Y'know, I'm all for the 2nd Amendment and all

[Mythsaje]

Seeing it, as I do, as a statement that all people having an inherent right of self-defense--but doesn't it seem to anyone else that openly wearing a firearm at a protest is a kind of tacit threat? There's nothing really subtle about it.

I'm curious. Why would someone actually arm himself just to stand around with a politically charged sign? Especially one suggesting that violence is a viable political act? And why is it that the RW folks feel a need to be armed at a protest, anyway? Are they really expecting to be attacked? By whom?

It's interesting to note that the only cases of domestic terrorism we've had in the United States have been at the hands of people of similar political ideology to these folks and yet, somehow, they get to walk away from what most sane, intelligent people would look at as a deliberate yet semi-subtle threat. "Remember, we're armed. Step wide, if you know what's good for you."

Certainly very few people would care to debate him face-to-face. Maybe that's what he was afraid of. Not being attacked, but being told what kind of ninny he is.

Personally I'd like to nominate this fellow for the next Olympics, as a member of the javelin-catching team. I think he's a shoe-in.

And why is it okay to wear a sidearm at a protest when it's probably not okay for me to carry a katana strapped across my back and a pair of nunchaku in a holster on my hip? What's the difference? The fact that there's not a powerful katana lobby? The fact that there's not a National Nunchaku Association? How about a rattan escrima stick? Or a telescoping baton? Why is it okay to carry a loaded pistol on one's hip when it's clear that a firearm is specifically an offensive weapon when a stick or a baton is just as likely to be used defensively?

I give up.

[aikoaiko]

1. He probably did it for the attention.

All the people fretting and hand wringing about it. Even Chris Matthews gave him more fame.

But more importantly than why was that he behaved lawfully and made no threats toward the president or anyone else.

[Mythsaje]

4. No overt threat, anyway.

Covert--well, that's a matter of opinion.

[MindPilot]

2. Odd isn't it?

A man can have a loaded firearm at an event where the POTUS is speaking and as threatening as that appears to the ordinary person, it is perfectly within the law.

But try to take an 8oz bottle of sunscreen on an airplane and you become a terrorist suspect.

[Hugabear]

3. This is probably the biggest problem I have with the 2nd Amendment

Pro-gun people usually like to point out that one of the primary reasons for the 2nd Amendment is so that the people can hold the government in check, and have the ability to fight back against an oppressive government.

Well here you have a PRIME example of this.

[Mythsaje]

5. I tend to think that does have some effect, over all,

as well as making it very unlikely that anyone would actually want to try to occupy the U.S. (who'd be crazy enough?), but for me it's always been about self-defense. Everything else is window dressing.