imported post
simmonsjoe wrote:
I think their is a little confusion over the issue.
Many of us here are so concerned over bull@#$% "reasonable restrictions" that we have a tendency to back a horse, protecting his rights even after it's obvious there are issues. (concern is legitimate)
Others of us find no problem in telling someone they are doing something stupid. This doesn't mean that we want registration.
What is our right, and what is smart, are TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
You have every right to have a penis tattooed on your chest, with the tip on your neck shooting millions of potential children in your ear. Doesn't make it smart.
Kwikrnu has every right to do what he is doing. DOESN'T MAKE IT SMART.
Besides the orange tip, there are other threads, and reports from members about behavior on other boards that is of a disconcerting nature.
I think almost all here believe the 2A amendment comes without "reasonable restrictions" Whether it is a right is irrelevant. If you do something stupid, expect ridicule. Just remember when reading peoples ridicule, that it doesn't have anything to do with "regulation."
Let's not forget the 1A. If you do something stupid, I have the right to tell you it was stupid, regardless of whether or not it was within your rights. If you somehow believe your actions are above ridicule simply because it is within your rights, you are believing yourself privileged. You need to rethink. Rights incur responsibilities, not privileges.
Everything in "quotes" is said with an inflection of scorn.
Joe has made generally the best summation of the issue here so far. This is not about his rights, his cloths, or offending other people and a lot of you just do not get it. So lets sharpen the pencil a little more.
I will say it once again for those that still refuse to see the plain typed words (I am not alone in this view), I DO NOT CARE WHAT HE CARRIES OR WEARS WHILE HE IS CARRYING IT, AND I DO RECOGNIZE HIS RIGHT TO CARRY WHAT HE WANTS AND WEAR WHAT HE WANTS THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE.
I do care about honesty, and this guy lied the moment he willfully painted the muzzle of that firearm with the specific intent of deceiving others. All you people who keep saying he can "decorate" his weapon "any way he pleases" are ignoring the elephant in the room because you know full well that is not what he did so just drop it. I also have a right to believe in unfettered ownership and carry of firearms, while AT THE SAME time objecting strenuously to things that I think are dangerous, stupid, and irresponsible. I am allowed to use my first amendment rights (YES I HAVE RIGHTS TOO) to criticize how someone else exercises their 2ndA rights. Get over it. I also have a right to object if someone obviously has a hidden agenda that may damage my rights and the rights of others, when that fact is revealed with a little research while he and his supporters spend days crying "but it was legal". You have the right to complain all you what about that, and I have the right to ignore your opinion and continue to point out the uncomfortable truths about your opinion.
You cannot have it both ways. On the one hand you cry that there should be no laws of any kind restricting firearms, and yet on the other you use the legality of an act to measure if a person should do it without criticism. That is where the actual hypocrisy in this discussion exists. You completely ignore societal and cultural norms that EVERYONE uses every day to judge what should or should not be done and from which our laws ultimately spring. It is these norms that form the basis of the legal system and people ignore that fact at their own peril. In the absence of law it is these societal norms, and individual values that govern the actions of people.
If there should be no law, then the law should NOT be the measure of weather an act should be done. If you look at what was done here as though there were no laws of any kind and leave only the gun culture norms of firearms safety you reach the same conclusions as a lot of people here which for me is-
It was certainly lawful to do what he did, but it was stupid and unsafe to paint the muzzle orange and I do not support him for doing it.
People keep pounding the table and yelling "But he has a right..." and "He did nothing illegal...". but they forget how the US Constitution and bill of rights actually works and what State sovereignty means. While we all have rights recognized under the FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, that document
ONLY RESTRICTS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Each State must also include recognition of the same rights for them to be totally recognized. Tennessee has a constitution that recognizes the right to OWN weapons, but specifically ALLOWS the state to regulate the type of weapons people carry and the methods by which they are carried.
Many in the Tennessee forums here and elsewhere are now rightly afraid that specifically because of this guy and what he did the state will roll back the Park carry bill, and they are probably right. At the very least they are likely to redefine handguns under Tennessee law for the purposes of lawful carry based on this incident so as to exclude AK/AR type handguns. It is very unlikely that any restriction will be relaxed because of what this guy did.
So here is the nub of the issue. This guy lives in Tennessee, a sovereign state that CONSTITUTIONALLY allows the regulation of methods of firearms carry. He absolutely has the right to carry what he wants and dress how he wants under CURRENT laws in that state. However, the state can absolutely, AND LAWFULLY make him the new poster child for heavy firearms carry restrictions, both under the 10th amendment of the US constitution and the state constitution. People on this forum can pound the table all day long about absolute rights, and constitutionality of firearms ownership and they will be just as wrong tomorrow as they are today as to how all of these laws work relative to one another.
The right to own and carry firearms is NOT completely and totally free of government restriction, or personal responsibility. These two things are inseparable elements of having rights. People here and elsewhere are working to change this for the better. Based on existing recognition or lack of recognition of rights, each of the sovereign states may act as their laws permit. Without 2A/14A incorporation the TSA does NOT apply to any state that chooses to ignore it and does not carry TSA language in its own constitution. Don't believe me? Visit Hawaii. Take your handgun there and see how that works out for you.
In my view it is the people who are supporting what this guy did without critical assessment of the nature and effect of his actions, and without consideration for what he was ACTUALLY trying to do and what may ACTUALLY be the result who are the anti-firearms people in this discussion.
It was thoughtless people who imposed firearms regulations over the years and we now see more thoughtless people claiming to support firearms ownership supporting the Brady bunch poster child for more restrictions. It is their unfettered and unreasoned support for this person, coupled with their hypocritical mantra "but it was legal so it was ok", that will lead to stricter firearms regulations in Tennessee and elsewhere. But perhaps that was their purpose all along.
People who support the RTKABA come from all walks of life. They dress in a lot of different ways, but they have a few things in common. They are ALL working to expand the RTKABA for all people but they do not hide behind the lie of an orange muzzle, nor do they have the need to shield themselves behind a flack vest like a Mall ninja, or cry "but it was legal" if the wisdom of what they have done is questioned by their brothers in arms. Only Anti-RTKABA people do those things.
PS - Joe, big is NOT fat, is just means you need to get farther back if you want to be a smaller target.:lol:
