Should guns be permitted at the polls when you go to vote?

[kentuck]

Last night, Chris Mathews had some gun nut on his program arguing that people had a constitutional right to carry guns any place they liked, including at town halls where the President was speaking, even including on airlines. Is there not any constitutional limitations on where guns can be taken?

If people show up at the polls, where it could be so intimidating that it would prohibit people from coming to vote, would that be OK with you? Would that be constitutional? Where does this insanity end?

Yes, the "conservatives" are sick and tired of Obama. They are afraid they are going to lose their freedoms. They don't like the directions the country is going.

Well, fuck you assholes! We were all sick and tired of the way George W Bush wiped his ass on the Constitution and you morons kept voting him in. Even as he lied and spied and tortured and killed innocent people, you were fucking silent. And now, you are scared you are going to lose your freedoms! You don't want the government taking over our healthcare system? So you are going to bring your guns out to prove how tough you are and how you are protecting our Constitution? You want to know why we voted your asses out the last time? And you are not going win the next time either. Americans do not support such tactics.

[jasi2006]

1. They are not fearful about health care reform. They hate Obama,

the black, President. Period! No amount of facts and history will change their minds. Their thinking is based on hate...not even fear. One can assuage fear. Nothing can be done about hate except to watch it devour the hater.

[hlthe2b]

2. We have some gun-obsessed here who would argue

very similarly that guns should not be restricted much of anywhere. I can only assume they are not intentional disruptors but progressives who really feel this way.

[kentuck]

3. I probably have more guns than 95% of DUers...

but I don't go showing them off at public events, trying to intimidate people or trying to force my position at the point of a gun. Folks are going to react to these tactics - in a very negative way. They are accomplishing the exact opposite of what they think.

[Patiod]

10. I've been ranting about gun nuts, but not gun collectors,

hunters, people who use them at work, or people who keep guns in their house for self-defense. My dad owns a handgun, and going to the range is FUN. Hell, I see deer hunting as a public service, especially in PA.

What scares me is people on DU who think people should be allowed, as you aptly phrased it, to show them off at public events and intimidate people. And I've been told that (on DU) that I'm ignorant for being intimidated by guns or by open carry laws.

I don't understand people who are so damned black-or-white on guns - either those who want to ban them outright OR those who want NO laws whatsoever regarding their sale, use or public display.

There's plenty room for sane discussion for the majority of people who have views that fall somewhere between those abolutes. I haven't had one of those disucssion yet on DU, but people like you give me hope.

[michreject]

35. I spent 150 for the grips for my 1911

and a equal amount for the holster. It's a shame to hide them.

BTW. 1 gun owner in 5 hunt.

[madmom]

49. My SO has a gun he bought way back in the 70's for a couple hundred dollars, but now

according to research is worth about $4000. It's a beautiful piece of handy work, well worth showing off, but it's tucked away locked up securely in a gun safe.

[MadMaddie]

68. We can look around the world and see the results of guns

used out the open at elections and other public events etc.

The main purpose is to intimidate in these situations. The main purpose is to instill fear in the populace.

The threat of violence keeps people aways from events, look at what is happening in Afghanastan right now, people are staying away from the polls.

I have no problem with folks having guns for protection, hunting, collecting at all. I do have a problem when people show up to events because they have a right to carry a gun and impact of the right of others to gather peacefully and safely. It's just a matter of time before one of these nuts takes his gun off safety.

[hlthe2b]

12. I hope that you are right, kentuck

[lonestarnot]

57. And they look so fucking disdainfully ignorantly ridiculous.

Cartoonish, until they kill a kid or grandma. Hey aren't those types supposed to be against offing grandmas?

[MadMaddie]

64. Yep that about sums it up!

Welcome to DU!:hi:

[joshdawg]

4. I'm still wondering why

these gun-toters were't around when bush was "speaking." Was it because he was a white guy and not black? Hmmmmm.

[DainBramaged]

5. It was because he was a DUMB White guy who they could have a beer with

and didn't put mustard on his hamburgers. And Booshe never spoke, he spewed. He didn't have enough active brain cells to speak coherently. Notice he isn't making a killing on the "speaking tour" like most ex-Presidents.

[Hoyt]

18. Yep. A minority with a gun, whould have been expelled/arrested. n/t

[havocmom]

44. Anybody with a cell phone might have been out of touch with network too

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/18/black_helicopter_george_bush_down_under/

US President George Bush will be followed about by a helicopter which jams mobile phone signals during an upcoming visit to Australia, it has emerged.

According to reports in the Sydney Daily Telegraph, train stations will also be temporarily shut down and parts of the city will "become restricted areas". The Age speculates that "heavily armed SAS troops" could be deployed on the Sydney streets, with "expanded rights to shoot to kill".

President Bush is to visit Sydney along with 20 other world leaders in September for the Asia Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) summit. The summit and President Bush have been seen as a likely target for terrorist attacks on previous occasions.

...

Seem to recall cell phones were banned at meetings with G8 abroad too.

Guns OK if President is black. Cell phones not OK if pResident is color wingers approve of.

A-fucking-mazing?

[AlinPA]

6. IMO, the more that people bring guns to events like the forums, town halls and other

places where they have an audience, the more the public at large will reject them (and unfortunately for sensible gun owners the public will be more against guns).

[Hoyt]

20. I'm hoping it's a catalyst for restrictive legislation.

I have no real problem with responsible gun ownership in homes, maybe cars. But this strapping them too your leg in public is as my elderly father-in-law (retired military and retired deputy sheriff) once told some punk policeman with double shoulder holsters in a restaurant -- "son, you look silly, you dumb chit."

[rd_kent]

54. And THAT is the reaction they are hoping for!

You are playing right into their trap. Open your eyes and see what these guys carrying guns to these events is really all about.

[TheCowsCameHome]

7. Why does anyone need to carry a gun to the polls or a presidential speech?

It is out and out ridiculous.

They're just hoping someone will try to disarm them so they can say "See, see, the black guy wants to confiscate your weapons"

So far it hasn't worked.

[grahamhgreen]

8. People were arrested for wearing anti-war t-shirts at Bush town halls. Any of these nuts could be a

Terrorist. I don't get it.

Are we in a war on terror or a war on the American people?

We were supposed to be on the alert for:

pen guns
shoes
tiny bottles of liquid
terrorists dressed as: Santa; homeless people; women with baby carriages (rmember that one?), etc..

What could possibly be more suspicious than a guy outside of a rally with a gun?

[JerseygirlCT]

30. Exactly nt

[lonestarnot]

59. People were ousted from commercial flights for Tfuckingshirts for shit sakes.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

9. Every right carries with it responsibility

to act in a rational manner and not to abuse it. When rights are abused, limits are placed upon it--freedom of speech does not allow a person to falsely yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater. Likewise, you shouldn't shoot firearms up in the air near a crowd, because those bullets come down and can injure someone. This actually happened on July 4, 1988, in the little town where I lived. The bullet struck a small child in the head, piercing the skull. You can bet your booties that the cops were all over the neighborhood trying to find the idiot who did it. After that, there were ordinances in town limiting the use of firearms.

What I fear is that this trend of carrying weapons to meetings will escalate to someone shooting. And that will have consequences that the pro take guns anywhere lobby won't like.

[annabanana]

11. Can these guys be mocked back into their gun closets?

Can people snicker behind their hands and chuckle about "overcompensation".. and "the larger the gun, the smaller the dick". .?

Because I expect that's the case with a bunch of these exhibitionists. They're a bunch of flashers.

[barbiegeek]

13. NO, This way we know who they are & the next McVeigh

Let them be bold, so we know who they are. It's like the drug dealer flashing his money and drugs--easier to find and squeeze.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

17. bullshit. These are not the one's you need to worry about.

You guys need to worry about the people 1000tds away with a simple .308 scoped hunting rifle... or the guy with several technical degrees in his basement building bombs.

The guys to worry about are the SMART pissed off ones. Much too smart to out themselves if they are really intent on getting something done. Introverts like the unabomber. Hell, even McVeigh was pretty intelligent.

[kentuck]

19. Did you really mean this??

"You guys need to worry about the people 1000tds away with a simple .308 scoped hunting rifle..."

So it is a problem, huh?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

21. Yes, I meant it. Why do you ask?

Why evreyone is whining about about few 'tards sitting outside the security perimeter is beyond me. They are there to make political statement, not to actually cause harm. As gun-nuts, they certainly know that the little piece of steel on thier hip would be nearly worthless for doing anything we truly fear.

Why waste resources and outrage over a few idiots when we, they, and the secret service know they are not a threat? They are only there to draw a reaction and cause hysteria... which they are doing very well it seems - we are empowering them. The only threat these nuts pose is thier contrasting political message which, that to the first ammendment, they are permitted to disseminate provided they are not breaking laws.

People with true intent (and any amount of intelligence) are going to bide thier time and stay out of the public eye. Focus on catching those kinds of people and let the kiddies play with thier toys and signs.

