How to respond

[gfrlaser]

This is posted on facebook:

OPEN CARRY IN AMERICA: Yesterday, this armed man in Tennessee paraded back and forth in front of Nashville's Hillsboro High School during dismissal to "exercise his Second Amendment rights." He says he will continue to do so at other area schools. Police are unable to intervene because state law allows this intimidating behavior.

Along with photo of a man open carrying a rifle, on a sling, on his back.

Photo and story here:
https://www.facebook.com/#!/MomsDemandAction?fref=photo

My cousin posts this:

This is what you get in the wild wild USA...ps, these guys are not part of a "well-regulated militia", like in the 2nd Amendment....

Understanding that my personal position is to leave long guns at home, my question is how you respond intelligently to my cousins post. I plan on saying something but looking for the best words to reply with. I might add he very anti-gun, left wing as you might surmise.

 

[gfrlaser]

You may be right.

 

[the dark]

You're trying to come up with a rational response to an emotional statement made in response to an irrational and emotional act.

It very rarely if ever makes any difference.

 

[bofh]

First, I would respond with the FACT that the gun this person is carrying is ULOADED and that he does not have a loaded magazine on his person either. Otherwise, he would have already been arrested for illegally carrying a loaded long gun or for illegally carrying a long gun with the intend to go armed. Openly carrying an unloaded gun without having any ammunition on you is not illegal in Tennessee.

Second, I would respond with the fact that "a well regulated militia" does not mean what your cousin thinks it means. Tell him to replace the term "regulated" with "restricted" in the 2A and try to make sense out of it. It doesn't:

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.

becomes

A well restricted Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It does not make sense anymore as "A well restricted Militia ..." implies infringement. Now, tell him to replace the term "regulated" with "supplied" in the 2A and try to make sense out of it. It does:

A well supplied Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Third, I would take this cousin of yours to a range as soon as possible to treat his serious case of Hoplophobia.

 

[BC1]

I wouldn't respond at all. I also wouldn't respond to help him should the crap hit the fan. He and his views are on their own. Experience is the greatest teacher.

 

[nogods]

How about just saying:

"Just as the First Amendment right to free speech does not guarantee that everything coming out of someone's mouth will not be senseless, the Second Amendment right to bear arms does not guarantee that every bearing of arms will not be idiotic. But we can't let the idiots amongst us determine the rights of the rest of us."

 

[BluesStringer]

How about just saying:

"Just as the First Amendment right to free speech does not guarantee that everything coming out of someone's mouth will not be senseless, the Second Amendment right to bear arms does not guarantee that every bearing of arms will not be idiotic. But we can't let the idiots amongst us determine the rights of the rest of us."

Unless there is a right to be free from seeing an openly carried unloaded rifle in public, this advice is nothing but loaded-with-bigotry rhetoric.

And what is the logic that says the actual exercise of a right is somehow determinate of the privileges exercised by permission-slipped concealed carriers? You people who always, 100% of the time, depend on the permission by government for the "free" exercise of your "rights" don't have a freakin' clue what the word "rights" in the context of the Bill of Rights, even means. Well, that, or you just don't care.

To the OP I would suggest that you remind your cousin that Moms Demand Action is not a good source for defining a "well regulated militia" or the true meaning of the Second Amendment. Neither, apparently, are many on this Second Amendment-centric website.

Also remind your cousin that many, if not all, of the spree shooters at schools in recent years have been extreme whack-jobs and may not have the mental capacity to understand that the rifle that man is carrying, by law, must be unloaded or else he would be arrested on the spot. As such, even a whack-job may well go somewhere else rather than attacking the school that random patrolling citizen may be visible in front of at any given time. While having to carry unloaded is among the dumbest laws in this nation, if more people were doing what this citizen is doing, and doing it on a regular and sustained basis, there would be fewer school shootings.

Personally, I think there should be a rule instituted that none of the Mommies' various websites can be linked to from this site. The click-throughs they get result in propaganda used against us. And the rhetoric like most in this thread against the interests of gun owners is further used as propaganda against us.

Gun owners are their own worst enemy.

Blues

 

[indyyy]

It doesn't make sense to me that a 'normal' gun toting person would march in front of schools just because he has the right to do so. He'd go hunting or to the range or something. What does makes sense to me is that this guy is actually an anti- gunner doing it to give other anti gun folks ammo to use against us. This is just an opinion - so don't ask me to back it up with facts. IF you prefer to believe that the guy is just plain ABnormal, feel free :hang3:

 

[bofh]

I didn't had a lot of time to respond with my first post, so here is the second part:

Note that the Facebook page of Moms Demand Action is a propaganda tool that actively deletes any pro-gun comments and actively bans any pro-gun commentators from their page. As much as they don't like people to exercise their 2A right, they don't like people to exercise their 1A right, facts, or a discussion either. Moms Demand Action is a gun control group driven by an elite that is all about controlling other people's lives.

Now, let's ignore the Moms Demand Action hysteria and look at the facts. The man in the photo is Leonard Embody, a well known Second Amendment advocate and activist. You should read up on his background to understand why and what he is actually doing:

'Radnor Lake Rambo' causes stir at Vanderbilt, Hillsboro High
Case dismissed against gun rights advocate
Firearms agitator still waiting to fight gun charge
LiveLeak.com - Illegally detained outside Vanderbilt University Nashville tennessee 9-5-2014
9-4-2014 illegally detained rifle open carry courthouse gallatin sumner county tennessee kwikrnu - YouTube

 

[NavyLCDR]

these guys are not part of a "well-regulated militia", like in the 2nd Amendment....

