bar none... So rather than have intellegent discussions about the problems of an overly armed society we just, ahhhh, buy more guns... I have progressive friends who in recent years have become so scared of the radical right that they are buying guns...

It's a scarey cycle we are in with a very polorized and ever increasingly armed nation... But as long as the NRA has those big checks coming in everyday we will never have a long overdue discsssion until it comes down to near chaos and civil war... I mean, we are getting closer when a right winged nut can camp outside where the presdient is speaking with a serious tgun strppped to his leg and a sign that reads, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with blood of patriots and tyrants..."

I mean, come on folks... Where is the sanity here??? What??? Are we going to let the NRA who represent less than 10% of the people dictate to the other 90%??? Is that what Tom Jefferson had in mind in terms of democracy??? Minority rule???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: GUEST,Kendall
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 09:24 AM

John P, I have been hammering gun nuts with the WELL REGULATED MILITIA for years and to no avail. Ok, it was settled a while back by the Supreme Court. We do have the right to keep and bear arms.
When that clause was written, the main defense of the colonists was their militia. They were ordinary citizens who were called "Minute Men"because they could be called to arms on a moments notice. Not like a standing army that was ready all the time.

When they tangled with the Redcoats they soon learned that they were no match and a standing army was the result.

In other words, the militia IS the people, so an unarmed people is a joke.

I have a problem with the fact that just anybody can buy a gun at a gun show or from unscrupulous gun dealers, but how do you separate the nuts from the "Normal" people?

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 09:37 AM

Now the "Minute Men" are just another band of rednecks who hate Jews, Cathlics and Black folks... Used to be a big sign in Richmond on the road to Varina... In the middle were crosshairs of a rifle scope... Under that the words "Niggers, Jews and Communists Beware" and under that the words "Minute Men"...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: olddude
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 10:59 AM

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).

Where does it lead us, so the carry was not just for the well maintained militia but for personal reasons. Now does that prevent laws to determine a responsible citizen only ... no it does not ... If you read Jefferson you will see he does not mean criminals

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: olddude
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 11:48 AM

Now given the founding fathers view on absolute rights for every individual, and given they adapted as needed ... case in point .. immigration, first it was wide open, then there was concern for the large in flux of German settlers.

Would they allow weapons carry to be used to scare other Americans ...
do some research and see what you can determine, would restrictions take place? Or would it be wide open. A good question

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: 3refs
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 12:17 PM

All I read before posting this was the initial thread. I thought(feared) some other views may put a slant on how I put my reply!

I'm a legal firearms owner in Canada(bit of a cowboy though)!
All my firearms are registered(including long guns)! I own tools that are registered, so why not my firearms? I do have issues with the P.A.L., but that's another story!

I see no reason to carry a firearm "without purpose"!

Firearms, to their owners, are a lot like dogs to some people; You own one or more. You use it(them)properly. You maybe have a favourite. You treat them all with tender loving care and respect. You provide for their safety and security. You would only turn it loose on a person if you had no other choice.

But, you don't need to take them out for a walk!

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 01:17 PM

3refs, Why would anyone carry a gun without a purpose?

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: John P
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 01:28 PM

It's interesting that "well regulated" and "shall not be infringed" appear in the same convoluted sentence. That's part of why I think the Amendment indicates that "shall not be infringed" means that the basic right shouldn't go away, not that everyone can have any gun they want any time and take them anywhere they want to. None of that is "well regulated."

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: robomatic
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 01:56 PM

For me it comes down to: "Do you trust all the yahoos out there? You know, the folks who AREN'T YOU!"

I think it's a fine line, but so far all I can say is if the yahoos can vote, they can own weapons.

On the other hand, is was no less a man than Kent Brockman who said "I've said it before and I'll say it again, 'Democracy just doesn't work!'"

As for me, I wasn't brought up around weapons, and small arms give me the heebie jeebies.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: gnu
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 02:20 PM

In Canuckistan, Possession Only License (can't purchase). Possession and Aquisition License may be for long guns only or for restriceted weapons also (pistols, automatics).

POLs and PALs may only be obtained by persons who over a certain age or by persons under that age who have successfully passed the Canada Firearms Safety Course.

Weapons must be registered... but this "changes" between Liberal and Conservative governments. Conservative governments "belay" the requirement.

No carry at all. You may transport a long gun to and from it's venue of use by the SHORTEST possible route and it must be HIDDEN (even if that is simply a bedsheet well tied). Restricted weapons must be transported in a locked manner.

All weapons in a residence must be locked and ammo must be in separate locked storage.

That is a snippet.

It does not stop the criminals. Especially in the case of home invasion, which has become far more frequent since the laws were put in place at a cost of some $1.6B... but, if it has saved lives and WILL CONTINUE to do so, I guess it's a good thing overall.