[kentuck]

22. "They are there to make political statement.." ?

And what would that statement be?

"They are only there to draw a reaction and cause hysteria..." And that's not illegal?

[Statistical]

24. Hysteria is not illegal.

Black man and woman holding hands at one point caused hysteria.
Same sex couple kissing in public cause (still causes in some places) hysteria.

Hell the Supreme Court has even found neo-nazi parades to be protected and I am sure they cause a ton of hysteria.

There are no blanket laws that say if you do something that causes a reaction or hysteria it is illegal.

Even if you could pass such a law would you? Don't think it might be abused by others to crack down on what they deem "unacaptable behavior in public".

Nuts doing stupid but legal things is a cost of being in a free society.

If you don't want them to protest in this manner a more narrow (less subject to abuse) route would be to limit open carry.
How exactly would you do that?

[kentuck]

25. not as a medical condition..

but hysteria with intent to disrupt political events, disturb the peace, or terroristic threatening is illegal. I know of people who are in jail for teroristic threatening.

[Statistical]

26. I think you would find it very difficult to prove intent.

What if these nuts carry everywhere they go: work, grocery store, weddings, DMV, bank, etc.
They simply carry where they go.

No prosecutor is going to try and touch a case like that without something else (actions, words, newsletter, something) to back up intent.

Not in AZ but in other states the courts and/or attorney generals have already indicated carrying a weapon lawfully can not by itself be construed as disturbing the peace.

If you don't like open carry at a protest in your state then lobby to change the laws making political protests and within x feet of political event a "prohibited area".

I would expect lawsuits unless the law allows for an accidental encounter exception (i.e. guy open carrying on his lunch break rounds the corner and there is a protest going on. is he a felon?).

[kentuck]

27. Is this what is really happening?

"No prosecutor is going to try and touch a case like that without something else (actions, words, newsletter, something) to back up intent."

There are no words or actions with these people? What about the screaming and the "blood of tyrants" posters, etc? Those are simply freedom of speech and just because I have a gun should not change the right of the people to peaceably assemble? It should have no impact on anyone else that might want to be at the townhall? But does it?

[Statistical]

28. From the video I saw I didn't see any screaming or agressive behavior that would allow you ...

to seek a conviction of any charge.

There is a much simpler answer....... CHANGE THE LAW!

If you honestly believe these actions are so criminal so incredibly dangerous to present a danger to society and the democratic process then change the law.

There are already dozens of prohibited locations make within 100? 200? 500? feet of a national political event a prohibited location.

Done. Guy shows up with a gun and he will be asked to leave. If he doesn't he is charged with tresspassing, gets felony conviction, loses right to carry for rest of his life.

Why reach for a non-crime? Legislatures update statutes all the time.

[kentuck]

29. I think the law already stands...

I heard it talked about last night on some TV show and the ruling of Judge Scalia but I don't recall the details? But basically, there is not a unquestioned right to carry a gun wherever you want. Perhaps someone else heard this discussion?? Maybe it was on Rachel's show??

[Statistical]

34. Exactly. It is DC v. Heller but I don't think you understand what it means.

SCOTUS found certain prohibitions to b Constitutional however it isn't a blanket ability for local law enforcement to decide on an ad-hoc basis what is legal and what is not legal. That isn't how rule of law works, it would be more like rule of snap judgments. Seperation of powers and all that. The role of LEO is not to decide what is legal but rather to arrest those who violate the law. The legislature decides what is legal and the courts decide when the legislature and LEO have gone too far.

What Scalia was saying in DC. v. Heller is that a local govt who passed a law prohibiting the carrying weapons in "sensitive locations" would be Constitutional. He was clarifying the ruling in Heller shouldn't be construed that it is a right without limits.

...nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. DC v. Heller 2008

The key point is still that the local govt would need to pass such a law.

In AZ (and all 50 states) no such law exists (no such longstanding prohibition) making political events prohibited locations. If you want to make political events a "prohibited location" a new set of laws would need to be passed. Scalia was just giving a heads up that the Supreme Court wouldn't consider laws banning weapons in sensitive locations to be prohibited not that some "super law" exists that provides such blanket criminality.

The fun part (from a legal point of view) is would such a law meet the requirements of "sensitive location". Obviously inside the event is a sensitive location but would the public street outside an event be?

[kentuck]

36. Thanks for the clarification...

I guess Grandma will not go to the polls the next time and vote. We will have to euthanize her.

