colorado town cancels 4th of july parade after local group promises armed march

[captainawesome]

I change my mind bring the guns.

 

[Texmex]

They do not have the right to cause chaos.

Now it's "chaos." Strike four!

 

[BretJ]

Who said anything about the marchers having booze? Strike three, you're out!

I would think it is just as likely for a member of the gun control crowd to march as a gun rights supporter, then martyr themselves for the cause by shooting up the crowd. Seems just as feasible as his scenario.

 

[Texmex]

Are you defining constitutional carry as open carry?

Does the Constitution restrict open carry?

 

[BretJ]

They do not have the right to cause chaos.

How in the world would it cause chaos???? Seriously. How??? Has it caused chaos before and how would this time be any different????

 

[BretJ]

I change my mind bring the guns.

You have finally admitted that it is not really a big deal. Good on ya!

 

[Fiddytree]

They would have ammunition for the general use of the gun, not strictly for the parade. I don't put special fuel in my car to take a trip, I put the same 'oll fuel I always do in it. I don't suspect people will be putting a special kind of electricity strictly for filming the parade, they'll use the same 'oll electricity for the general use of the phone they always do.

Yesterday I took my grandfather to Mt.Rushmore's lighting ceremony. I was armed. I didn't have ammunition strictly for visiting Mt.Rushmore, I had ammunition for the general use of the gun. In fact the gun was loaded with the exact same rounds it has in it every other day of the week, even today, right now.

You're making it sound like "oh well, if it is loaded it is loaded" when you said that the mere act of ensuring that there is no ammunition in the weapons defeated the entire purpose of a parade march, and that they needed to be loaded. They don't. It's just a parade march. Heck, even the group in question specified, unarmed. Were they defeating the purpose of their protest?

 

[Texmex]

I would think it is just as likely for a member of the gun control crowd to march as a gun rights supporter, then martyr themselves for the cause by shooting up the crowd. Seems just as feasible as his scenario.

Are you that dedicated to gun control to allow yourself to be martyred? I doubt it. Most people I know who are against gun rights don't believe in anything except themselves, their little world and what makes them happy.

It takes more than this to stand up for the rights expressed in the Constitution; sometimes it takes personal sacrifice and even the giving of your life. Ask the signers of the Constitution and the men who fought in the Revolutionary War what it cost them.

 

[Linc]

Does it use the words open carry? It was a factual question to a gun-owning poster who is pretty square with his answers to me, even if I don't agree. It's called respect. I don't know everything about guns and their laws, like so many project, but I'm learning. I'm already beyond this topic.

Does the Constitution restrict open carry?

 

[Texmex]

Does it use the words open carry? It was a factual question to a gun-owning poster who is pretty square with his answers to me, even if I don't agree. It's called respect. I don't know everything about guns and their laws, like so many project, but I'm learning. I'm already beyond this topic.

No, the Constitution uses those obscure words: Shall not be infringed.

I really don't know what all the fuss is about. The only way someone gets gun control out of the 2nd Amendment is by changing the definition of the word infringe. If we read what was written we have no problem at all, just like the country didn't have any trouble understanding this for well over one hundred years.

 

[Texmex]

Women got the vote with no guns.

Jim Crow ended with no guns.

Canada and Australia and India got independence with no guns.

Then move to Canada, Australia or India, you would feel right at home!

 

[Linc]

If there are bikers with criminal gang brands, are you sure they won't be loaded? Loaded with their guns, their booze, and their drugs. And I want a gun that is loaded and concealed and I will get one. You people have convinced me.

You have a vivid imagination. As has been noted, these will be unloaded guns, but you continue to lie and say they are loaded. Now you say "threatening" which is another lie. One more and you will strike out.

I know you hate guns, but at least try and tell the truth.

 

[Jerry]

You're making it sound like "oh well, if it is loaded it is loaded" when you said that the mere act of ensuring that there is no ammunition in the weapons defeated the entire purpose of a parade march, and that they needed to be loaded.

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. The guns being loaded is not a big deal at all. It's a total non-issue, AND unloading the guns defeats the purpose.

 

[Fiddytree]

So, in other words, the group that you support, you should be railing against, because they didn't want their guys coming in with loaded weapons. Gotcha. Whatever dude.

 

[Jerry]

So, in other words, the group that you support, you should be railing against, because they didn't want their guys coming in with loaded weapons. Gotcha. Whatever dude.