Having said all that, I have once again contributed to thread drift, but I guess it's a good thing overall.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: GUEST,Kendall
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 03:21 PM

To expect a criminal to register his gun before he uses it on you, or to keep it locked and the bullets in another place is stupid.

Fear will always win out over reason.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: olddude
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 05:48 PM

I have to admit, my arsenal is getting quite depleted and I like it that way.. Sold a lot to registered owners who I trusted, gave rifles and shotguns away to people I trusted that hunted with their sons. Having a grand baby puts me back in the disassemble and lockup mode for everything. I find now that I am older, not having is a good option also ... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: gnu
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 05:52 PM

I agree Kendall, for the most part. Like I said, home invasions rose dramatically here after the gun laws were enacted, mostly against the elderly. That is my only real problem with the gun laws here... they essentially legislate that you can't defend yourself in your own home.

The defense of the laws is twofold. Stop children from gaining access to weapons and thwart criminals from stealing legal guns. As for criminals stealing guns, the gun laws give criminals easier access. And, another problem I have is, if a criminal steals one of my guns after breaking into my house, I am possibly subject to a penalty of two years in prison or five years in prison if a crime is committed with my (stolen) gun. Fact is, I could be jailed by the very people I pay to keep the criminals OUT OF MY HOME!

I can sympathize with those who support the NRA based on such issues. I think they may see the "bad" sides of some gun laws and take the position of "give than an inch...". I understand that viewpoint in light of some of the inane crap that the gun laws in other jurisdictions such as Canada have caused. But that doesn't mean that progress cannot be made... it means both sides have to work out the problems in a logical and reasonable manner.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: 3refs
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 06:10 PM

Can't get a P.O.L. anymore. If you have one and it's about to expire, you'll have to get a P.A.L.(one of the things that pisses me off, as I mentioned earlier).

What purpose was served by those firearms owners, exercising their "Constitutional Right", showing up at a political rally with guns and no bullets? Other than the "just because we can factor", what use did they have for their firearms? Were they there to protect Obama? Had they been trained how to use them properly as a club?
I think I know why they did it, but it just pisses off the people who want all our guns taken away. We/they are giving our ammunition to the wrong people!

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: mousethief
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 10:55 PM

The more nutcases pull stunts like open carrying to presidential speeches with signs calling for murder, open carry en masse into Denny's, and so on, the more "people who want all our guns taken away" there will be. Perhaps one day they will reach some kind of critical mass and form a lobby that has even more money than the NRA. The mouth-foaming gun nuts can't say they didn't deserve it. The ordinary Joe Hunter or Joe Collector will pay -- perhaps unfairly -- for association with the nuts.

An ex-friend on Facebook (my ex-friending him had nothing to do with this topic) was crying because he had purchased a bunch of guns and ammo after Obama was elected but before he took office, in the fear that he was going to take everybody's guns away. And now he's stuck with all these guns and all this ammo he doesn't want, and they're worth less than what he paid for them because the panic has subsided and even the lunkheads who do such things realize Obama's not about to create gun-confiscation roadblocks any time soon. It was hard not to laugh at his stupidity, and gullibility to believe all the Obama-haters said.

I lie. I did laugh.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Bobert
Date: 06 Jun 10 - 11:09 PM

Thew problem with gun registration and criminals is one thing.... The reality is that most crimes committed with handguns are committed by folks who know the person they are shooting... This ain't like some robber who shoot a clerk in the Mini-Mart...

That's where some regulations and some gun safety course would come in handy before letting pissed off Bubba, who has just had an altercation with his neighbor over a barking dog, buy a Glock...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: GUEST,Kendall
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 06:47 AM

"Lunkhead" now there's a word you don't hear every day!

The guy who bought all those guns in fear of Obama should study the foundations of our system of government. Obama is president, not GOD! The 2nd amendment to the constitution gives us the right to keep and bear arms. That right was upheld by the Supreme Court and it can only be taken away by 2/3 majority vote of Congress. When was the last time congress agreed to that extent on anything? They know that the 2nd amendment and Social security are the third rail in politics. Touch them and die.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Stu
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 12:03 PM

"They know that the 2nd amendment and Social security are the third rail in politics. Touch them and die."

One of the most concise arguments ever against a written constitution ever posted on this site. In a true democracy, there are no third rails.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: GUEST,kendall
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 12:32 PM

But there are figures of speech.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: pdq
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 12:34 PM

A true democracy existed in the City-State of Athens, Greece, about 2500 years ago.

It lasted about 100 years.

Our Constitution has lasted twice that long and it is still the most copied document of its type in the world.