[Statistical]

37. Well most states have polls in schools and most states prohibit carrying in schools.

So there is a defacto prohibition on polling places if not explicitly in the law.

Nothing would prevent someone from carrying OUTSIDE the polling place but in the example of a school the school property includes parking lots so Grandma could go to the polls unmolested. No need for a death panel quite yet.

[kentuck]

40. So long as it is a hundred feet away, I think?

Maybe it is different in every state?

[Statistical]

41. Yeah it would depend on the state.

The 1990 Gun Free School Zone Act declared the zone to be 1000ft from the school building.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990

That was found unconstitutional the same year.

I don't know about every state but in VA there is no distance limit.
You could carry 1 foot outside the school property but not 1 foot inside.

Most highschools I have seen the school property line extends 400-500 feet from the front door due to parking lots and lawns.

[kentuck]

43. But you can protest much closer...

if you don't have guns?

[Statistical]

45. Yes you can.

I think the law on protesting/political information is 100ft? from the entrance.

So depending on the layout of the school property the "line" for limits of guns and limits on protests/political information durring polling would be different.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

39. bologna...

If someone is so scared to vote because some is standing around with a gun they can just submit an absentee ballot. Problem solved.

[kentuck]

42. Right?

If you're scared, just send in an absentee ballot. Bullshit! People shouldn't have to be afraid. That is intimidation. If it is not illegal, it should be. It is definitely anti-American.

[Doctor_J]

38. The guy who shot up the liberal chruch wasn't any genius

Neither was McVeigh. If you think stupid people can't commit mayhem you need to come back to planet Earth

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

47. I never said "genious"...

I also never said stupid people couldn't commit mayhem. Learn to read.

and according to resources, McVeigh seemed pretty bright. I guess he even graduated HS with honors according to wikipedia. It even states:

"While in high school he became interested in computers, and he hacked into government computer systems on his Commodore 64, under the handle "The Wanderer," which was borrowed from the song by Dion DiMucci. In his senior year, McVeigh was named the school's "Most Promising Computer Programmer."

[cui bono]

69. And the SS won't have the time/resources to find those guys when they are too busy

keeping an eye on all the yahoos that feel a need to attempt to intimidate the president and his supporters. They're already overloaded since Obama became president due to all the loonies going crazy with threats.

You're not allowed to fly above the White House for a reason. Same reason you shouldn't bring guns, especially semi-automatice rifles (I mean really, what the fuck was the point of that?) within a certain distance of the president.

The SS needs to make a larger safe zone where they prohibit that macho bullshit. This is not about the second amendment or civil rights and there's no reason not keep guns away from the president. People who bring them to these events are just not thinking, have no common sense.

[Statistical]

74. Guns are kept away from the President.

The people with guns were outside the event. They never even had a line of sight to the President. To be near the President you need to pass through the security checkpoint and guns are not allowed.

[AlinPA]

76. What about rifles with scopes outside the event, say a couple hundred yards or across a street?

[Statistical]

78. How do you shoot a target you can't see?

The secret service relies on PASSIVE protection not quick reflexes to protect the Pres.

That is they KNOW there will be guns outside the security perimeter. They ASSUME there will be. How many rooftops are within a mile of where the President speaks. How many windows. How many residences. How many guns? Likely thousands if not tens of thousands.

So the Secret Service makes sure in planning that the location is chosen such that where the President is nobody can see (line of sight to use a scope) him unless they are inside the bubble. To get into the bubble you go through security.

They don't just hope they checked every rooftop or their sniper sees the assassin before the President gets shot.

They control the environment to make sure there is NOT SHOT possible unless you are inside the bubble. That is the only way possible to protect the President.

[cui bono]

79. So far. There was a SS agent on Rachel Maddow and he seems to feel the same way I do.

He didn't mention what you mentioned, iirc. He said the SS might have to extend the safe area to a mile.

[Statistical]

80. If they did so and someone brought a gun within the next 1/2 mile zone I would say arrest him/her

However I think Scrict Scrutiny applies so expect a lawsuit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

Now while the lawsuit is going on I would be 100% in favor of arresting, convicting, and sentencing anyone who violates the zone.

Until the zone is extended though what people did wasn't illegal. If the SS really feels they need 1/2 mile radius then they will change the perimeter.

[AlinPA]

73. It's a matter of time before we see them with scoped rifles near the president "making

their case for their 2nd amendment rights". With a few or a dozen of these the SS will be real busy. Rightly so, because the scope changes things a hell of a lot.