Actually, your cousin is right. The person in question is not part of a well regulated militia...yet. The person in question is part of "the people" whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon and who then, when they gather for the purpose of maintaining the free state become a well regulated militia. Well regulated in the 2nd Amendment does not mean restricted as to who can bear arms and where. It's like the air in a scuba diver's or firefighter's air tanks. The air is unusable for the purpose desired because it is too high of a pressure. It is not until it is regulated - controlled in such a way to make it useful - does the air become breathable. The same is true of the militia in the 2nd Amendment. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to keep the state free - which means not only defending against foreign invaders but also defending the state from it's own government should it become necessary to do so (read the Declaration of Independence). 10 million armed men going their own separate ways doing their own thing cannot accomplish the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. 10 million armed men regulated towards the common goal of defending the freedom of the state can. That being said, the government has already RESTRICTED and infringed upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms that it has become impossible for a well regulated militia to exist capable of maintaining a free state.

 

[TWright]

I'm not as well spoken as NavyLCDR so i would just quote Sigmund Freud

 

[Fallschirmjäger]

I dunno,,, I'm a whole lot LESS scared of one guy with a rifle slung over his shoulder (or even carried at port arms for that matter) than I am of something like this........
Roseville, Calif.

Link Removed
Link Removed

Ferguson, Mo. Police sniper (who ya aiming at there, scout?)

 

[BC1]

I dunno,,, I'm a whole lot LESS scared of one guy with a rifle slung over his shoulder (or even carried at port arms for that matter) than I am of something like this........
Roseville, Calif.

Het Porky, if you can't run a 10 minute mile you can turn-in your badge. Doughnut eating bastard. When seconds count, the police are minutes away. Yeah, anyone wonder why?
.
Every year I always gave a donation to the PBA. This year when they called I told them to go to hell. And they wonder why...

 

[r1derbike]

Actually, your cousin is right. The person in question is not part of a well regulated militia...yet. The person in question is part of "the people" whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon and who then, when they gather for the purpose of maintaining the free state become a well regulated militia. Well regulated in the 2nd Amendment does not mean restricted as to who can bear arms and where. It's like the air in a scuba diver's or firefighter's air tanks. The air is unusable for the purpose desired because it is too high of a pressure. It is not until it is regulated - controlled in such a way to make it useful - does the air become breathable. The same is true of the militia in the 2nd Amendment. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to keep the state free - which means not only defending against foreign invaders but also defending the state from it's own government should it become necessary to do so (read the Declaration of Independence). 10 million armed men going their own separate ways doing their own thing cannot accomplish the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. 10 million armed men regulated towards the common goal of defending the freedom of the state can. That being said, the government has already RESTRICTED and infringed upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms that it has become impossible for a well regulated militia to exist capable of maintaining a free state.

Excellent air tank analogy, NavyLCDR! I may relate to that personally.

 

[r1derbike]

Het Porky, if you can't run a 10 minute mile you can turn-in your badge. Doughnut eating bastard. When seconds count, the police are minutes away. Yeah, anyone wonder why?
.
Every year I always gave a donation to the PBA. This year when they called I told them to go to hell. And they wonder why...

Down the road, this officer may have the misfortune of looking down the barrel of an AR, just like he has trained on the driver. If the prick thinks he is intimdating, the driver doesn't appear to be "ruffled", just amused.

I wonder what happened next?

Oh, just noticed the CHP badge. That explains a lot.

 

[r1derbike]

I dunno,,, I'm a whole lot LESS scared of one guy with a rifle slung over his shoulder (or even carried at port arms for that matter) than I am of something like this........
Roseville, Calif.

Link Removed
Link Removed

Ferguson, Mo. Police sniper (who ya aiming at there, scout?)

Targeting lookers peering out their windows. Something's going to give with these trigger-happy self-anointed warrior cops. I hope it isn't a round between the eyes. Citizens are getting fed-up with this kind of overt intimidation.

Obama: We will have to look into the militarization of Police units, because of the Ferguson riots. B.S. He will look into militarizing more police units.

 

[CharlesMorrison]

Link RemovedLink Removed
Its a coming people... Its a coming!

 

[BluesStringer]

Down the road, this officer may have the misfortune of looking down the barrel of an AR, just like he has trained on the driver. If the prick thinks he is intimdating, the driver doesn't appear to be "ruffled", just amused.

I wonder what happened next?

Oh, just noticed the CHP badge. That explains a lot.

The picture you're commenting on was taken in one of at least five SoCal counties covering tens of thousands of square miles that had many hundreds of road blocks and illegal searches at gun-point during the Christopher Dorner manhunt in February of last year.

The one right below it in Fallschirmjäger's post was taken this year in Ferguson, MO.

One might've thought that with all the trashing of the Constitution that happened between the Dorner manhunt and the Boston Marathon bombing, that The People would be waking up to, and demanding a stop to, the intimidation tactics blatantly portrayed in those two pics. No such awakening seems to be taking place from my perspective though. Just more of the same, and many actually take the side of cops who killed unarmed people like in the Ferguson case.

We like to talk about rights and liberty, but until everybody starts getting it through their thick skulls that government and the restrictive, controlling they laws they pass are the polar opposite of natural rights and liberty, we will continue to watch what few we have left fritter away.

The OP asks a question about how to respond against a meme that, for all intents and purposes, he states that he agrees with; ie: "leave the rifles at home." My question is, why respond at all? The OP and his cousin are in agreement, just for different reasons.

Blues