People who don't like some parts of the Constitution can change them. It is not easy, but it shouldn't be.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Greg F.
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 12:46 PM

The guy who bought all those guns in fear of Obama should study the foundations of our system of government.

No point in that- he's obviously a moron & wouldn't learn anything. And unfortunetely there's lots more like him.

The more nutcases pull stunts like open carrying to presidential speeches ... the more "people who want all our guns taken away" there will be.

Precisely. And the NRA-fueled gun nuts just don't get it. All most folks are asking for now is some rationality in the sale & possession of firearms. It will NOT always be so; the gun nuts are their own worst enemies.


GregF.- responsible gun owner & hunter.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: GUEST,Pete
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 01:24 PM

God you Americans are scarey

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Stringsinger
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 01:43 PM

The "militia" is not a disorganized local bunch of gun nuts but is tied to the government.
It is an outdated idea since a small militia has no meaning even if there were foreign
invaders. The "militia" of the early 2nd Amendment in the Constitution didn't account for the use of hand grenades, bombs, AK47's, automatic weapons or machine guns.

In talking about any political system, they all break down somewhere. There is no pure democracy even in ancient Greece which had slavery.

The point is that there are parts of any political system that work well. There are democratic principles that can be applied to government, capitalist economic principles and socialist principles.

They all work not in a totality but parts and sections. The trend toward democracy is a good idea whereby the people have a voice in government. Some capitalism has to work if you don't want the government making your clothes. Some socialistic ideas worked very well under FDR. There never has been an absolute system of democracy, capitalism, socialism or any other. Absolutes in systems tend to lead to tyranny which then defeats the purpose of the "absolute".

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 01:57 PM

"The "militia" of the early 2nd Amendment in the Constitution didn't account for the use of hand grenades, bombs, AK47's, automatic weapons or machine guns.
"


NONE of which are allowed for private ownership ( without a government permit to allow for museums and police).

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: gnu
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 02:06 PM

Ahhhh... WTF Bruce?

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 02:13 PM

Gnu,


"The "militia" of the early 2nd Amendment in the Constitution didn't account for the use of hand grenades, bombs, AK47's, automatic weapons or machine guns."


The present laws controlling guns in the US ( 1933 and 1968, primarily) do not allow the items listed for private ownership except under special circumstances. Thus the 2nd amendment does NOT protect the ownership of those specific items, as determined by the US courts.

Therefore, Stringsinger cannot use them is talking about the 2nd amendment rights issue- unless he means to say that we SHOULD have ownership of them!

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: pdq
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 02:44 PM

"On May 8, 1792, Congress passed 'an act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States' requiring:

'Each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack."

{It is quite clear that individual US citizens were allowed, even expected, to own firearms and keep them secure in their private homes.}

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: pdq
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 02:57 PM

There is a slight problem with two commas, which appears in the "official" copy of the Bill of Rights, but was not there in the copied ratified by the States.

The official version passed by the Congress reads:

       "A well regulated Militia , being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms , shall not be infringed."
        
The version is found in the copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, reads:
   
       "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: gnu
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 03:11 PM

Bruce... you can't buy an auto in the US "without a government permit to allow for museums and police"?

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 03:22 PM

The possesion of a fully automatic weapon of any caliber is a felony without a Class III government permit. And it takes a real good reason ( museum, police department,) or extensive backgorund check, and large fee, with required controls on the weapon.

Efectively, private ownership of fully automatic weapons is prohibited.

Since 1933.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: pdq
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 03:45 PM

The National Firearms Act, aka NFA, was passed by Congress on 26 JUN 1934, not 1933.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 03:49 PM

I stand corrected. I don't keep a copy in my pocket.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: gnu
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 04:11 PM

So.... why are there so many machine pistols around? Or is that just what I see on the TV on shows like 60 Minutes or similar?

And what about the peeps I see on US TV that own AA guns and tanks? Is that all smoke and mirrors?

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 04:12 PM

A string of comments was begun by Stringsinger:

"The "militia" of the early 2nd Amendment in the Constitution didn't account for the use of hand grenades, bombs, AK47's, automatic weapons or machine guns."

and was answered:

The present laws controlling guns in the US ( 1933 and 1968, primarily) do not allow the items listed for private ownership except under special circumstances. Thus the 2nd amendment does NOT protect the ownership of those specific items, as determined by the US courts.

Therefore, Stringsinger cannot use them is talking about the 2nd amendment rights issue- unless he means to say that we SHOULD have ownership of them!