[Statistical]

75. No it doesn't.

The President was indooor. The gun toters were outside.
No line of sight between the two.

Do you think the Secret Service is that bad that they rely on "quick draw" skills to keep the President safe (like showdown as the OK corral).

How do you shoot a target you can't see? To see the President you need to pass through security.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

14. Private citizens carrying openly are a very small fraction of people that

carry firearms. For every 1 person carryin gin plain sight, there are probably 100 more people carrying a concealed weapon thinking, "Geez, what an asshole/idiot". It's really not fair to paint all gun owners, or even gun nuts, with the crazy brush that these open protesters deserve.

That being said, I think concealed carry should be fine just about anywhere with a few execptions (schools, courthouses, federal buildings, etc). Nobody has to know if your packin and you shouldn't use that tool to intimidate people.

As far as at the polls? Most elections I have ever been to have been at the town halls or a high school gymnasium or other places where firearms aren't allowed. State or city owned proerty, in ohio anyways, is generally not gun friendly so it's a non-issue. But, similar to these town hall situations, there not much to be done about people carrying firearms OUTSIDE the event premesis. And there really is no way to target that act with legislation without broad-brush legislation that affects otherwise law abiding citizens. This kinda like that Black Panther thing during the '08 elections. They had a right to be there.

About the only thing I can say is it's a free country and these people have a right to protest and aren't breaking any laws. If people acting lawfully gets your knickers in a twist, work to change the laws, not bitch at the people who are (technically) doing nothing wrong.

[kentuck]

16. "...(technically) doing nothing wrong. "

Technically not disturbing the peace or terroristic threatening. But, in reality, they are.

[Versailles]

15. Lemme put this in another context...

I was a teacher for 8 years before getting out of a broken system. Many of those years were at charter or private schools (known havens for right wing parents to stick their children for brainwashing - I'm half joking!). I had many difficulties with parents and students due to my progressive approaches to education (not in content just delivery methods). Now, if I had strapped a loaded handgun to my belt every morning before going off to school, would anyone honestly believe that I wasn't doing so specifically to present an intimidating show of the threat of force in order to silence my detractors? My point is this, there are simply places where toting a gun, especially by a private citizen and not an enforcement officer, just isn't safe - places where there is a high amount of tension, where emotions can take control, places where there are children, places where people have the right to exercise their 1st amendment rights without fear of intimidation, etc.

I would love to attend a townhall meeting here in South Carolina and speak my mind to Mr. DeMint about his clear personal vendetta against the president instead of discussing health care based on its merits. However, frankly, I know the political climate here in SC. I've been subjected to the general opinions of South Carolinians during a tech call to secure a computer against the government reading their email because they don't "support that socialist muslim, Obama." (I'm not kidding - I got paid to do this). As someone who dislikes confrontation, I am intimidated at the idea of attending one of these town halls where I would be the subject of attack and ridicule. This puts a clear damper on the entire premise of our democratic system. If I lived in a state that allowed open gun carrying and especially to political events such as voting, I would think twice before making an appearance physically to vote.

I guess my opinion is that taking the right to bear arms to the extreme such as this is dangerous to the democracy of the nation. As I see it, it has the potential to infringe upon people's 1st amendment rights as well. The Constitution and Bill of Rights is not just a guide for government of the country, but also a blueprint for the rational and civil behavior of the citizens. I highly doubt that our founding fathers meant for one section of these documents to directly interfere and influence the application of other sections.

[slackmaster]

23. Vote early, vote often, vote armed

But however you choose to vote, please do vote.

[pipi_k]

31. No guns... but knives, pitchforks, and whips acceptable

At least where I vote.

There's way too much pencil-stealing going on in that place!


x(

[wizstars]

60. Damn, I can't even GET a pencil at my polling place....

How do you manage to get 'em???

[WolverineDG]

32. No, my polling station is a public school nt

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[izzybeans]

46. No, we are not Somalia.

[aikoaiko]

48. I have no problem with people carrying holstered firearms in most places -- even polls.

If they were brandishing it or waiving it around making political statements -- then yes I would have a problem with that.

[katandmoon]

53. I have a problem being surrounded by assholes.IMO anyone carrying a gun in public whose occupation

Does not require it is a fucking asshole with major mental and emotional problems.

[kentuck]

56. And what about that asshole Wyatt Earp?

Who made everyone check in their guns at the edge of town? Man, he would have been popular today, wouldn't he?

[aikoaiko]

58. There are a lot of ways to be an asshole....

...but they still get to vote. Even people with major mental and emotional problems regarding guns.

edited to add: Assholes who prevent people from voting freely, or threaten people should be arrested.