Who's "they"?

 

[Fiddytree]

But on the eve of Colorado's new gun laws, the small town of Westcliffe is deeply divided over whether one political group should carry unloaded weapons in the town's beloved Independence Day parade.

This would seem to me that they made the distinct choice against ammunition.

 

[Linc]

Even gun owners acknowledge there are multiple interpretations of the words "shall not be infringed", even while disagreeing with them. Those words are not obscure to gun owners or controllers. When I word things that way, I'm accused of a transgression. As with Voting rights and DOMA this week, several amendments are nearing the day when they will meet a 21st century SCOTUS, IMHO.

No, the Constitution uses those obscure words: Shall not be infringed.

I really don't know what all the fuss is about. The only way someone gets gun control out of the 2nd Amendment is by changing the definition of the word infringe. If we read what was written we have no problem at all, just like the country didn't have any trouble understanding this for well over one hundred years.

 

[BretJ]

Are you that dedicated to gun control to allow yourself to be martyred? I doubt it. Most people I know who are against gun rights don't believe in anything except themselves, their little world and what makes them happy.

It takes more than this to stand up for the rights expressed in the Constitution; sometimes it takes personal sacrifice and even the giving of your life. Ask the signers of the Constitution and the men who fought in the Revolutionary War what it cost them.

I don't know...I wonder if the onus behind a couple of recent mass murders was the belief by the shooters that they were doing it for the greater good knowing their act would forever be known as the act that brought about gun control....or maybe not. Seems just as likely as some of the other scenarios the gun control advocates are presenting.

 

[ChrisL]

Even gun owners acknowledge there are multiple interpretations of the words "shall not be infringed", even while disagreeing with them. Those words are not obscure to gun owners or controllers. When I word things that way, I'm accused of a transgression. As with Voting rights and DOMA this week, several amendments are nearing the day when they will meet a 21st century SCOTUS, IMHO.

Heller was a modern SCOTUS decision.

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the District of Columbia's regulations act was an unconstitutional banning, and struck down the portion of the regulations act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." "Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975."[5]

 

[BretJ]

Women got the vote with no guns.

Jim Crow ended with no guns.

Canada and Australia and India got independence with no guns.

African Americans defended themselves from the KKKs midnight riders without guns .......isn't that how it happened? Uganda became a free country without guns. Look at all those countries in Africa becoming free nations without guns. Syria is becoming a free country without guns. Perhaps you could be an inner city emmisary, travel to A few locals in Detroit or Chicago (armed only with your love and insight) and let them in on your revelation that guns are not necessary.

 

[BretJ]

Guns didn't found our country ideas did.

Armed protests have no place at family holiday parades.

Nor do fireworks that celebrate the carnage and blood spilled through the use of artillery and explosives. That is a travesty to give homage to death and destruction through the display of fireworks.

BTW, without guns and those willing to use them, those ideas would have been essentially moot. Evil men with guns (or machetes) and the willingness to use them, will always defeat men with noble ideas. Always.

 

[Jerry]

This would seem to me that they made the distinct choice against ammunition.

What are people getting upset about then? Why is there any controversy at all, if the guns are going to be unloaded?

And yes there's no point in marching with unloaded weapons. That's just retarded because there were no laws passed regarding unloaded weapons.

 

[Fiddytree]

What are people getting upset about then? Why is there any controversy at all, if the guns are going to be unloaded?

And yes there's no point in marching with unloaded weapons. That's just retarded because there were no laws passed regarding unloaded weapons.

I agree, the thing should have went on as scheduled without the whining, as they did it before.

But the point is merely to show solidarity for the 2nd amendment, best symbolized by the gun, unless you want to walk around with magazines, as that seemed to be the bill in question.

 

[Linc]

Thank you for the info. The more I read, the more I feel the need for protection with guns, whether that be from legal or illegal gun owners. I will be keenly aware of guns on my upcoming trip out west. My wife, not so much.

Heller was a modern SCOTUS decision.

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the District of Columbia's regulations act was an unconstitutional banning, and struck down the portion of the regulations act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." "Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975."[5]

 

[ChrisL]

Thank you for the info. The more I read, the more I feel the need for protection with guns, whether that be from legal or illegal gun owners. I will be keenly aware of guns on my upcoming trip out west. My wife, not so much.

You have a better chance of drowning, getting into a car accident, among many other things on your trip than you have of ever getting shot by any legal gun owner.