I believe that Stringsinger's point was that the colonial style militia would be irrelevant in today's world, where an invader or externally supported revolutionary force surely would have hand grenades, bombs, AK47s, and machine guns--not to mention tanks and air support, at least in the case of invaders. The defense of the United States against those sorts of forces must be by the Army, National Guard, Air Force, and Navy, properly equipped and trained, rather than a local "scratch" volunteer organization like the militias referred to in the 2nd Amendment, who would just get slaughtered.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 04:17 PM

They either have permits, or are criminals. I know one person with tanks- he has permits, they are accounted for, and he runs a museum park- which he pays for, and is required to open to the public at times) to keep his park standing.

Large caliber ( not sure of lower limit, but 20MM is included) are restricted as destructive devices. There are a number of 3" guns at AL halls, but ALL have been de-militerized and made incapable of use ( weilded recievers, filled barrals, etc.

I can get a machine gun- de-militerized- that means it has been rended incapable of being meade operable.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Rapparee
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 04:24 PM

Well, actually the militia could have had hand grenades, as they were in use in the 18th Century (that's what the "British Grenadiers" threw). They were unlike the "Mills Bomb" model or the stick grenade, being hollow iron balls filled with powder and a fuse which had to be lit by hand ("modern" grenades have automated that part).

Possessing them, however, is another story. It would be equivalent to possessing a pipe bomb and the BATF, the FBI, and other police agencies take a VERY dim view of unauthorized possession of explosives.

To possess an AK-47 is not against any Federal law UNLESS it includes the fully automatic capability. THEN you'd better have a Class III Federal license. This is true for ANY weapons with full auto capability: BARS, Tommy guns, P90s, HKs, AK-74s, M-14s, M-2s, M1919A6, Lewis guns, Maxim guns, MG42s, M-60s, etc.

Nor can you own a Stryker or Street Sweeper type of shotgun with a permit. Sawed-off shotguns and rifles with barrels under 18 inches long are also prohibited with said permit.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 04:26 PM

Gnu asked:

And what about the peeps I see on US TV that own AA guns and tanks? Is that all smoke and mirrors?

The AA guns and tanks require permits, and must be "neutered", so to speak. That is, the guns can't fire. Privately owned machine guns are possible too, but have to be essentially destroyed as an actual weapon, or at least for automatic fire.

That's the official position, anyway. However, there are a number of ways to disable the firing mechanism of a machine gun to make it legal. A "collector" may own more than one such "disabled" weapon, disabled in different ways, so that anyone competent can remove the defective/destroyed part(s) from one machine gun and replace it/them with good parts from another weapon which had been disabled in a different way. That change operation wouldn't take the competent gun mechanic more than two or three minutes to accomplish, at most.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: gnu
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 04:31 PM

Yes... just file the bent properly.

I have learned more in a few posts than I ever learned on the TV.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: pdq
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 04:32 PM

" That change operation wouldn't take the competent gun mechanic more than two or three minutes to accomplish, at most.

At which point it would be illegal.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: olddude
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 04:44 PM

Won't give up me Glock 23 though, I can tack nails in a target with that one ...   :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Rapparee
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 04:56 PM

See how instructional the Mudcat Cafe can be?

Actually you CAN own a tank and people do, in both the US and the UK. You might even be able to leave the cannon serviceable (in the US). Possessing the ammunition, since it would include explosives, would be another story. The machine gun(s) would have to be rendered unusable, generally by welding the breech and/or plugging the barrel and welding it in place. Cannons on display, whether on tanks or otherwise, almost always have the breeches welded shut for liability reasons -- imagine the lawsuit is a child playing on a howitzer had the breech closed on their hand!

On the other hand, you CAN legally possess a cannon in the US and I know some (including my own brother) who do. These would be muzzle-loaders, such as might have been used in the US Civil War (or the British one, for that matter). There are regular cannon shooting competitions held by some of the Civil War groups, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Rapparee
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 05:01 PM

Running around with cannons and tanks would definitely fall under "open carry". It's hard to conceal even a little cannon or tank.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: kendall
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 05:07 PM

Maybe it's my naturally suspicious nature but I'm wondering if some of these nuts who show up packing at a political rally might be gun haters? Shills? Hoping to stir up support for doing away with guns?

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: gnu
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 05:27 PM

Okay, I understand the laws better now.

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: olddude
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 06:41 PM

Captain makes a point I never considered ... well done

Subject: RE: BS: Open Carry: Guns in Public
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 07 Jun 10 - 06:50 PM

"" That change operation wouldn't take the competent gun mechanic more than two or three minutes to accomplish, at most.

At which point it would be illegal.

Exactly my point. Terrorists, or sectarian militias, or revolutionaries--you name it--can do it if they want to badly enough.

And the old "colonial-style militias", with LEGAL guns and no real military training, would be in tough shape.

The Alcohol and Firearms Bureau (or whatever the right name is these days) has their work cut out for them.

Dave Oesterreich