[X_Digger]

50. There are constitutional limits..

Airlines are private property, there is no right to carry on private property.

Polls are 'prohibited places' per state laws in every state that I've researched.

[Statistical]

51. Not in VA or AZ (or at least not that I could find).

Then again schools are prohibited places and most polls are in schools.

[X_Digger]

52. *nod* Here's a decent resource..

http://www.handgunlaw.us/

For Texas the restrictions include - "On the premises of a polling place on the day of an election or while early voting is in progress." but Texas also includes "On the physical premises of a school or educational institution, any grounds or building on which an activity sponsored by a school or educational institution is being conducted, or a passenger transportation vehicle of a school or educational institution, whether the school or educational institution is public or private,". For Florida, "any polling place;" and "any school, college, or professional athletic event not related to firearms; any school administration building;"

[proteus_lives]

55. What about CCW?

I don't see anything wrong with that. Knowing my dad and mom, they probably have carried to a polling place.

Open-carry? That's iffy, if they just vote and leave...I don't see the issue but if they hang around, it should be treated as other political stuff near polls.

[Obamanaut]

61. If there is no federal, state or local law against weapons, then yes. nt

[kentuck]

62. If there is no law against bombs strapped to your body?

Should those be permitted also?

[Obamanaut]

65. WTF? You asked a question. You got a response. If you cannot

deal with the response, then bad luck got you.

[kentuck]

66. simple black and white answer...

Too bad if it challenges you just a little.

[Statistical]

77. Of course they should.

That is how rule of law works. Police enforce the law. They stop someone from brining a bomb into the polling place because the law gives them that authority. Without the law the Police have no authority to stop anyone for anything.

If there was no law against strapping a nuke to your car that goes off if someone attempts to steal it that would be permitted also.
If there was no law against owning your own nuclear aircraft carrier and fighter wing that would be permitted also.

Asking if in the absence of a law prohibiting something if it should something be allowed is the height of silliness. Of course it is allowed. It is the law that determines what is NOT allowed. The law tells us what we can't do, not what we CAN do. If the law doesn't prohibit us then we are allowed to do it. The Police have no authority to stop someone from "not breaking the law".

If there was no law against murder guess what? IT WOULD BE ALLOWED. Now it would be morally wrong (according to me which is no authority), people might protest it but it would be allowed. Our society has decided murder is not allowed and how do we enforce that collective standard? WE PASSED LAWS MAKING MURDER "NOT ALLOWED".

So if there was no law against bombs in a polling area there are two outcomes:
a) the majority thinks it is ok. They are ok with a lack of prohibition on bombs in polling places.
b) the majority is shocked and outraged and soon there will be laws making it "not allowed" to bring a bomb into a polling place.

In 1967 you could buy an automatic weapon from Sears or ACE hardware. Cash and carry. Society decided that shouldn't be allowed and they passed the 1968 Gun Control Act. In 1967 it was allowed. In 1968 it wasn't. What was the difference? The law made it not allowed.

Rule of law is rule of law.
You pass laws to restrict activity. Since laws are public knowledge everyone knows the "rules of the game". People can look up and go "oh I can't bring a bomb to a polling station". Without laws it is just ad-hoc feelings, gut checks, and judgement calls. Some cops may let bombs in the polling place and other people may go to jail. Lack of equal protection under the law.

IF you don't want something to happen:
1) pass laws that restrict/prohibit
2) ensure law enforcement is aware
3) check up on the govt make sure they are enforcing the law
3) make sure society knows about the law so they don't become accidental offenders

[derby378]

63. My polling place is inside a school

We have uniformed and armed police patrolling the hallways of the school. Overkill? I think so, yes, but there you go. Is this guy saying we should allow guns in public schools, too? I want the cops who are already inside the school to leave their guns at the door.

[intheflow]

67. At least two people have unrec'd this.

:wtf:

[cascadiance]

70. If they start going to voting booths with guns, then what about political signs and t-shirts for us?

I say if we see them in effect go in to the 100 yard radius of polling booths with guns then they are violating that law about making political statements too close to voting booths, and therefore we should be able to violate that radius with our t-shirts, signs and buttons too. If they complain, then we en-masse point at the guy with the gun and say kick him out or we're not leaving!!!!

[Obamanaut]

71. Yes. nt

[Rebubula]

72. No

Period.

Though I fully support the right to bear arms - bringing guns to polls or town halls is a plain attempt at intimidation.

Fuck these morans...